SEVENTH-DAY BAPTISTS AND SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS.
By James White
In the REVIEW for Nov. 20, we remarked upon the growth of the S. D. Baptists and S. D. Adventists as denominations, and the relation the two bodies who revere the ancient Sabbath of the Lord should sustain to each other. We closed, stating that “in view of statements recently made in the Sabbath Recorder, prejudicial to S. D. Adventists,” we should treat the subject more fully in the next issue. The labors and cares of our General Conference, however, so fully occupied our time as to make it impossible to give the matter proper attention last week. While we regret the existence of some unpleasantness between S. D. Baptists and S. D. Adventists, it is with great pleasure that we note personal and public association with our S. D. Baptist brethren. It was our pleasure to speak to several hundreds of that people at the Milton, Wis., camp-meeting held at Clear Lake, June 22–29, 1871. From the report of that meeting given in the REVIEW for July 4, 1871, we here give the following:— “Sabbath morning, the brethren seemed cheerful and happy, notwithstanding the recent rain, and the unsettled state of the weather. The open grounds were too damp for the morning service, and the large tent was furnished with seats to accommodate as many as possible. At half-past ten it was estimated that about nine hundred persons were assembled in and about the tent. This congregation was made up of Seventh-day Adventists, we judge, four hundred; Seventh-day Baptists, probably the same number; and one hundred who do not observe the Lord’s Sabbath. The weather was cool and comfortable, and we took great pleasure in speaking to this candid and intelligent audience. We crowded the hour as full as possible with reasons of the two prominent features of our faith and hope, expressed in our name, Seventh-day Adventists; namely, the personal second advent of Jesus Christ, and the observance of the Lord’s Sabbath. “Accepting the simple rule that the Sacred Scripture means what it says, excepting when a symbol or parable is used, we soon found ourselves fully furnished with the clearest and most direct proofs upon the advent question; also shut up to the celebration of Jehovah’s rest-day on the seventh day of our week. We accept the claims of the fourth commandment as it reads, while the first-day men do not. In few words, here is where we differ: The front of our offending on the Sabbath question is in believing that God, in the fourth precept of his holy law, means what he says. “We do not differ with those who keep Sunday from a love to be odd. We believe it to be a sin to differ with those around us, unless there are the best of reasons for doing so. But unless our first-day friends furnish better proofs than those already brought into their service, or turn us from obeying the fourth commandment as it reads, we shall cling to the literal text. Here all Sabbatarians unite, while those who do not accept this position, and resort to schemes to evade the force of the literal declarations of the fourth commandment, from their number may be named ‘legion.’ We recommend to our friends who differ with us and labor to move us from our position, a Sunday convention, in which to settle their differences upon this subject, as with their present broken front they are poorly prepared to impress us favorably. This, too, we would suggest, is very important in order to attract the people from our appeals. “At the close of the Sabbath morning service, we were cordially greeted by many who reported themselves Seventh-day Baptists, who gave our hand the very next thing to it, if not the real Advent shake. Among these was Prof. Cornwall, of the Albion, Wis., S. D. Baptist Academy, who invited us to speak to the citizens of his place. Nothing could have given us greater pleasure than to respond to this and similar courtesies from others, by speaking freely to the people upon the great fundamentals of our common faith,—the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ; but hoarseness, fatigue, and the labors of the Minnesota camp-meeting the next week, compelled us to pass on without even calling upon any of our S. D. Baptist friends. “Here we may, by divine grace, enjoy a strong union; and while Seventh-day Adventists may prize very highly, and tenaciously hold their views upon the immortality question, and may cherish as important to the glory of God and their own prosperity, their definite views of the manifestation of spiritual gifts, they will agree that it will be much better to seek for that union that may be enjoyed upon the broad fundamentals of our faith, than to sacrifice that union in urging upon them sentiments peculiar to Adventists.” “Sabbath afternoon the weather was fine, so that a much-increased congregation assembled in the open grove at the stand. Bro. Littlejohn gave a very impressive, practical discourse. Here we were happy to meet for the first time Eld. D. E. Maxson, pastor of the S. D. Baptist church at Milton, and Eld. Carpenter, retired S. D. Baptist missionary to China.” At a later period, Mrs. W. and the writer spoke to the people at Armory Hall, Westerly, R. I., with great freedom. S. D. Baptists formed a considerable portion of that very large assembly. It was there