[368]
Section Titles
The Trinity
“A Brood
of Errors and Heresies”
Men Who Have Left the
Seventh-day Adventists
“It Leads to
Infidelity”
Lack of Scholarship
Work Among the Heathen
“A System
Of Popery”
On page 49 of Seventh-day Adventism Renounced,
Mr. Canright makes a strange admission of insincerity. He tells of the time
when he was still a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and when he
temporarily dropped out of ministerial work and went onto a farm. After
spending two years on the farm, he attended a camp meeting and made the
confession referred to by us in chapter 1. Of this experience he says:
“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.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced.
The confession to which he refers is the one made at the
time when he had a wonderful experience with God, to which we referred in
chapter 1. In it he declared: “I am fully satisfied that my own
salvation and my usefulness in saving others depends upon my being
connected
[369]
with this people and this work.” He tells of a
reconversion, “the most remarkable change that I ever experienced in all
my life.”
Now, in his book, he informs us that he was ashamed of
this confession before it was cold. And yet, after it was cold, and
after the meeting at which it was made was adjourned, he published it in the
church paper! Ashamed of it, and yet publishes it! What would such an admission
be called if made in court, and what standing as a witness could one have after
making such a statement?
Nor is this the worst. In relating his experience at the
time of making this confession, he declared that the Holy Spirit was working
upon his heart. Said he: “I never felt such a change before, not even when
first converted, nor when I embraced the message, nor at any other time. I
believe it was directly from heaven—the work of the Spirit of
God.”—Review and Herald, Oct. 7, 1884.
And yet he was “ashamed” of this confession
“before it was cold.” Think of it! A clergyman has a remarkable
experience, publicly attributes it to the work of the Spirit of God, and then
almost immediately is ashamed of this public utterance because it is insincere!
What shall this be called?
How, then, shall a man who has thus made a mockery of
the work of the Holy Spirit come forth in two or three years' time as a Moses
to lead the people of God out of darkness and deliver them from a “yoke of
bondage”? Is he not of those against whom Isaiah warned the church,
saying: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter!” Isaiah 5:20.
[370]
The Trinity
In chapter 1, page 25, paragraph 2 of his work, he
professes to enumerate the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church that
differ from those held by other evangelical churches. His very first statement
of these differences is, “They reject the doctrine of the
Trinity.” Had Mr. Canright said that when he was among them there were
some Seventh-day Adventists who did not believe the doctrine of the Trinity, it
might have been difficult to challenge his statement. But his sweeping
indictment, involving, as it does, the whole denomination, is not true today,
nor was it true when made. And this Mr. Canright well knew, for in an article
which he published in the Review and Herald, the Seventh-day Adventist
Church paper, under date of April 12, 1877, he himself had said:
“Do we not all agree that in the providence of God,
special light is now being given upon the subjects of the second advent near,
the kingdom, the new earth, the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the
wicked, the doctrine of the Trinity, the law of God, God's holy Sabbath, etc.?
All Seventh-day Adventists will agree in these things.”
For many years our theological schools have taught the
doctrine of the Trinity very definitely, and for almost as many years it has
appeared incidentally in some of our denominational books. For example, we
quote this from page 671 of The Desire of Ages, by Mrs. E. G. White,
printed in 1898:
“Sin could be resisted and overcome only through
the mighty agency of the third person of the Godhead, who would come
with no modified energy, but in the fullness of divine power. It is the Spirit
that makes effectual what has been wrought out by the world's
Redeemer.”
[371]
In the statement of belief found in the Seventh-day
Adventist Church Manual, which sets forth the official discipline and
doctrinal position of the denomination, is found this statement on the subject
of the Trinity:
“That the Godhead, or Trinity, consists of the
Eternal Father, a personal spiritual Being, omnipotent, omnipresent,
omniscient, infinite in wisdom and love; the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the
Eternal Father, through whom all things were created and through whom the
salvation of the redeemed hosts will be accomplished; the Holy Spirit, the
third person of the Godhead, the great regenerating power in the work of
redemption.”—Page 180.
Doubtless there were those of a different opinion when
Mr. Canright was an Adventist, as there may be such individuals even today, but
a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be justly charged against
Seventh-day Adventists as a body, and never could, for in their earlier history
the issue was not raised, and when later on it was raised, it was decided, not
by official vote, but by common consent, in favor of the Bible doctrine of
three persons in the Godhead—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Another deliberate effort to confuse the issue and to
create a false impression regarding the belief of Seventh-day Adventists is
found on pages 74 and 75 of Mr. Canright's book. We quote him as follows:
“What do Adventists believe? Go ask what language
was spoken by the people after the Lord confused their tongues at 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
[372]
wicked, nonresurrection 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!”
