BUSINESS PROCEEDINGS OF B. C. CONFERENCE.
BRO. WHITE. As it is a fact that there is now no law in this State under which we can organize, it would be difficult for us to tell whether it would be a violation of principle or not, till that law should be passed. Probably at the next session of the legislature, such a law will be framed. I have been informed that there are several things of this kind coming up, and that our organization will come under some act which must be made in reference to these things. Perhaps Bro. Sperry's remarks are to the point; but I think the question is, whether it is right for us to avail ourselves of the benefits of the law in legal organization or not? Is it right for us to take any steps by which we can hold church property or not? BRO. WAGGONER. I would inquire whether what Bro. Andrews proposes is that which could be entered into now. BRO. ANDREWS. It is not. There is no provision now existing by which the Review Office can be held; and the constitution of this State forbids the passing of special acts for this purpose. Consequently before any action can be taken, before we can do anything, there must be some act of the legislature authorizing it to be done. BRO. BUTLER. I wish to make a remark right here. I believe that Bro. Andrews has touched the question here to-night whether the objects to be gained will overbalance the detriments we shall receive. As far as I have ascertained the feelings of the brethren in Ohio, I know it is their voice that Bro. White should be released from any unnecessary burden. But they deem it necessary to keep two things in view: one the law of the land, and the other, the law of high heaven. We must recognize a higher law than the law of the land; and to conform to that must be our highest motive. While we aspire after the benefits of the law of the land, we must also look after the law of heaven. If we can have such an organization as is recognized in the New Testament, and still have the protection of the law of the land, all well and good. But let us look first that we do not run counter to the law of heaven. BRO. WAGGONER. With many of the brethren at large, I have had my feelings on the subject of organization. I have been slow to believe that Bro. Cottrell's articles raised the prejudice attributed to them. Brethren have referred to them because they expressed their minds. We have preached and written very much after the same style. The sentiments found in Bro. C.'s articles will be found in our books and sermons. And as I have already stated, if we change our position, I have a confession to make; for I have written it and preached it as well as other brethren. My mind has been prejudiced on the subject. A friend remarked to me not long since, that he had no prejudice whatever on this subject, and stood ready to take the Bible position. I remarked to him that he had got further along than most of us. I am not free from prejudice. All departures from the true standard have been made little by little; and I have feared the position to which this step might lead us. But there has been one thing before us: There has stood Bro. White's proposition, and how could we answer it? For my part, I had not searched carefully enough, or prayed earnestly enough to give an answer. I had not wisdom to suggest a plan on which we as a people could act. Now if it is necessary that we act at all, and who will question this? why, brethren, I must give way and endorse the suggestions of others. I have looked anxiously to this Conference, and have come up here to get light. I am now prepared to endorse the position of Bro. Andrews. I stand ready to go forward with you brethren. While I have life it shall be my earnest endeavor to co-operate with this people. BRO. WHITE. I was much pleased with Bro. Butler's remarks, as he expressed his wish, and that of his brethren, for an organization according to the Scriptures. I could wish that in all we do we might be guided by the Scriptures, and all our important acts be recognized in scripture. But I have never yet been able to find in the good book any suggestions in regard to power press, running tents, or how Sabbath-keepers should hold their Office of publication. I presume also that Bro. Butler would not contend that we have the definite specifications in regard to all these things. If Bro. Butler would show what kind of an organization we should have, I think it would be a great relief to this congregation. BRO. BUTLER. We have not engaged to present to this congregation a model for organization, but to take into consideration the models that might be presented. We look at it like this: If it is God's will that we have an organization, the Lord has revealed it in his book somewhere; and if that book furnishes us unto all good works, if we go any further than that, is it not a bad work? As to tents, &c., that is a mere matter of policy. But God has given to his church an organization. I will propose, Mr. Chairman, through you to this Conference that we organize upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone; and that we call ourselves the Church of God. The foundation is a sure one; it has got God's seal upon it; and such a building he will inhabit by his Spirit. We propose the organization of Eph. ii, 20. BRO. WHITE. I cannot conceive how this can possibly touch the case under consideration. I would suggest, however, that the principal text quoted by Bro. Butler, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," &c., is evidently sometimes misapplied. The apostle does not there embrace the New Testament Scriptures. BRO. BUTLER. I may have made a wrong application of the scripture; but still I remain of the opinion that I made a proper application of it. Critics say that is is an interpolated word. "All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable," &c., If we are to organize at all, and God furnishes a model, it is best to follow out that plan; and we desire to see our brethren co-operating heartily upon it. BRO. WHITE. I have not the slightest idea that we shall differ with Bro. Butler as far as he shall go. But my idea is, whether his stricture would touch the holding of our Office of publication. I think Bro. Butler falls just exactly where I did. I could not go far enough with his position. The scripture is declared to be profitable; but every Christian duty is not given in the Scriptures. Is having a power press a good work or a bad work? I do not find anything in the Scriptures about it, and so must, according to this position, give it all up as a bad thing. The Scriptures do not tell us how the church built upon the foundation of prophets and apostles, can hold power presses, offices, &c. BRO. INGRAHAM. I would make just a passing remark upon the subject before us. When I came to this place, I came as a learner, thinking that perhaps I should not have much to say in relation to this matter. I have nothing matured in respect to this question. My mind balances in favor of the position that Bro. Andrews has suggested. I may be wrong here; but this comes nearer to what I think is right than anything I