that we formed happy acquaintances with our lamented brother, Elder Tomlinson, pastor of the S. D. Baptist church of that place, Elder Utter, and others. God has ever given us freedom in speaking to our S. D. Baptist brethren, and them an ear to listen with marked attention, especially to the words of Mrs. W. These facts, together with the Christian courtesy manifested by the worthy delegates from them to our General Conference, and the many acts of regard and love shown for our people, had inspired in us feelings of the highest regard for the leading men in the denomination. With these views and feelings we were present at the General Conference of the S. D. Baptists, held at Walworth, Wis., in Sept., 1876, as delegate from the S. D. Adventists. Of that good meeting we gave a report in the REVIEW for Oct. 5, 1876, from which we clip the following:— “In company with Prof. W. C. Whitford, of Milton (Wis.) College, we left the Lansing (Mich.) camp-ground, Monday P. M., the 25th ult., to attend the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference at Walworth, Wis.; and reached the place of meeting the 26th. Here we found open doors, and kind friends to give us a hearty welcome, and every attention and comfort grateful to our worn and weary condition. The labors of the season had been severe; but those of the last meeting, at which were held the sessions of the General Conference, the Michigan State Conference, the Publishing Association, Battle Creek College, and the Health Reform Institute, were almost beyond measure. And it seems really selfish to give our brethren of the S. D. Baptists only a few days, in which to rest, and poorly represent our people. “On the 27th the seventy-second annual session of the General Conference of the S. D. Baptists opened with Vice-President James Bailey in the chair, President Jonathan Allen, of Alfred (N. Y.) University, not arriving until the afternoon meeting. Our reception as delegate from the Seventh-day Adventists to that body was very cordial, and we were by vote invited to take part in the deliberations of their Conference. “Addresses were given during the three days we were with this people from Prof. A. B. Cornwall, of Albion (Wis.) Academy, Eld. O. U. Whitford, of Farina, Ill., and Eld. L. A. Platts, of Westerly, R. I. Several hours each day were devoted to the business of the Conference and their missionary work, and the discussion of topics of interest. By request, we spoke at length upon the relation of the two bodies of Sabbath-keepers to each other, which met with hearty responses of endorsement by most of the ministers present, individually and personally, in social interviews with them. Our position relative to the two bodies will be definitely stated next week.” Under the caption, The Two Bodies, The Relation Which the S. D. Baptists and the S. D. Adventists Sustain to Each Other, the next week we gave the following:— “On the broad platform of the divine law, and redemption from its transgression through the death and mediation of the divine Son, both the Seventh-day Baptists and the Seventh-day Adventists stand in general agreement. Here are the great tests of the Christian life, and a fitness for Heaven; and besides these there are no others. “The principal difference between the two bodies is the immortality question. The S. D. Adventists hold the divinity of Christ so nearly with the Trinitarian, that we apprehend no trial here. And as the practical application of the subject of the Gifts of the Spirit to our people and to our work is better understood by our S. D. Baptist brethren, they manifest less concern for us on this account. “But the views which both bodies entertain respecting free investigation and the right to personal opinion forbid any restriction whatever to be laid upon each other in the proper advocacy of the sentiments in which both cannot at present agree. We recommend, however, that there be no controversy between the two bodies. The differences between us are of such a nature, and we have in common so broad a field of labor with those who differ with us respecting the fundamentals, upon which hangs the destiny of a world lying in wickedness, that Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists cannot afford a controversy on doctrines which neither regard as tests of Christian character.” “Both bodies have a specific work to do. God bless them both in all their efforts for its accomplishment. The field is a wide one. And we further recommend that Seventh-day Adventists in their aggressive work avoid laboring to build up Seventh-day Adventist churches where Seventh-day Baptist churches are already established. If ministers or members from the Seventh-day Baptists regard it their duty to come with us, under the impression that they can serve the cause of God better, we shall give them a place with us. But we see no reason why there should be any effort put forth on the part of our people to weaken the hands of our Seventh-day Baptist brethren, in order to add to our numbers from those who were before us in revering the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. “If it please our Seventh-day Baptist brethren, let the interchange of courtesies in the appointment of delegates be continued, and be conducted in a manner to secure mutual benefit. The