Of course, the inference here is that Seventh-day
Adventists hold and teach these doctrines. It is “Seventh-day
Adventism” that Mr. Canright is professedly writing against. True, he here
uses only the terms Adventists and Adventism, but he leaves the
reader to believe that he is speaking of the system of doctrine which he
renounced. Now, there are in existence a number of religious bodies which use
the word Adventist or Adventists as a part of their
denominational name, and he here proceeds to throw all these Adventist bodies
into one group, and then begins to enumerate doctrines supposedly held by them,
leaving the reader to draw the conclusion that these are the doctrines held by
Seventh-day Adventists. It is just as if we should set out to write a book
against the faith of the Missionary Baptists, and then charge to that church
all the beliefs, good or bad, of the many other branches of the Baptists.
Seventh-day Adventists hold little in common with other
churches who use the term Adventist in their denominational name. What
these others may believe is their own concern, and the name they go by is no
doubt of their own choosing. Whether some of them believe in the
“nonresurrection of the wicked, future probation, … community of
goods, denial of the divinity of Christ, no devil, no baptism,” we do not
know, but we do know, and Mr. Canright knew when he wrote these words, that
Seventh-day Adventists do not believe these things. Not
[373]
one of these doctrines was ever held by the Seventh-day
Adventist Church. But Seventh-day Adventists do believe in visions when these
visions are from the Lord, and they also believe in the miracles recorded in
the Bible. To cast aside the miracles of Jesus Christ is to reject His
divinity, and to refuse the instruction God has given through visions, is to
reject a very considerable portion of the Sacred Scriptures. As to the views of
the Seventh-day Adventists regarding the sleep of the dead and the final
annihilation of the wicked, the reader is referred to the chapter in this book
dealing with these subjects.
These facts were, of course, well known to Mr. Canright,
but in an effort to confuse the minds of his readers he apparently gathered
together all the errors he could think of, charged them against the
“Adventists” as a group, and left the reader to infer that these
things were held and taught by the denomination under review, i.e., the
Seventh-day Adventists. We ask our readers to ponder this for a moment, and
then decide whether it is straightforward and honest.
On pages 61-64 of his book Mr. Canright tries to make
out a case against Seventh-day Adventists because some have left their ranks.
He counts up forty-seven who were once connected with the denominational work
of the Seventh-day Adventists, and who, at the time of writing his book, were
no longer with that denomination. The clear inference is that a movement could
not be of God and at the same time lose so many men.
[374]
Now let us notice this point: The first company of
Sabbathkeeping Adventists came into existence in 1844-45. Mr. Canright left the
church in 1887. This was forty-three years after the work began. At that time
he managed to count up forty-seven persons who had had some connection with the
work of the church, but who, he claims, had renounced the faith and severed
themselves from the church. Think of it! Forty-seven leave the church work in
forty-three years!! About one a year, on the average. Still, Mr. Canright tells
us on page 26 of his book that at the time he left the church the Seventh-day
Adventists still had 26,112 members and 400 ministers, even after the
forty-seven workers had gone away.
Does the fact that a few persons, who have been more or
less prominent in the church, leave that communion and make other connections,
prove that church to be untrue? We think not. If so, the work and teachings of
our Lord would be discounted, for there were a number of apostasies from the
ranks of His followers. Of one such experience it is stated that “from
that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with Him.”
John 6:66. It was a question as to what even the twelve apostles would decide
to do, for Jesus turned and said unto them, “Will ye also go away?”
Verse 67. If every disciple of Jesus had gone away from Him, that fact would in
no way have affected the truthfulness of His teaching.
Truth is not dependent upon the following it may have,
nor the ability of those who may once have accepted it. The fact that Judas had
a devil and still remained among the disciples, did not in any way affect the
truthfulness of Christ's doctrines, any more than did the departure
[375]
from Him of others who also were not in harmony with His
work. Of those who left the faith in Christ's day, John says: “They went
out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no
doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made
manifest that they were not all of us.” 1 John 2:19.
So we say of those of whom Mr. Canright speaks as having
left the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The fact is that a number of them did
not go out willingly, but were disfellowshiped because their lives were not in
harmony with the high standards of the church. It might be of interest to the
reader to know Mr. Canright's own evaluation of these persons, as he stated it
in writing just a short while before he left the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Concerning one of them he wrote:
“The next thing I heard was that the church [which
he joined after he left the Seventh-day Adventist Church] had expelled him for
bad conduct. He was turned out of the church and silenced as a
preacher.”—Review and Herald, May 24, 1877.
