p. 180 | MAKING US A NAME by James White

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 26, 1860

"MAKING US A NAME."

By James White

IN REVIEW No. 19 we promised to speak more fully upon the subject of holding church property legally.

But before attempting to fulfill this premise, we wish to express our regret that the subject comes up in the form of discussion through the REVIEW. And we would say no more on the subject in the REVIEW, did we not feel that justice calls for an explanation.

Our present views are not new with us, having been in a position where we could feel the necessity of something being done. But Testimony No. 5 called our attention to the subject of holding church property legally. And while on our Eastern tour last fall, we conversed freely on the subject with brethren in New England, New York and Michigan, and found no real objections in the minds of the brethren. After doing this we gave the following in the REVIEW:

"BORROWED MONEY."

"To those who have so kindly and generously lent money to this Office, we wish to say that, as an individual, we do not wish to be considered in any way responsible for it. We act simply as publishing agents by direction of the Publishing Committee, for which we receive about three-fifths the amount of our yearly expenses. And there are no reasons why we should be responsible for borrowed money, used for the benefit of this Office, which is the property of the church at large. This property is not insured, therefore in case of fire, would be a total loss. Those who consider it proper to let their property remain at the Office under these circumstances, will do so at their own risk.

"We hope, however, that the time is not far distant when this people will be in that position necessary to be able to get church property insured, hold their meeting houses in a proper manner, that those persons making their wills, and wishing to do so, can appropriate a portion to the publishing department. Till this can be brought around, we must do the best we can; but we wish it distinctly understood that we bear no individual responsibility in the matter. To illustrate: A sister in Vermont proposed to let the Office have the use of $100, without interest, as several others had done. The money was sent, and also a note filled out for us to sign. We refused to write James White, but in its place wrote, 'Advent Review and Sabbath Herald Office,' and sent it back to Vermont. In a few weeks the note was returned and the money called back. This was all done in good feeling.

"We call on preachers and leading brethren to give this matter their attention. If any object to our suggestions, will they please write out a plan on which we as a people can act?"

Here perhaps we were too fast; but we did expect that if brethren were opposed to our suggestions, they would, as requested, "write out a plan on which we as a people could act."

We once heard a preacher say, in illustrating his subject, "It would not be just to pull my house down over my head, unless you give me a better one." The figure may be of service here. It is much easier to tear off a shingle, or find some fault with the construction of the house, than to build a new one on an improved plan. And it is much easier to find fault with one's position, or to ask a few very wise questions relative to it, than to present a better position. This is why we made the request, "If any object to our suggestions, will they please write out a plan on which we as a people can act?"

We said "act," because we do solemnly believe, in harmony with the article in this No., entitled, "The Loud Voice of the Third Angel," that there is a vast work before us, which calls for vigorous action. But instead of presenting such a position, Bro. R. F. C. raises objections, and makes suggestions of a very soothing character to those comfortably seated upon the "stool of do-nothing." We give his article entire:

"MAKING US A NAME."

"DEAR BRO. SMITH: Bro. White has asked the brethren to speak in relation to his proposition to secure the property of the church. I do not know precisely what measure he intends in his suggestion, but understand it is to get incorporated as a religious body according to law. For myself I think it would be wrong to 'make us a name,' since that lies at the foundation of Babylon. I do not think that God would approve it. The work in which we are engaged is the Lord's, and he needs not the aid of insurance companies to take care of his property. I think it is for us to take the best care of the property we can, and then trust it with the Lord. We want no name with the two-horned beast; and it would close my mouth in regard to the spiritual fornication of Babylon with the kings of the earth, should it be retorted: 'You look to the civil arm for aid and protection'—I should be mute.

"Bro. White asks for suggestions for a better plan. He has already proposed that the books should be sent out into different States. This I think would be well. Let them be distributed around for safe keeping, and for convenience. I would take $100 worth, and many others in the wide field would do the same. Then the Office, with what remains, after those engaged therein have performed their duty faithfully can be safely trusted in the hands of Him who owns the whole.

"Those that lend money to the Office, lend it to the Lord, and they must trust the Lord for it. If he sees fit to let them lose it here, if they are faithful he will repay them hereafter. He will not fail. He has no lack of means. And he will do what is best for those that trust in him.

"In much love. R. F. C."