visits of the worthy delegates from the Seventh-day Baptists, Pres. Allen, Elders Wardner, Burdick, Rogers, Hull, and Prof. Whitford, have done our people good. And if the delegates from our people to that body, Elders Andrews, Smith, Canright, and others, have failed to do that people good, it has been from want of ability and a knowledge how to work out that good which it was in their hearts to do.” “What God in his wise providence has marked out for these two bodies in their future labors and destiny, the future alone can unfold. But181whatever that may be, it seems a certainty to us to-day, while looking with faith and hope toward that untried future, and cherishing a filial love for those whose history of loyalty to High Heaven stretches across long centuries, that no good can result to either from controversy and proselyting, and no harm can come to either from those courtesies and labors of love calculated to build each other up on our common faith. “We do not say that we have in time past seen the proper relation between the two bodies as clearly and joyfully as we do now; neither do we wish to be held responsible for what some of our people have done, or may do, not in harmony with the foregoing. But that our settled convictions on the subject for more than five years may be understood, we refer to the report of the Clear Lake camp-meeting in the REVIEW for July 4, 1871.” Be it known to the readers of the REVIEW that we pledged our influence before the S. D. Baptist General Conference at Walworth, Wis., Sept., 1876, against that which we then regarded, and now see to be, a wrong. Impressed with a sense of the wrong committed at an early date in our history by some who professed to be S. D. Adventist preachers, in weakening feeble S. D. Baptist churches, which gave rise to strong feelings expressed in words by some of our S. D. Baptist brethren, we brought the following preamble and resolutions before our late General Conference, which were adopted as the sense of the Conference by unanimous vote:— “Whereas, The S. D. Baptists have for many years observed, taught, and defended the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and are known to us through their delegates to our General Conference as a body of Christian Sabbath-keepers possessing a good degree of culture, liberality of sentiment, and Christian forbearance, therefore “Resolved, That we deem them worthy of our respect and love, and that it is for the interest of the Sabbath cause that the two bodies of Christian commandment-keepers labor to sustain friendly relations to each other, and “Whereas, Certain preachers, who professed to be S. D. Adventists, at an early date in our brief history, did seek their field of labor in localities where there were S. D. Baptist churches, and did weaken some of their feeble churches, and blot out others, resulting in harm and only harm, to the great grief of the S. D. Baptists, therefore “Resolved, That our S. D. Baptist brethren had just cause for complaint, and that it is the sense of this Conference that our preachers are violating the Golden Rule—Do unto others as you would have them do to you—in seeking their fields of labor where S. D. Baptist churches are located. “Resolved, That while we deplore the spirit of prejudice and unkindness manifested by certain S. D. Baptist ministers toward S. D. Adventists, we deeply regret the injury done to individuals and to feeble churches, about twenty years since, by those men whom we could not control, and who have since done S. D. Adventists tenfold the injury they did the S. D. Baptists, resulting in weakening and grieving both denominations. And while we pledge our influence against such wrongs in the future, we ask not to be held responsible for that which we have no power to control.” We have never claimed that we had the right or the power to control the labors of S. D. Adventist preachers. Neither does our General Conference claim such authority and influence. The General Conference Committee constitute a board to advise, and to plan ways and means. It gives men papers, or credentials. It employs men for this and that field, and as long as these men accept good counsel, it pays them for their work. The several State Conference Committees do the same. And if men whom they employ to preach become disaffected, and continue to preach in their disaffected state, without credentials and without pay, that is a matter beyond our control, and for the injury they may do, S. D. Adventists should not be held responsible. And we here affirm that whatever we have pledged our S. D. Baptist brethren that we would do, we have done. We pledged our influence. This we have brought to bear at our General Conferences, at State Conferences, and with individuals, against those wrongs which have grieved our S. D. Baptist brethren. And while standing in this position, not at all enviable, the spirit of kindness and appreciation of the difficulties of the position would have spared our path from some of the blows that have fallen upon us. In the minutes of the North-western Association of S. D. Baptists which appeared in the Sabbath Recorder for Aug. 2, 1877, we find the following preamble and resolution offered by Elder James Bailey:— “Whereas, Eld. James White, of the Seventh-day Adventist church, gave assurances