Of others among his list of forty-seven he had written
while he himself was still a Seventh-day Adventist:
“I know many of the persons who have left us, and I
know them to be hard cases. That party [the organization to which some of them
had gone] may whitewash them and defend them as long as they choose, but these
are the facts.”—Ibid.
He then proceeds to tell of the misconduct of some who
for this reason were disfellowshiped, and then later, when he writes a book
against Seventh-day Adventists, he holds up the fact that these persons had
left the
[376]
Seventh-day Adventists as evidence that the work of this
church was crumbling and that their leading men were all leaving the sinking
ship. Mr. Canright says that forty-seven had left us. But let it be clearly
understood that these forty-seven were not the pillars of the church. Since
that time many thousands of others have come into the church to fill up the
ranks, and instead of 400 preachers, as at the time of Mr. Canright's leaving,
there are now 10,850 evangelical laborers and as many other workers giving
their full time to various other lines of the work of the church, in
practically every land of earth.
One of the most serious charges made against Seventh-day
Adventism by Mr. Canright is, “It leads to
infidelity.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 64.
Surely this is a most astonishing charge! Seventh-day
Adventists believe in a personal God, in the deity of Jesus Christ, and in the
deity and work of the Holy Spirit. They believe in a literal creation; in the
vicarious atonement made by Christ on Calvary; in the Second Advent of our
Lord; and in a literal heaven and hell, but not in eternal torment. They
believe that the Bible is the very word of God, given to men by inspiration of
the Spirit; that it constitutes a perfect rule of conduct for man. Seventh-day
Adventists are the Fundamentalists of the Fundamentalists. And yet Mr.
Canright, knowing these facts, boldly asserted to his readers that Seventh-day
Adventism leads to infidelity! Such a charge is manifestly absurd.
To buttress his argument on this point, Mr. Canright
mentions some who had left the Seventh-day Adventist
[377]
Church, and relates how they had made shipwreck of their
faith. Thus he tells us on pages 62 and 63 of his book that one brother became
a Universalist, while two others became Spiritualists. Two persons joined the
Age-to-Come party, one became a noted blasphemer, another a libertine, etc.,
etc. And this, he says, proves that Seventh-day Adventism leads to infidelity!
Does it? or does it, perchance, prove that those who renounce Seventh-day
Adventism turn away from the light into darkness, and thus drift away from
God?
Infidels and Seventh-day Adventists have nothing in
common. If a member should turn toward infidelity, it would lead speedily to
his separation from the church, as the teachings of the church are
diametrically opposed to infidelity. The two cannot walk together, because they
are not agreed. Mr. Canright's statement, therefore, is untrue and misleading.
It is just the reverse of the fact. Seventh-day Adventism is a safeguard
against infidelity, and anyone ardently believing the doctrines of this church
is entirely safe from this grossest of all errors.
One of the charges made by Mr. Canright against the
Seventh-day Adventists is on the point of their lack of scholarship. They are
all an ignorant lot, therefore how can their doctrine be true? Note his
words:
“Mrs. White received no school education, except a
few weeks when a child. She … 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.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 35.
[378]
This affords a fair sample of the exaggeration so common
in Mr. Canright's books. Webster defines illiterate as “unlettered;
ignorant of letters or books, … unable to read.” Now to say that Mrs.
White was “wholly illiterate” is equivalent to saying that she was
unable even to read. But Mrs. White could not only read, but she could read
well, as the many thousands who heard her read the Scriptures can testify. And
not only did Mrs. White read well, but she read rather widely and very
intelligently, as her writings bear witness.
As to the illiteracy of the leading men among
Seventh-day Adventists, the charge breaks down before the undeniable facts
which Mr. Canright himself admits.
On page 63 of his book he talks about their
“college professors,” and speaks of their colleges in Battle Creek
and California and of academies in the East. On page 64 he speaks of their
physicians, naming a number of them, and of the sanitariums which they were
conducting.
Think of it! An organization made up of illiterate
people, who do not know the simplest rules of grammar, carrying on full-fledged
colleges, its members acting as college presidents and professors, and
receiving recognition in many lands! Think of physicians who have never been to
college, registering under the laws of various States and being licensed to
practice medicine! Surely this statement is utterly ridiculous.
Seventh-day Adventists have developed an efficient
system of denominational education. They have a chain of colleges, junior
colleges, academies, and primary schools that reaches around the earth. Their
students now number 150,000. A Grade A medical college is operated in
California, whose credits are recognized in most of the
[379]
countries of the world. A graduate theological seminary was
established in Washington, D.C., in 1934. Graduates from these institutions of
learning are to be found in every land, where they are serving as ministers,
teachers, and physicians. Surely it is strange that such an efficient
educational system should be established on a foundation of such profound
ignorance!*
But Seventh-day Adventists do not rely upon their
scholarship. The theology of a church should never be tested by the number of
college credits which its ministers can muster. The truths of God are
established on a far more solid foundation than human learning. When Mr.
