JOSEPH MARSH'S MISREPRESENTATIONS.
By M. E. Cornell
It is with much regret that I feel called upon to perform this duty, and were it not that I have been wickedly misrepresented by the Editor of the Harbinger, in the most public manner, I should be content to remain silent. But justice and the cause of truth demand that I should notice a few points in the Ed.'s remarks. First, I am represented as being "hasty" having an "excited mind," and my "reason dethroned," &c. The reasons given I will briefly notice. And first, because I said Ed., instead of Bro. Marsh, and for thus doing the Ed. says: "The endearing appellation of Brother he cannot now apply to his old and tried brethren." Here I would remark, that while my reason remains, I trust that I shall not be hypocritical, enough to call any man brother, when I know he regards those who are keeping the law of ten commandments, "as fallen from grace, obnoxious &c."—See Harbinger for Apr. 17th, 1852. Article headed, "The Sabbath," from which we quote the following: "In your present position you are certainly obnoxious to the apostle's charge of having 'fallen from grace,' and if Paul was afraid of such, how ought less instructed Christians to regard you?" My eyes being "anointed," I see the commandments of God, the third angel's message, and the Sanctuary in heaven. I behold the "Sabbath of the Lord our God." And how glorious they all appear. The Ed. rejects these and calls them "wild vagaries." Can I, then, apply to him the "endearing appellation of brother?" Nay, verily, not while I know that he is transgressing the law of God. Suppose I should steal from the Ed.'s desk five dollars. Would he call me dear brother?—No, he could not, unless he were a hypocrite. Well, though I do not steal, yet if I offend in another point, I am a transgressor of the law. James ii, 10, 11.—Though I do not have the same love and sympathy for those who refuse to keep the fourth commandment that I once had, when I honestly supposed it was abolished, yet I would assure the Ed. that I am not crazy nor mad, but will try to speak forth the words of truth and soberness. Again, he says: "Did our young brother in the brief space of eleven days, and perhaps not more than two or three, review the whole Life and Death question, all that his old brethren have written of the Advent of Christ &c., and find them erroneous?" I answer, No. But the Life and Death question is not the present sanctifying truth. Many with whom I am acquainted believe all these, and yet they are far from being sanctified. But let them keep the Sabbath-day holy, and they will know "that God doth sanctify them." Again, he asks the question, "Why did he take this hasty step?" And answers, "because he is naturally unstable in his ways, and easily influenced by surrounding circumstances. This is evident from his late hasty change of position, and, also, from a circumstance which we will mention. We were informed before attending our Conference in May last, that Bro. Cornell was opposed to the doctrine of the Age to come. But on hearing Bro. Storrs' last discourse he heartily embraced the doctrine, and said he should henceforth teach it." Here I will say, that I have no recollection of saying anything of the kind, and I am confident I did not use those words; and as to my being opposed to the doctrine before that Conference I am sure it is not true. For I never could understand the subject, and considered it dark and mysterious, even if true. And I have remarked to several persons that I was not satisfied with the reply to A. N. Seymour's questions on that subject, by the champion of the Age to come theory, J. B. Cook, found in the Harbinger for Jan. 3d, 1852. So much for the "circumstances," and now I will return to the "history of my change." Now what is the history referred to? It is this: I am represented as having changed my views in the brief space of eleven days, and perhaps not more than two or three, reckoning the time from the day he received my first letter and the date of my second letter, or "renunciation," as he is pleased to term it. Now it is not fair thus to reckon. Why? Because, for ought he knew, I began to investigate immediately after the date of my first letter. The truth is, I began to investigate June 25th, instead of June 28th, the day he received my letter, and continued till the date of the second letter, July 9th, which leaves fourteen days, which time was a large share of it spent in diligently searching the Scriptures. Four days of the time, I was constantly engaged in the most thorough investigation, listening to ten lectures from two to four hours in length, and continuing my search until 11 and 12 o'clock every night. And now I say, if I was not very hasty, or crazy, or unguarded, when in two or