IMMORTALITY AND THE SEVENTH-DAY BAPTISTS
By E. Lanphear
EDITOR OF REVIEW AND HERALD, DEAR BROTHER: Since you allowed my article to appear in your paper, I find that some of my brethren of the Seventh-day Baptist denomination (of which I am an unworthy member), seem to complain. Bro. A. M. West seems to think (as he expresses in his article in the Review of July 19th) that I have misrepresented the editor of the Sabbath Recorder, the publishing committee, and the Seventh-day Baptists generally, therefore sent an article to undeceive the readers of the Review, which I am greatly obliged to you for publishing. He says that it is not his purpose to debate the subject or answer my questions; for he does not think some of them were asked in Christian candor; as some seem to be asked in such a way as to try to cast contempt on the cause or people I wished to refute, or win over. I have no pleadings to make to Bro. West, as to my Christian candor. If I have failed to ask my questions in candor, I ask Bro. W. to forgive my unworthiness, and to answer my questions in that same spirit that he feels I have failed to manifest in asking them. I did not intend to "cast contempt on the cause, or the persons I wished to refute or win over," as he seemed to imagine; for I am well aware that such treatment would have a tendency rather to scatter or separate than to win over. And I can but think, had my brethren treated those adopting similar views with myself with Christian love and affection instead of with contempt, and hard names, many would have remained with us to this day; and instead of our churches being on the decrease, in many instances they might have been on the increase. But some of our ministering brethren have not failed to continue the cry of "atheist, infidel, Phariseeism," &c., until many worthy members have gone out from among us, really feeling that our churches were a part of Babylon, &c., Bro. W. says that I, as well as every one familiar with the Recorder for years past, knows that the subject of my letter has been presented almost or quite without control, by myself and others, until it had become stale and tiresome to most of the patrons. &c. Well I think I do know that this subject has been considerably discussed through the columns of the Recorder. But I ask, Has it been the red or blue chicken that has enjoyed this privilege? Who commenced the discussion? Was it not Elders T. B. Brown, and V. Hull? Was any one permitted to reply to them through the columns of the Recorder? I think not. I remember that an article was written by one of my neighbors as a reply to Bro. Brown, and sent to the Recorder Office for publication; and what was the result? I think it was sent by the editor to Bro. Brown, and that was the end of it; and that was about the very all articles presented by the blue chickens were handled for a long time if I mistake not. Brother W. says that he is not opposed to free discussion when properly conducted. Well that seems rather liberal; but who is to be the judge? If he is willing to allow others the same chance with himself, then he is fair and honorable. If not, he is the reverse. I infer from the past, that one side wishes to be sole umpire on the question of proper discussion. I am frank to say that I do not like this kind of democracy. It is too much like the fable of the boys and the frogs: it may be fun for them, but death to us. Bro. W. says he dislikes to hear or read the same thing over and over by the same or other persons. That is natural when the things said conflict with a person's former education. This however, does not lessen the obligation upon us to hand out "line upon line, precept upon precept." "If men won't hear, let them forbear." I am reminded by this of the following anecdote: I once heard of a minister that went into a certain neighborhood and commenced a series of meetings. He took for his first text the following: "Why do ye also transgress the commandments of God by your traditions? Repent and turn to God." He had preached three sermons from this text, when one of the good brethren came to him with a complaint that the people were getting tired of that sermon; and for his part, he did not like to hear one thing over and over quite so much. "Can't you change the subject?" "Yes," said the preacher, "just as soon as you change your wicked customs and habits, and turn to God and his truth, then I am ready to change for a new subject, and not until then." Bro. W. seems to take exceptions to what I said about coming under priest rule, &c., and thinks what I said "would lead those not acquainted with the Seventh-day Baptists, to suppose they were like the Roman Catholics, under priest government, &c." This is an application of his own. Allow me now to explain what I did mean by priest-rule in my former article, and leave the readers to draw their own inference. I claim to be a Seventh-day Baptist from the fact that I keep the seventh day, and believe it to be the privilege and duty of every believer in Christ to be baptized; and I further believe it the duty of every Christian to take the Bible for the rule of his faith and practice, regardless of what priests or kings may say. But within the last year some of our ministering brethren have taken the liberty to set forth (through the Recorder) "what a person must believe, and what a person must not believe in order to be a Seventh-day Baptist." This looked to me a little like priest-rule, providing the people consent to be thus restricted and ruled. Further, when our ministers say they will not go to hear the subject above referred to, or the subject of the second coming of Christ, discussed, or lectured upon, and will do all in their power to prevent their members and congregation from doing the same, it looks a little in my judgment, like an attempt at priest rule. This has been done to my certain knowledge. In conclusion, If any of the readers of the Review conceive that I have misrepresented any one, I will receive proper reproof in all kindness. Yours for the truth. E. LANPHEAR.
Nile, N. Y.