"BRO. SMITH: Since writing the above, I have seen Review No. 16, containing the article from Bro. Loughborough, recommending that we make us a name in order to have the benefits of law. He reasons that if it is right for individuals to hold property according to law, it is right for the church. To this I reply that the church now holds property by law, by entrusting it in the hands of individuals. This we can continue to do. We can trust each other, thank the Lord; and if any man proves a Judas, we can still bear the loss and trust in the Lord. And as for insurance companies, if it is right for individuals to lean on them, I presume it is right to get church property insured. But I do not believe it is right for any believer in present truth to strike hands with insurance companies at all. The church to whom God is restoring the gifts of the Spirit, and leading them out of Babylon and Egypt, need not trust in worldly physicians to insure their lives and their health, nor worldly capitalists to insure their property. Better pay our premium to the Lord; he will protect us. Our individual and our church property is the Lord's. Let us do our duty and trust him to take care of his own.

"The responsibility of the Office debts and liabilities ought not, and in my estimation, does not, rest upon Bro. White. I am glad he has spoken upon this point. If any have means in the Office that they are unwilling to trust to the Lord and his people as a body, without making any individual or individuals responsible for the same, I hope they will withdraw it. The church can raise the amount and pay them off. There may be those that need what they have lent the Office. Such certainly should be paid; and if we are the church that we profess to be, and which we fully believe we are, they will be; and there will be no necessity of going to law 'before the unjust' in the case—it can be settled among 'the saints.'

"I hope that the Lord will direct in this matter. I have entire confidence in the work in which we are engaged. The message is infallible, and I am determined to go with it to the end. I believe the Lord will give wisdom to his servants. Meanwhile it is my prayer that God will avert what I now believe would be an evil in his sight, and that we all may get the victory over the beast, his image, his mark, and the number of his name. R. F. C."

In all this where is the proof that it is wrong to take those steps necessary to legally hold church property? Where are the strong reasons? Where are the plain texts from the Book? This is not Bro. R. F. C.'s usual style of treating subjects. Should he handle the Sabbath question in this manner, the opponents might charge him with speaking more from humor than reason and revelation.

But if it be asked, Where are your plain texts of scripture for holding church property legally? we reply, The Bible does not furnish any; neither does it say that we should have a weekly paper, a steam printing-press, that we should publish books, build places of worship, and send out tents? Jesus says, "Let your light so shine before men," &c.; but he does not give all the particulars how this shall be done. The church is left to move forward in the great work, praying for divine guidance, acting upon the most efficient plans for its accomplishment. We believe it safe to be governed by the following:

RULE.

All means which, according to sound judgment, will advance the cause of truth, and are not forbidden by plain scripture declarations, should be employed.

If this rule be defective, let its defects be shown; if right, then let it be adopted, that confusion on this question be prevented. We now wish to notice the points in the suggestions which have appeared on both sides of the question in the following order:

1. Bro. R. F. C. says, "I think it would be wrong to 'make us a name' since that lies at the foundation of Babylon." This statement we regard as incorrect. Says Cruden, "Babylon the same as Babel"—"confusion, or mixture." Says the Religious Encyclopædia, "Babel received this name because when the tower was building God confounded the languages of those who were employed in the undertaking." "Babylon is generally called Babylonia from the name of its first city Babel." Here we will give the inspired testimony which fully decides the point: "Therefore is the name of it called Babel, because the Lord did there confound the languages of all the earth." Gen. xi, 9. It is, therefore, a fact that the confusion of languages among the Babel-builders lies at the foundation of Babylon. It is important that our premises be correct, that our conclusions be not erroneous.

2. Bro. R. F. C. has not even suggested how we shall hold our meeting-houses. We called for a plan; but on this point got not even a suggestion. The Battle Creek meeting-house is the legal property of Bro. S. T. Belden. It was built on a lot owned by him, and he has given no deed of it, as no one, or ones, have appeared to receive it. Should he live, it would depend upon his integrity whether the church may have the use of the house. It may be said that it could be deeded to several brethren in the church; but this would be only dividing the danger, and reminds us of the man who wished to send twenty-five dollars by mail, and to divide the danger of losing it all if sent in one letter, wrote five letters, and enclosed a five dollar bank note in each, and sent a letter a day for five successive days.

We would not be understood as expressing any fears in regard to Bro. Belden. He offers to give a deed to five of us, but we utterly refuse to have any part in such slack-twisted business. Two brethren came thirty-five miles to consult in regard to building a place of worship. We advised them not to strike a blow till they could come up to the point to hold it properly.

Bro. R. F. C. may repeat, "We can trust each other, thank the Lord!" So the Advent people of Cincinnati thought some sixteen years since, when they built the Tabernacle on a brother's lot. Satan tempted this brother, he yielded, got possession of the key, locked out the congregation, and the place built and consecrated for the worship of God was turned into a vinegar establishment. But soon they built a Chapel on a brother's lot whom they could certainly trust. He played a similar trick, and the Advent people were driven to worship in a private dwelling, and the cause went down. Was God honored in this? Did holy angels rejoice? Or did this sacrifice to a blind conscience, unenlightened by the word of God, cause Satan and his angels to shout with hellish delight over the victory gained? And in the final settlement of affairs will not the question be asked, "Who hath required this at your hand?"

