The Review “Sectarian.”
By James White
UNDER this head we noticed in the REVIEW of Dec 4, the decision of some in Wisconsin that the REVIEW was “sectarian,” because it has not published on the “Age to come.” We then mentioned one reason why the REVIEW had been silent on that question; which was, our interview with Elds. Hall and Stephenson, June, 1854, and the agreement at that time to waive the subject, as not being present truth, and not essential to salvation. To that agreement the REVIEW adhered, up to the time it was denounced as sectarian, with the exception of one re-published article in our absence, for which we then offered an apology in the REVIEW. For this reason Bro. Edson’s article remained in the Office near six months, without being fully read, and published. For the same reason we suppressed our views of the time when the kingdom of God will be set up on the earth, in the work on the Prophecy of Daniel. See remarks on chap. ii. We are now convinced that the REVIEW should ever have been free from all compromise with those who hold error, and should ever have been as free to speak out, when necessary, on those subjects which bear on the Age to Come, as it now does. Thank God that the REVIEW is now a “free paper.” But our desire to unite with all who professed the Third Message, and our confidence in the integrity of the persons named, led us too far. While our only object was to save the flock a trial on this subject, if possible, that the work of gathering souls to the truth be not hindered, we could have no fears as to the triumph of the truth on this question. We have seen the sad effects of what is called the Age to Come in past time. Whoever it has been received, it has proved destructive of living faith in the present truth. For a while the work in the West moved on gloriously, and many embraced the Message; but since Age to Come has been attached to it, but little, if any, real advance has been made. And while some who should stand in the fore-front of the cause of truth are absorbed in the Future Age, others have sunk down in discouragement, and the cause in the West languishes in consequence. And while the harvest-field is all white for the sickle, and scores of souls would embrace the truth, if our preachers could enter new fields, (the result of Bro. Cornell’s labors for a few weeks in bringing about forty to observe the Sabbath is a fair illustration,) some of them are obliged to occupy old fields to counteract wrong influences from those who are departing from the letter and spirit of the Message. Our fears were not groundless. We are now seeing in part the sad result of introducing Age to Come. But as the discussion of that subject was inevitable, we rejoice that it has come, that it may be disposed of at as early a date as now possible. But we do here protest against the course of those who raise the cry of “Sectarianism” against the REVIEW, and brand its friends as “Visionists,” having departed from the Word, and by the aid of prejudice gotten up in this way, crowd in their Age to Come. The REVIEW was silent on this subject on account of the agreement referred to, and when the Editor was inquired of at a later date whether he would, or would not publish on that subject, he referred the inquirer to the Publishing Committee, saying he would abide their decision. The Committee were never inquired of; neither did the REVIEW reject any article on the Age to Come, for none were sent for publication. Yet the REVIEW was denounced at a certain conference in Wis., as “Sectarian,” and a vote passed to stop it. If that was not a sectarian, crushing spirit, then men never possessed such a spirit. We offered to discuss the subject of the Age to Come, with Eld. D. P. Hall, last April, by the use of Tracts; this he declined. No, the REVIEW must bow to their terms, or they seek to crush it. It is painful to notice this unhappy matter, but the cause demands that facts should appear. We have seen these things acted over for the last ten years till they are nothing new. We have marked the course of a class of selfish persons who regard every thing that does not bow to their notion of things as sectarian, and seek to accomplish their selfish purposes under the cry of Sectarianism, while in themselves exists more of the narrow-souled, sectarian exclusiveness, than is often found in one whole branch of Babylon. If the REVIEW had published all that has been sent to the Office, it would have appeared with as much confusion upon its pages, as existed when language was confounded at the tower of Babel. The mass of manuscripts we have received would furnish a theological museum. One sent us many pages which he calls the “flying roll” of Zechariah, he being Joshua the high priest, and Satan at his right hand; another many pages subscribed, “Jesus Christ.” We give these as examples of the mass. The Review has never announced that its columns were open for every thing that might float through the channel of the Mail. When it does, there will be no further need of Editors. It is true that faithful brethren have written articles which were good, with few exceptions, which have not been published; but it is those of the class above mentioned who raise the cry of sectarianism against the Review. In the M. such find what they call freedom; but in the eyes of all consistent Christians it must be regarded as the use of “freedom for a cloak of maliciousness,” rather than the freedom of the gospel of Christ. Some have tried this freedom and found it to exist in word, instead of deed. Because we did not publish all the articles of H. Baringer of Troy, N. Y., he considered the Review “Sectarian,” and in the M. of Nov. 30, 1854, said, “I wish no union with any party who deprive me of freedom of speech and free discussion. . . . I find the spirit of Popery or covetousness quite extensively prevailing among the Advent Review party. I have reason to believe that some of that party wish to hear what further light might be given respecting the third message, but the leaders have withheld it.” In a letter to this Office, Feb. 22, 1855, he says, “I was with the M. party till I saw they were lacking in freedom and liberty as I supposed, or as you had shown the Review to be. . . . I am therefore more with the Review party again,” &c. We would help such men, but they seem to be past help, from this fact, “They won’t be helped.” It is a pity that such are not willing to go off in a party by themselves and no more trouble those who wish to teach and obey the truth in peace and quiet. It is well known that Ransom Hicks of Providence, R. I., has been associated with the friends of confusion, as one of their Publishing Committee, and has spoken freely. He had not as good an opportunity to learn them as we. In a letter to this Office, dated Feb. 7, 1855, speaking of some who write for the M. he says, “They talk considerably about the Review being sectarian. I wish those who thus speak had had even as much experience or knowledge of the prime leaders of that paper as I have had. My experience however concerning them has been very limited in comparison to what it might have been. I am not saying the Review is not sectarian, nor that it is; but if I could speak to those who speak through the M. calling the Review sectarian, I should be likely to say in virtue. Let him that hath glass windows beware how he throws stones at his neighbors.” In regard to the recent effort of Eld. Stephenson, to evade the force of our statements referred to in No 10, we would say that we have hardly considered it necessary to notice them, as the article bears on its face its own refutation. We will however notice the main feature of it in the following order. - He labors to show that the theory called “The Age to Come,” and his views of the future age, are very different.
- That it has ever been far from him to compromise, or to waive any point that he regarded as truth. That it was not his views, but March’s Age to Come, that we agreed to waive and not publish in the Review.
- Conclusion Then we agreed to waive and not publish in the Review, a view of the future age which neither of us believed!! “O, consistency, thou art a rare jewel.”