The Review "Sectarian."
By Editor
This is the decision of the late Conferences held in Wisconsin. But why this decision? Answer, Because its columns have not been freely opened to publish the Age to come, or future Age, or, what has recently received the name of "Gospel of the Kingdom." There are many important reasons why we have sought to avoid the discussion of the Age to come in the REVIEW; but we shall mention only one at this time. When we were in Eldorado, Wisconsin, June, 1854, Elds. Stephenson and Hall stated to us that they were firm believers in the Age to come. We asked them if they had ever known one sinner converted, or a backslider reclaimed as the fruits of preaching Age to come. The answer was, No. We then asked if that, in their opinion, much harm had not been the result of preaching Age to come, in dividing the Advent people. The answer was, Yes. We inquired, Then why preach it? The reply was, We are willing to waive the subject, and unite on the third angel's message, if those who oppose the Age to come will do the same. (Reference was then made to some remarks against Age to come, in the REVIEW by J. B. Frisbie, &c.) We then stated that we could speak in behalf of Brn. East, that they would be willing to waive the subject. At this point in the conversation, said Eld. Stephenson, The Age to come is premature, It is future truth, It is not the present truth, and if the third angel's message had been presented to us at the time the Age to come was, we should not have taken hold of the Age to come. Are not these sufficient reasons for wishing to avoid a discussion of the Age to come? In view of them, every candid reader will decide that this Wisconsin charge of Sectarianism for seeking to waive the Age to come, and for adhering to present truth, is in fact, a recommendation to the REVIEW. Nothing appeared in the REVIEW bearing against the Age to come, up to the time of the Conference at Mill Grove, N. Y., last April, when Eld Stephenson pronounced the covenant, made at Eldorado, June, 1854 to use his own words, "null and void." Being quite satisfied at the Mill Grove Conference that the discussion of Age to come could not be avoided, we there proposed to discuss the subject with Eld Hall, through Tracts. He write a Tract, then we would reply in a Tract, each equally responsible for the expense, and continue as long as he wished. Here the matter was dropped. Up to this time we supposed that Elds. S. and H. were adhering to the above named covenant, (but have learned our mistake,) and when we wrote the Work on the Prophecies of Daniel, about a year ago, we avoided expressing our views of the time when the kingdom of God would be set up on the earth. In our absence a re-published article from the pen of J. B. Cook, bearing against Age to come, appeared in the REVIEW, for which we made an apology. On the appearance of this article, Eld. Stephenson wrote to us, asking if we were willing to publish the other side of the question. In our reply we referred him to the Committee, stating that we would abide by their decision. Eld. S. did not stop to consult the Committee, but commenced denouncing the REVIEW and its conductors sectarian!! Now our brethren in Wis. have agreed with the REVIEW on those vital points connected with our present message to the world; but because its columns have not been freely opened to the discussion of a theme which has been acknowledged not present truth, the late Conferences in that State denounced it as sectarian, and decide to withdraw their support. Here is sectarianism of the most exclusive sort. We are satisfied that the real friends of the cause of present truth in Wisconsin will not give their influence to so rash a spirit of sectarian exclusiveness. This matter fully explained, at some future date, will release the real friends of the cause of truth in that State. But there is a still darker shade in this picture. Elds. Stephenson and Hall are giving their influence to a sheet of slander. They acknowledged last April before many witnesses in N. Y. and Mich., that they were satisfied that the statements of the Messenger in regard to Church trials, and the use of visions in those trials, were false. Has that sheet changed? Only from bad to worse, yet these professed teachers of truth and holiness now give their influence there.