3. Bro. R. F. C. thinks if our suggestions were carried out, and it should be retorted, "You look to the civil arm for aid and protection," it would close his mouth on the Babylon question. This might be the case with him, but not with us. A good sister also calls our attention to the following which she copies from our article on Babylon in the work entitled,

'Signs of the Times.' Now we never claimed that we wrote by inspiration, and have supposed that we had the same privilege of learning and exchanging error for truth with other men. But we wish to say that the extract does not conflict with our present views. Here it is:

'The Protestant sects are fitly represented by the harlot daughters of the woman of Rev. xvii, 4, 5. The woman that would leave her husband, and unite with, and seek protection from another, would be called thus. The professed church of Christ has left the arm of her true husband, and now leans on the strong arm of the law. She seeks protection, and to be nourished by the corrupt governments of the world, and is properly represented by the harlot daughters of the old mother, she being a symbol of the Catholic church. As the woman should cleave to her husband, so should the church cleave to Christ, and instead of seeking protection from the arm of the law, lean only on the potent arm of her Beloved. The church is unlawfully wedded to the world. This may be seen in the various departments of civil government. Even in the war department, the professed minister of Jesus Christ is seen mocking the God of peace with his prayers for success in battle.'

When we penned the extract eight years since we did not believe that to hold a deed of property, and have it recorded in the county clerk's office according to law was turning away from Christ to lean upon another arm; neither do we believe that to comply with the simple form of law necessary to hold church property is turning from Jesus Christ to another. Those who condemn one must condemn the other. Fanatics can be found who regard it 'spiritual fornication' to hold a legal title of property of any kind. And we must confess them more consistent than those who go through all the forms of law to hold deeds, mortgages, &c., and start back with religious horror at the idea of holding church property legally.

While we are stewards of our Lord's goods here in the land of the enemy, it is our duty to conform to the laws of the land necessary to the faithful performance of our stewardship, as long as human laws do not oppose the divine law. But to come down from the high vocation of the Christian, bury the cross of present truth out of sight, and seek the friendship of the world would be spiritual adultery. 'Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God.' James iv, 4.

4. Bro. R. F. C. does not say how certain ones who feel it their duty so to do can in their wills bequeath legacies for the benefit of the benevolent objects of the cause. This is among the things we mentioned under the head, Borrowed Money, but not noticed by him. There are with us those whose age and state of health are such as to make life very uncertain. Many of these have a strong desire that if they should be suddenly laid away by death, a portion, or even all of the property they might leave should be secured for the benefit of the cause they love. Some have already willed a portion to individuals, trusting that they would carry out their wishes after their decease, and use it in the cause. This course is very objectionable for two reasons: First, but few, if any, conscientious persons can be found who would wish to take such a responsibility; and, Second, it would depend upon their integrity whether the property should be used for the desired cause, or for selfish interests.

Here we wish to introduce an extract from 'Testimony to the Church No. 5,' and we do it the more readily because Bro. R. F. C. is sound in the faith of the perpetuity and necessity of spiritual gifts, as will be seen by reading the excellent tract on that subject from his pen. Those who have not sufficient evidence to receive this testimony as from the Lord may not feel its force, while those who do receive it as the voice of God to erring mortals we trust will see and feel the bearing it has on this subject.

'I saw that God was displeased with the slack, loose manner in which many of his professed people conduct their worldly business. They seem to lose all sense of the fact that the property they are using belongs to God, and they must render to him an account of their stewardship. Some leave their worldly business in perfect confusion. Satan has his eye on it all, and he strikes at a favorable opportunity, and by his management takes much means out of the ranks of Sabbath-keepers. And this means goes into his ranks. Some who are aged are unwilling to make any settlement of their worldly business, and in an unexpected moment they sicken and die. Their children who have no interest in the truth, take the property. Satan has managed it as it has suited him. 'If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches? If ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?' I saw the awful fact, that Satan and his evil angels have had more to do with the management of the property of God's professed people, than the Lord has. Stewards of the last days are unwise. They suffer Satan to control their business matters, and get into his ranks what belongs to, and should be in, the cause of God. God takes notice of you, unfaithful stewards; he will call you to account. I saw that the stewards of God can by faithful, judicious management keep their business in this world square, exact and straight. And if they should be suddenly taken away, it is their privilege and duty, especially for the aged, feeble, and those who have no children, to have their means where it can be used in the cause of God. But I saw that Satan and his angels exult over their success in this matter. And those who should be wise heirs of salvation almost willingly let their Lord's money slip out of their hands into the enemy's ranks. In this way they strengthen Satan's kingdom, and seem to feel very easy about it!'