Canright was naming some of the so-called unlearned Seventh-day Adventist
leaders, he might, had he thought to do so, have added to his list such men as
Peter, James, John, Matthew, and others whom Jesus chose as His disciples and
to whom He committed the affairs of His church. He might have mentioned John
the Baptist. One of the charges brought against Jesus Himself was that He was
unlearned. In every age there have been those who have trusted in the multitude
of their mighty men. (See Hosea 10:13.) “Put not your trust in
princes,” said David, ldquo;nor in the son of man, in whom there is no
salvation
* Note.—On our desk, as
these pages are being prepared for the printer, lies a copy of the New
Testament in Chasu, one of the native languages of Africa. This volume, neatly
printed and strongly bound, bears on its title page the imprint of the British
and Foreign Bible Society, 1922. The translation was made by a Seventh-day
Adventist missionary, who prepared also a grammar of the Chasu language, a work
listed today by a Paris firm specializing in Oriental and other tongues. It is
the only grammar of the Chasu language. Uneducated men do not make Bible
translations in harmony with the rules and regulations for translators given
out by the British and Foreign Bible Society; they do not reduce native
languages to writing, nor standardize languages by the creation of
grammars.—Book Editors.
[380]
[margin]…. Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for
his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God.” Psalms 146:3-5.
The great apostle to the Gentiles also earnestly warned
the church against the danger of trusting to worldly wisdom, when he wrote to
the Corinthians:
“Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men;
and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling,
brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many
noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound
the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are
despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought
things that are: that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him are ye
in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 1:25-31.
Scholarship, therefore, is no safe test of theology. The
doctrines of a church are not to be tested by the learning or ignorance of its
membership or ministry. A “Thus saith the Lord” is the only safe
foundation for our faith, and the Word of God is so plain that a wayfaring man,
though a fool, need not err therein. (See Isaiah 35:8.)
This must not be understood, however, as granting, even
for the sake of argument, that Seventh-day Adventists are a company of
ignoramuses, or that their ministers come behind those of other Protestant
denominations in sound Christian scholarship, for such is not the case.
Jesus never attended the rabbinical schools of His day,
yet the testimony of the most learned of His time was that “never man
spake like this man.”
[381]
Work Among the Heathen
Of the work of Seventh-day Adventists, Mr. Canright
says:
“They have missions in many of the large cities and
in foreign lands; but they are wholly proselyting agencies. They do not work
among the heathen, nor for the destitute and fallen.”—Seventh-day
Adventism Renounced, p. 31.
And again we read:
“Their ‘missions,’ of which they boast so
much, are not to convert the heathen of the foreign lands, nor the drunkards,
wretched and degraded, of our cities, but to proselyte or work among people
already in fair circumstances.”—Ibid. p. 83.
As stated in chapter 1 of this volume, Seventh-day
Adventists believe that they have a message to bear to all the peoples of
earth, Christian and pagan, Jew and Gentile, civilized and uncivilized. Said
the prophet Joel, “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My
holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the
Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand.” Joel 2:1. They preach the message to
all who will hear.
But to suggest that this preaching is addressed only to
church members, either at home or abroad, is a gross misrepresentation. The
writer spent a number of years as a missionary leader in Africa, and therefore
can speak from first-hand knowledge. He knows personally that in the Dark
Continent the vast majority of the many thousands of converts to the
Seventh-day Adventist faith have been won from the most primitive tribes; often
our missionaries have gone where others had never been before them; they have
established hospitals, schools, and chapels, and have
[382]
civilized and Christianized natives who hitherto had had no
knowledge whatsoever of God.
Seventh-day Adventist mission stations are to be found
far away from the centers of civilization, out where the darkness of heathenism
has reigned supreme for generations. The writer has personally had the
privilege of preaching in many a heathen village the first gospel sermon the
villagers had ever heard. And what is true of the work of Seventh-day
Adventists in Africa is true of their work in the cannibal islands of the South
Seas, in India, in Borneo, in China, and in fact in every heathen land.
Seventh-day Adventists probably have more missions operating today amid heathen
surroundings than any other single Protestant church in the world.
What, then, becomes of the statement that they do not
work for the heathen? It is untrue, just as are most of Mr. Canright's other
statements regarding the faith and work of Seventh-day Adventists.
Again Mr. Canright says:
“Seventh-day Adventism is a system of
popery—one-man power.”—Ibid., p. 81.
