How They Understand by James White

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 5, 1857

How They Understand.

By James White

A letter from Bro. T. H. Dunn, of Hayfield, Pa., has recently come to this Office containing mistakes, so numerous, and of such a nature, that we decide to point them out. And we ardently desire that our effort may help Bro. Dunn and others. From our acquaintance with him, we have the fullest confidence that he is a sincere seeker for truth. But the circumstances connected with his embracing the Third Angel's Message, and the influences which have been brought to bear on him since, have had a strong tendency to prejudice him against the REVIEW, and the work to which it has been devoted. Many have been in the same position with this brother, and are coming to right. Others will see where the truth, and the work of the Lord is, and will join those who have the Third Angel's Message. We have no fears but the Lord will gather his honest people into the unity of the faith in due time.

Bro. Dunn says: "I wish you to discontinue my paper. I do not like the spirit that paper manifests towards the Age to Come advocates, as you style them, especially Brn. Hall and Stephenson, relative to their trying to influence Brn. not to pay their debts to the Office. I do know that it is not so. I heard them urge the Brn. in the Wisconsin conferences to pay every cent they owed on the paper, and have said the same in Penn. I refer to James White's article on that subject."

All we have said of Elds. S. and H. is strictly true. This they, and all acquainted with the facts in the case, know. That they have denounced the REVIEW, and have made efforts to lessen its circulation, will not be denied. And that they have advised our subscribers to pay up when they stopped the REVIEW, we have never denied, but have published the fact. Our Bro. Dunn is laboring under a mistake. We have not charged Elds. S. and H. with "trying to influence Brn. not to pay their debts to the Office."

It is a fact, however, that most of those disaffected by Age to Come advocates, have neither paid their debts at this Office, nor have they stopped the REVIEW. Bro. Dunn and a very few others are exceptions. As we have said before, these are facts in the case, and facts too, which do not speak well for those holding views called the Age to Come, more recently the Gospel of the kingdom. We have recently erased the names of about one hundred from our books, many of them are those disaffected by the Age to Come, and who had taken the REVIEW years without paying for it. Several of these reside at El Dorado and at Koskonong, where the above named conferences were held. These very persons sent their donations to the Messenger, and have neglected to pay their honest debts at this Office. Even Eld. Hall exultingly wrote to this Office about one year since that he had just sent $20 to the Messenger from his brethren at El Dorado. About that time the indebtedness of these same persons was marked on the margin of their papers, but they neglected to pay it.

Be it known, that the REVIEW is not dependent on such persons for its support. The less such subscribers it has the better for the Office. But we have continued their paper, hoping to help them. And we now notice these things only to let facts appear, and help those who have been disaffected by cruel prejudice.

There are those who differ with the Editor of the REVIEW, and at the same time take into the account that he does not differ from them, any further than they do from him, and that there is a possibility of their being mistaken sometimes. With such there is no trouble. But with others the difference is all on one side, and the Editor beyond all doubt is always wrong. Those are ready to cry out "Sectarianism." But what is it that causes them to labor to get as many to stop the REVIEW as they possibly can? Is it not the very lowest grade of narrow-souled sectarianism? It is a sectarian spirit that would, if it could, crush all else but what agrees with, and bows to, their views. Here is sectarianism worthy the times six centuries ago. Some such write to this Office, and pour out the warmth of their souls on paper, expressing their disapprobation, and then, as if to make the Editor feel what they say, close up with, "Stop my paper." We would say that this is easily done. The REVIEW can much easier spare such subscribers than it can bend to all the notions of these persons who generally have as many different plans to set forth in meddling with others' business as there are persons to do it.

These remarks are not designed to apply to those who have, like Bro. Dunn, acted an honorable part in paying up; but to that class of which a female subscriber in Wisconsin is a sample. Soon after we wrote with red ink the names of delinquents on the margin of their papers, and stated that the papers to all such would be discontinued unless they immediately renewed their subscription, this lady wrote to the Office in threatening style like the following: "If you discontinue all the papers you write on with red ink, we shall withdraw our support." Singular support that! We had sent them the REVIEW one year for nothing. This seems to be the idea some have of supporting the REVIEW. That is, do the publishers the great favor to take it and read, without paying for it, and all the while complaining, and dictating the Editor.

Again Bro. Dunn says: "I do not think you give the believers in the 1000 years' reign being on the earth a fair chance in the paper. Instead of publishing the articles holding forth that, and then replying to them, you will publish it in clauses and reply to it, thus destroying its force. I refer to Brn. Reed and Sperry. Now it seems to me that that is not the way to investigate any subject. Publish the article and reply, thus giving them their full force, letting the readers judge for themselves."

In regard to Bro. Reed's article, we published every line of it excepting his introduction, that there might be no possible grounds for complaint. And in our review we gave a distinct portion of his subject, then our reply; then another portion and a reply. This is the almost universal custom in reviews. And we have yet to learn that there is a better way than to fairly lay along side by side a distinct portion of the subject with the reply. Bro. Dunn has fallen under a prejudicial influence, and this is why so many things we do look so very bad to him. Those can see but little else than smoke who look through smoky glass.

In regard to Bro. Sperry, his question was published entire in Vol. VIII, No. 11. We are personally acquainted with Bro. Sperry, and know that his faith is not the least tinctured with the heresies of the Future Age. In his heart lives and burns the present truth. And it is a fact, which time has demonstrated, that the Age to Come and the Third Angel's Message cannot live together. One or the other will fail. Where is D. P. Hall and those who have followed him in his change of views? They have given up the Message they once rejoiced in, and now labor to pull down the cause they once labored to build up.

But all things work together for good to those who love God. Some have learned a lesson in these past trials which they never would have learned in any other school. Some who have regarded the REVIEW as sectarian, because its columns have not always been open for error as well as truth, may have learned that freedom with humility and discretion is of great price; but that a profession of "liberty for a cloak of maliciousness," is one of Satan's masterpieces. J. W.