The aged, feeble, and those who have no children can secure their property to be used in the cause, 'if they should be suddenly taken away,' only by a will, which must be made to a person, or persons, or to a body who have taken the necessary steps to hold property. What shall be done? We may say, We can trust in one another, and, we can trust in the Lord, and many other clever things; but these do not meet the case. Many friends of the cause are waiting for a 'plan on which we as a people can act.' If we withhold the plan, and say to them, 'We can trust one another, thank the Lord!' are we not encouraging a still looser state of things among us? and thereby opening the door still wider for Satan to come in and take our Lord's goods.

If we always knew who 'one another' were, and were certain that those who are 'one another' to-day would continue to be 'one another,' then could we 'thank the Lord' that we could 'trust one another.' But sad experience has shown us the folly of looking upon all who embrace the Sabbath as honest men and women, or of expecting that all who give good evidence of honesty to-day, will continue to do so. And we believe it to be the solemn duty of those who watch for souls as they that must give account, to labor earnestly to close every door whereby Satan can come in and tempt the disciples.

As we reached this point in this article, Bro. Smith handed us four letters which he brought from the Post Office, one of them from an Attorney employed by A. B. Pearsall to collect money, and interest on the same, he had given for the Power Press, Book Fund, &c., &c., to the amount of about $170. As Bro. R. F. C. proposes to pay off those who want their money back, we presume he will take an active part in raising it. We have no more personal interest in the Office than he has, and, of course, do not object to his suggestion to raise money and pay off all who have donated, and now want it back. But as we have once had the principal care and responsibility of raising the Office property, we shall want some time for reflection before we engage in this work a second time, to raise money to pay back donations and interest to those who have donated to the Office.

And if it be duty to offer to do this, why not also pay back to those not now in sympathy with us what they have given to support our preachers and our tents? In all this is an extensive agency for Bro. R. F. C., which might commence forthwith.

A good brother of considerable wealth writes: 'I am sorry Bro. White refused to give his note to the sister in Vermont. If I had been located in Battle Creek, and in Bro. White's place, I should have given a note to help the cause.'

We wish here to say that this brother is not deprived of the privilege of risking on his faith that the Lord will take care of the Office, &c., in the present condition of things, though he be not in Battle Creek, or in our place. He can lend to the Office what is now needed, without interest, or security, and this will supersede the necessity of giving our note to the sister in Vermont, or any body else. Bro. G., of N. Y., calls for $100 lent to the Office. And, as the work increases, more capital will be required. There is now a Book Fund of $1500, and about the same amount of borrowed money, making about $3500, in books and dues for books. To carry on this business properly, there should be a capital of $5000. A second edition of our Hymn Book alone, so large as the first, would cost $1500. The second edition of the work on the Three Messages just published cost $250. To keep a good assortment of all our works on hand at the Office, and in the hands of Agents, and to be able to buy stock at the low, cash-down prices, there must be at the Office a capital of at least $5000. And as an individual, we decline being responsible for a dollar of it. We have already given our notes to the amount of $1000 for borrowed money which we have used to buy tents, and assist messengers to humble homes, yet our wealthy brother is sorry that we did not give our note for another hundred. A few grains of the doctrine of 'equality' might help such cases.

Some six years since, when the Press was located in Rochester, N. Y., when friends were few, and when we were breaking down in health in consequence of poverty, too much labor and care, yet laboring with all our might to get out our publications which have blest thousands, we asked our good brother for the use of $600, without interest, till we could get out a certain number of books. He declined. That money, however, was lent to a worldling, and lost. Thank God that we lived through our sufferings in old Rochester. When we moved to this State, we were much reduced in strength and flesh, and were given over by very many to die with consumption. But we cast off burdens which the church took, we found kind and benevolent friends, and breathing free in a good spiritual atmosphere, we have improved to the comfortable weight of two hundred and five, and by the grace of God, mean to keep from under the power of the screws only when duty brings us there.

A brother writes from Illinois: 'I am much surprised at Bro. White's reply. He requested all the brethren to speak on the subject, and now expresses regret that Bro. R. F. C. has spoken.'

Answer. You are too fast, brother. We have never expressed a regret that Bro. R. F. C. had spoken. Our regret has been, that when we called for a 'plan on which we as a people could act,' he should neglect to give the plan, but make suggestions and objections calculated to prejudice a class like yourself. But the brother continues:

"Permit me to ask a few questions for Bro. White to answer. 1. If this government is the two-horned beast, can we be recognized and protected by it without being one of the number of his name?"