This is one of the most amazing charges made by Mr.
Canright against the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Of course anyone who has the
slightest knowledge of the character of the Seventh-day Adventist organization
knows that this statement is as far from the truth as the south pole is from
the north. A system of popery is exactly what Seventh-day Adventism is not. It
is the antithesis of popery. In a system of popery the people take their orders
from the head. The pope's word is law. In Seventh-day Adventism
[383]
the head takes orders from the people and from committees of
control. Their word is law. The head cannot alter their decisions.
For instance, in each State or provincial conference,
the people choose a president, who holds office for two years. But he is not
made a lord over God's heritage. He is the chairman of a committee of control.
This committee is chosen by the people. The people make their own plans for the
conduct of the work within their territory, while together in conference
session. They delegate to the president and this executive committee the
authority to carry out these plans and make them effective.
The conference president is the ranking officer of the
conference committee. The committee usually consists of from seven to fifteen
men, all chosen by the people. They have no authority to change anything that
was done in conference assembled. If they feel that a change should be made in
any important plan or policy, they must wait until the next conference session
or call a special session. At the session they can lay their proposals before
the people, but the people can accept or reject them at will. No one has any
power of coercion. Every two years the term of office of the president and
members of the executive committee expires. They may be re-elected or they may
not. It depends entirely upon how they have performed their work—whether
they have given satisfaction. They have no life lease on these positions. They
cannot continue themselves in office.
The General Conference organization embraces all local,
union, and division conferences. It has a president, four general
vice-presidents, an additional vice-president for each great continental
division, a secretary, six associate
[384]
secretaries, a treasurer, a subtreasurer, four assistant
treasurers, and a secretary-treasurer for each continental division. If these
officials constituted the entire board of control of the general affairs of the
denomination, it would even then be far from a system of popery, for this group
alone would constitute a board of some forty men.
But as a matter of fact, these men are only servants of
a large committee of control known as the General Conference Committee. This
committee consists of some two hundred members, and holds council meetings in
the spring and autumn of each year, to consider policies and plans for the
prosecution of the denominational work throughout the world. Other meetings of
easily available members of this committee are held frequently throughout the
year, but these minority meetings have no authority to alter any general policy
adopted by the full committee at its regular councils, when representatives
from the world field are present.
In a system of popery the head of the church has power
to set aside decisions of councils with which he is not in agreement. Note the
following statement from a Catholic authority:
“He [the Pope] is not subject to them [the canons
of the church], because he is competent to modify or to annul them when he
holds this to be best for the church.”—The Catholic
Encyclopedia, vol. 12, art. “Pope,” p. 268.
But the president of the Seventh-day Adventist General
Conference, who is the highest official in the church, cannot set aside any
council action. The decisions of the councils govern. He cannot change a jot or
tittle of them. He may recommend changes in policy at the next meeting, but he
has no means of enforcing such recommendations,
[385]
except by debate and personal influence, based on the
confidence the council may have in his leadership. He cannot spend $100 of the
denomination's funds for any purpose whatsoever, be it ever so worthy, without
authorization of the General Conference Committee. Neither can the General
Conference treasurer do so. The president does not take a trip into any part of
the field without committee action. He writes no official letters to his
underofficers in an effort to enforce his individual opinion; his
correspondence must represent the will of the committee. He issues no fiats and
hands down no personal decisions. He is a servant of the General Conference
Committee, and he and the committee serve the people.
The General Conference president, his assistant
officers, and many members of the committee hold office for four years. They
are elected at a quadrennial session of the General Conference, which is
usually attended by about six hundred official delegates representing the
church in every land, and by some six to ten thousand nonofficial visitors.
This great and thoroughly representative gathering chooses whomsoever they will
for the leadership of the church for the ensuing term. The former officials
have no further claim on the offices they have held. Their term has expired.
They lay down the burden. If perchance the conference should so desire, these
same individuals may be re-elected to office for another four years.
But this decision rests entirely with the delegates.
They are the people's representatives. This large body of representatives is
acknowledged by all Seventh-day Adventist churches and organizations as the
highest administrative authority among them.
A one-man power? No! It is exactly the opposite. In
[386]
Seventh-day Adventism the church officers serve the people
instead of the people serving their officials.
From the foregoing review it must already be evident to
the candid reader that Mr. Canright certainly handles the truth lightly, and
that his book is filled with misstatements and misrepresentations. Much more
could be said, but enough has been presented to reveal fully the unreliability
of Mr. Canright's books. And if his statements are thus unreliable, then surely
he is not a safe guide to those who are earnestly inquiring for truth.