to the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference at its last session that their laborers be advised not to go into our societies; and “Whereas, Since that time increasing labors have been performed by them in our churches in Minnesota, to the damage of our cause; therefore “Resolved, That the pledged faith of the head of the Seventh-day Adventist church, for fraternal union, has been violated, much to our grief, and prejudicial to our union with them.” The spirit of these resolutions, the motives of the framer of them, and their influence, are too apparent to need comment. We felt their intended force, and with a sense of our integrity, that we had acted a sincere and honorable part, and our duty to maintain that honor, we wrote an article for the REVIEW for Aug. 16, 1878, from which we take the following:— “Under these circumstances we greatly deplore the rashness of Eld. Bailey and his brethren of the North-western Association. According to the statement of Elder Curtis, real grounds of complaint from our S. D. Baptist brethren have not existed. But admitting that our brethren in Minnesota have not acted fully up to our view of the matter expressed at the S. D. B. General Conference, Elder Bailey and his brethren should have appealed to us in the matter before publishing our name and our people to the world in so prejudicial a manner. If Elder Bailey did not hold us responsible for the action of our people in their relations to the S. D. Baptists in Minnesota, why publish us to the world? If he did hold us responsible, why did he not communicate with us in the matter before acting with the North-western Association in rashly passing sentence in the case, and giving our name, and that of our people, to the world in a manner calculated to excite bitter prejudice?” “For more than twenty years we have urged our people to treat the S. D. Baptists with great respect. We stood with Elder Andrews in the first Address from our General Conference to theirs, in 1868, which brought about relations enjoyed since that time by both bodies. We deeply regretted the havoc made in some of the S. D. Baptist churches in Pennsylvania, more than twenty years since, by men who do not now stand with us. For while that work weakened the S. D. Baptists, it brought but very little strength to our cause. “In some localities there now exist both S. D. Adventist and S. D. Baptist churches. We cannot advise our brethren to give up the ground. We exhort them to respect the S. D. Baptist brethren, and seek to be in peace with them. We cannot shut our doors against the S. D. Baptists. And if, under convictions of duty, they wish to change church relations, we cannot refuse to receive them. “But we do recommend that our preachers choose other localities for labor to raise up churches besides those where the S. D. Baptists have churches, and we have none. In most cases, the same amount of labor that would convert ten S. D. Baptists, and make them S. D. Adventists, would convert as many from the Roman Sunday and from the infidel world to all the doctrines of the S. D. Adventists. “And with all respect to our S. D. Baptist brethren, we pen the honest convictions of our own mind, that the best timber to build up our cause is that hewn from the forest, upon which there has been no theological lining and hewing. S. D. Adventists could hardly be tempered down to the moderation of S. D. Baptists, and it would be equally difficult for the S. D. Baptists to come under the inspiration of the advent faith, and keep pace with the vigilant movements of our people. Both bodies have been called into existence in the direct providence of God, and both have places to fill. The wide harvest field is before them, and each should labor to bring numerical strength to themselves without weakening the other.” It was our privilege to spend a few very pleasant hours at Alfred Center, N. Y., the seat of the S. D. Baptist University, in September last, in company with Mrs. W. and our children, W. C. and his wife, M. K. White. We were kindly received by Pres. Allen, Dr. Williams, Prof. Lewis, Elder N. V. Hull, and others. By invitation, Elder Hull visited the New York Conference camp at Hornellsville, and preached to the edification and profit of our congregation. And by invitation we spoke to Elder Hull’s large and intelligent congregation at Alfred, Sabbath morning. In the afternoon W. C. and wife joined us at the Sabbath-school. The services and kindly greetings of that Sabbath will long be remembered by the visitors. We also spent a day at the S. D. Baptist General Conference at Brookfield, N. Y., the following week. There we were cordially greeted by Elders Hull, Williams, Lewis, Burdick, Rogers, Wardner, and many other of the S. D. Baptist ministers for whom we cherished feelings of high regard and brotherly love. If that body did not see fit to appoint a delegate to our General Conference, that is their matter, not ours. We have no complaints to make. S. D. Adventists will go on with their work. They will seek to relate themselves properly to the S. D. Baptists, and leave the rest for the Lord to work out to his own glory and the good of his cause. The more disagreeable features of this matter, which have appeared in the recent issues of the Sabbath Recorder, will be noticed next week.