three days search, I embraced the Life and Death question, I was not as much so when in fourteen days, I found something more important than that, or the Age to come theory, and concluded my time could be better employed than to be circulating books on those subjects. Now I cannot but think that the Ed. has judged me by himself and others I might mention who are still opposed to present truth. I could refer to several who have very suddenly changed, and have not been even reproved by the Ed. of the Harbinger. I will mention one instance, only, found in the Voice of Truth for Nov. 26th, 1845. In an article entitled, "The Bridegroom," which might with some propriety have been entitled, "Mary A. Seymour's Renunciation," the writer says, "But after a moment's consideration I was led to wonder at my leanness of intellect, and slowness of discernment that I had not known the truth before." Surely, Mrs. Seymour and others are as hasty to change, when convinced of error, as myself. Again, he says: "The mystical principle deceived him which is evident from his statement that the law engraved on stones is all binding now, of which Paul says, it (the law) is abolished, is done away," [2 Cor. iii, 14.] and then adds, "had he fully believed that God means what he says, and says what he means, he would not have been deceived," &c. Now I do most firmly believe that God means what he says, and when he says "ministration," he does not mean law, neither does he mean law when he says "glory."—It is those who think that quotation proves the law abolished, who are deceived by the mystical principles, and have departed from the plain word. Again, I am represented as being deceived and ensnared by the unqualified assumptions, the dogmatical and unlawful inferences, the fearful perversions, the foolish dreams and mesmeric influences, of those who practice such things. "By these things, in these strange times, they influenced this weak brother. It was an influence but not of the truth; for he was led to take this hasty step, without investigation, or searching the scriptures." Oh, how false! Oh, how cruel! Has it come to this? After I had searched so diligently, and investigated as thoroughly as my capacity would allow, and continued my search so long, with untiring zeal, to be accused thus falsely. God knows I was not led nor influenced by the spirit of mesmerism, for I was on my guard every moment. I had been told that they practiced mesmerism, which I now believe to be false; for I find they are as much afraid of mesmerism as I can be.—Here I will say, (that all may know my position,) the view advocated by the Review concerning the third angel's message, the Sanctuary in heaven, and the fourth commandment, I most firmly believe to be correct. What the Ed. regards as "wild vagaries," I believe to be God's holy, sanctifying and sealing truth. Again, in contrasting me with R. V. Lyon and Wm. Sheldon, he says: "The one rejects very many of the most fundamental doctrines of the Bible, under the excitement of the moment, and plunges headlong into the grossest absurdities, &c., while the others, after patient investigation, embrace those very doctrines, &c." How does the Ed. know that I did not patiently investigate, as well as they. Any one that knows the circumstances, knows that he had no such knowledge. Then must he not have been somewhat excited and hasty to make such unqualified and absolutely false statements, without having one particle of knowledge whether I did, or did not "investigate and search the scriptures before my views were changed." Under these trying circumstances I feel to say in the language of David, [Ps. cxix, 69.] "The proud have forged a lie against me, but I will keep thy precepts with my whole heart." Amen. And again, in the 59th, verse, "I thought on my ways, (yes, I meditated continually for fourteen days,) and turned my feet unto thy testimonies." 60th, verse. "I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments." Praise the Lord. In conclusion, I would say, that it is with deep regret that I find it duty to thus take up time in reviewing these misrepresentations. It has been a cause of grief to me. I have wept over it, and prayed that the Lord would give me wisdom and meekness, that I might say nothing wrong. I have too much charity to say that I have been wilfully, misrepresented. But to say the least, the Ed. must have written his remarks hastily, without due consideration, and I have no other desire concerning him than that he should discover his error and acknowledge the same in the Harbinger, and cease to fight against the fourth commandment, and embrace the whole truth, and at last stand on Mount Zion. A companion of all them that fear the Lord, and of them that keep his precepts. Ps. cxix, 63.