p. 8 | MAKING US A NAME by M. E. Cornell

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 29, 1860

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 16, Nos. 1 & 2.

"MAKING US A NAME."

By M. E. Cornell

My mind has been for years decided that taking a name, or in any way leaning on the laws of the land, was wrong. I supposed that it was fatal to receive religious benefit from any law provisions whatever. But within the last week my mind has been changed. When I consider the subject more fully and without prejudice, it has a different aspect entirely. And I must confess that I have several times felt embarrassed because of the lack of order and organization in regard to financial matters. I have been perplexed to know what advice to give in regard to building houses of worship; how they should be built and held in trust so as to prevent confusion and trouble. Houses of worship are a growing necessity, but many are so fearful that they will get into Babylon that they dare not move in the matter, and we are often so perplexed that there is really a Babylon existing in our own minds. This embarrassment has become so general that no doubt all can agree in this that something must be done.

Again, there are those who wish to secure their property to the cause of truth, by will or bequest, in a

legal way, but they cannot do it, because we have no denominational name, and hence cannot be known in law. At present I cannot see what evil can grow out of God's people taking a distinctive name by which they may be known from all others. I cannot find any scripture that would forbid all the remnant being called by one name, but the warning of scripture is against divisions among them. That God's people should be separate from all others is no doubt right, but to get up factions among themselves is carnal. I believe the people of God in these last days should have a distinct and significant name. "Israel" was significant, so was "Jew," "Christian," and "Disciple," and many other names which God's people have chosen under different ages, times and circumstances. It was not sin for the saints to be called by another name than "Israel." That was very ancient and venerable, still it was right when the circumstances demanded to take another. What harm is in an appropriate name? The people called "Methodists" did not fail because they took that name. They were as humble and devoted a people after they took that name as before. That name did not exalt them, because it was a reproach. They became exalted because of numbers and wealth, and because they did not follow on to know the whole truth. There were crosses enough to keep them humble if they had borne them. Had the entire Methodist church embraced the Advent truth it would have debased them in the sight of all other churches, and they might have been humble notwithstanding their name. The different churches are Babylon, not because they all have "a name" but because they all have different names, and they are "fallen," not because of these names, but because they rejected the message God sent them. They refused to watch. See Rev. iii, 3. They now have a form without the power. The apostle Paul has made out the list of charges against the fallen churches in 1 Tim. iii, 1-5, but he says nothing against them because of "a name."

To have a name significant of a spiritual life and at the same time be dead is of course inconsistent; but to have an appropriate name for the advent, commandment-keeping, Laodicean, remnant people, I now believe to be a matter of propriety and necessity.

Some think we should have no name but "Christian" or "disciples" because these are apostolic. But this is a mistake. It is apostolic to supply the demands of the cause. The circumstances have changed and hence those names are not now so appropriate. To be called a Christian or disciple was then a test, but now such a profession is popular. If a change of circumstances does not demand a change of name, then why not call the remnant people "church of Ephesus?"

I wish to admit the necessity of complete organization to supply the demands of the cause as far as the laws of God and men will permit. I cannot say that I have the clear light to suggest "a plan on which we as a people can act," but I feel that it is an important matter, and one that demands the prayer of faith for wisdom.

When I consider how much Bro. White has suffered from the lack of legal system in the business department of the work, I think his testimony is none too pointed. The necessity exists, and should be mutually realized and acknowledged. I hope there will be no flying back here, but that we shall fulfill the law of Christ in this matter. I love the spirit of Bro. Cottrell's last reference to this subject. There is danger of our being so overzealous to keep out of Babylon that we shall commit her most noted blunder—that of sticking a stake and refusing to pull it up and advance. When we cease to unlearn errors, we shall fall like those who have gone before us. We have learned much, and no doubt there is much more for us to learn. Once we taught with confidence that the time for commencing the Sabbath was at 6 o'clock, but we had to give it up, and now that position appears dark, and we wonder that we were ever so blind. Once we applied the Laodicean testimony to the nominal Adventists, but to our own mortification we finally had to confess that so humiliating a reproof belonged nearer home. Many of us had to give up our position on oath-taking, and it may be that we still have other stakes to pull up. It is the "follow on" and the "go through" spirit that will finally land the remnant "without fault" on the heavenly Mt. Zion.

My conclusion is that we should give up no scripture truth, but that our false applications and interpretations of scripture, and consequent false ideas of order and propriety, should be given up as fast as possible.

M. E. CORNELL.