Answer. We, in common with the brethren, hold that our government is symbolized by the two-horned beast of Rev. xiii; but we have yet to learn that the 'number of his name' refers to the two-horned beast. The 'beast' and 'his image' are mentioned five times or more, in the Revelation, without the explanation in connection showing what beast, or what image, as if elsewhere fully explained. The definite specifications are given in chap. xiii. The 'beast' represents the papacy, and the 'image' is the image of papacy. Then the words, 'the beast,' mean the papal beast. The following shows that the 'number' applies to the papal beast:

"And I saw, as it were, a sea of glass mingled with fire, and them that had gotten the victory over the (papal) beast, and over his (papal beast's) image, and over his (papal beast's) mark, and over the number of his (papal beast's) name." Rev. xv, 2. Again, "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark (of the papal beast), or the name of the (papal) beast, or the number of his (papal beast's) name." Chap. xiii, 17.

The next verse we regard as a reproof on those who so easily find an application of the number 666, especially may those feel the reproof who have made the egregious mistake in applying it to the two-horned

beast. A little "wisdom" in the use of language will help them.

“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast,” &c. Here is a call for wisdom. Let him that hath understanding come forward. We confess our lack of wisdom, and decline attempting an exposition to the matter. But let them that have wisdom come forward and “count the number of the beast.”

Fifteen years since some declared the number 666 to be full—that there was that number of legally organized bodies. Since that time there have been almost numberless divisions, and new associations, and still the number is just 666! But the brother continues—

2. “If it is right for us to be recognized and protected by law, is it not right for us to do all we can in saying who shall make and execute the law? If so, would it not be right for the messengers to make political speeches? If so, why not go into the coming contest and do all we can? Can these things be separated? or am I a fanatic?!”

Answer. The law recognizes you, brother, as a proper person to hold property, and offers to you protection in holding it. The civil arm is thus held out for your protection, and when you received a legal deed of property, and requested it put upon the county records, you took hold of the civil arm, and now lean upon it.

The law also holds out the same privilege to an associated body of Christians, the right of holding property. And they are required to unite with the world in conforming to the simple form of law necessary, no more than the individual is to hold property. Does the brother start back at this? Then why does not horror seize him at the thought that his deed, with his name attached, is enrolled in the county records? And more, he requested it to be put there, thus seeking to lean upon the arm of the law.

Here we will ask some questions. If it be wrong for Christian men to take those legal steps necessary to hold church property to advance the cause, and glorify God, is it not wrong for individuals to seek to be protected by the law in holding property? If so, should they not dispose of those deeds which stand upon the county records in common with worldlings, and remove at once to some Nauvoo or Salt Lake City, and begin operations in defiance of the government of the United States? We repeat his question, “Can these things be separated? or am I a fanatic?”

In regard to Insurance, we have nothing to plead at this time. We do not get our own buildings insured, and if the church agrees to trust the Office property without insurance, we shall be suited. But we do object to being in any way responsible for money lent to this Office, used in printing books while the Office property is not insured.

We are aware that some are prejudiced against us in consequence of the stand we have taken on this question. We have hesitated six months, dreading the task of meeting prejudices on this subject. But we feel satisfied that there is not as much prejudice as we feared. When we commenced issuing a paper, some ten years since, we met with opposition. The oldest preacher among us, and almost the only fellow-laborer we then had in this cause, refused for one year to write for our little paper, because to publish a paper was to do as others had done who had backslidden. It was hard tugging alone with such an influence to meet. Again, many opposed the establishment of the Press at Rochester because it was so much like the world, and they contended that the publication of a few thousand dollars’ worth of Books was a denial of our faith. But soon the Books were nearly sold and the Power Press called for, and here some put on the brakes, fearing the train would run too fast. Again, the right to take the judicial oath, &c., &c., has been contested, and we have reason to fear that there will be many ready and anxious to steady the Ark all the way up to the last great work of the Message. We give it as our humble opinion that there are altogether too many brakemen along for the benefit of the train. How much better it would be if all would walk with God, so they could keep pace with his opening providence, as he is leading out a people for the last great work.

Last evening we received a line from a person in N. Y., signed “Inquirer,” asking the following question,

“What happened to him that tried to steady the Ark?” to which we answer, Read 2 Sam. vi, 6, 7, and let others take warning and keep their hands off. We close by repeating what we have before requested—

“If any object to our suggestions, will they please write out a plan on which we as a people can act.” J. W.