have seen. BRO. POOLE. I hardly know how to get out what I would like to say upon this subject. It is a subject on which I have felt and thought much. It is a subject in which is involved very important consequences. The way the cause has been managed seems to have been blessed of God; and if it could go on so still, and those who have conducted it felt free to still act as they have acted, it seems to me it would be well to "let well enough alone."170The proposition of Bro. Andrews is simply one by which we might hold property, while it leaves the matter of church organization out. It seems to me it is impossible to organize a church without compromising that principle of Christianity that we are called unto liberty. Now for churches to hold property, they must be organized so that the individuals must be legal members by a legal act. But, as I understand, a church built upon the foundation of prophets and apostles, Christ being the corner stone, is such that when a man comes into Christ, he is, by virtue of that relation, a member of that body, and a portion of that church. But when the church is organized as is contemplated, a person could not become a member except by taking the requisite legal steps. Then all those who have scruples about such steps could not become members of that church. We may suppose this to go on till the greater part of Christians have no part in the church. Then again, any one who is not a Christian can take the legal steps just as well as Christians; and this might go on till a majority of such individuals would be members of the church. Then whose church is it? Then we have done all that is necessary to form a throne upon which the Man of Sin might sit, and rule in the temple of God. It seems to me that we cannot organize a church on this ground without compromising the integrity of the church. It seems to me it is necessary to form an association of some kind that does not form an organization of the church as such. BRO. WAGGONER. Bro. Poole does not intend his remarks in opposition to the remarks of Bro. Andrews. He coincides with him. BRO. WHITE. If such an organization is formed outside of the church, who are to choose the officers? Who is to compose the organization? Suppose we are to choose individuals who are to hold the property; who are to be voters in the matter? Are they to be Sabbath-keepers, or any that may assemble? I merely inquire for information. BRO. POOLE. I see no difficulty in appointing officers by a general conference like this. BRO. WHITE. My difficulty was, to decide who they would be amenable to. Who could correct them if they were disposed to go wrong? Who could turn them out and choose others if they should betray their trust? If we Sabbath-keepers could do it, could not other persons come into our assembly and vote us down? BRO. ANDREWS. If we should select a certain number of brethren to take certain affairs into their hands, these brethren would not be amenable to any other body. If this is an objection, I know not how it can be remedied. I do not know as there is any way in which we can provide against apostasy. If these brethren pervert their trust we are obliged to let them go, but are not obliged to go with them. As to choosing such officers, I do not apprehend there would be any difficulty. After some further discussion by different individuals, and the evening being now far spent it was,
Voted, To adjourn till to-morrow morning at sun-rise. Sunday Morning September 30, 1860.
Meeting opened by prayer by Bro. Andrews. The previous question was again brought before the meeting; viz., Shall the church organize in such a manner as to hold property? BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH. If I understand the matter we may organize in any manner we choose, and the law recognizes us as a church, but does not recognize us as in a position to hold property. So I understand the law makes a distinction between a church, and a legalized church, or one that may be invested with property. The law specifies that it shall be lawful for any corporation to organize so as to hold property; and it further represents that any man who pays in a certain sum to the treasury of that corporation can become a member of that association. The church is one thing, the society is another; and the church can organize itself in any manner it sees fit. As I look at it, we can organize on the Bible as Bro. Butler suggested last evening, and the law will acknowledge us as a church, but we are not yet legalized so that we can hold property. Now there are steps marked out to be taken by which we can hold our property; and the question is, Shall we take any such legal steps to organize such an association? Legalizing the association has nothing to do with our organizing into a church. BRO. WHITE. I suppose that Bro. Loughborough, when he speaks of the church's organizing, would have us understand the churches in different localities; as, the church in Battle Creek, Ceresco, Convis, &c.; that they could adopt as individual churches what form of organization they might regard to be scriptural. But if they should wish to build them a meeting-house, the law directs how they can hold that. I think it is something like this: That they shall have a name, or take a name, and that they shall sign articles of faith— BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH. Articles of association, not articles of faith. BRO. ANDREWS. These articles are generally a statement of the manner of associating. BRO. WHITE. I make these remarks to call out the facts in the case. Some suppose that if we should organize to hold our meeting-houses, we have got to get up a creed. I think that Bro. Loughborough is right. There is no necessity of the formation of articles of faith. But if a society is to be formed to hold meeting-houses, &c., why of course there would have to be some articles of association; but these would be nothing like articles of our religious faith as a body. To be sure we should be obliged to have a name; and I must say, dear brethren, that I hope we shall decide upon what name we shall have; what we wish to be called by. I meet with friends very often who ask me what the name of our people is; and it is quite an embarrassing position to be in, not to be able to give any. We give our children names when they become a few weeks or a few months old. When we commenced to labor in this work, when the cause was young and individuals who had embraced it, few, we did not see the necessity of any such steps. But it seems to me that the child is now so grown that it is exceedingly awkward to have no name for it. BRO. WAGGONER. The manner in which this discussion was carried on last evening was certainly very profitable to me, as developing the state of this question better than I before understood it. But I have been reflecting upon the answer made by Bro. Andrews to the inquiry proposed by Bro. White; and that is, that if this publishing society should choose to transcend their original duties, there would be no remedy. If this is the case I think we should be very cautious about entering into any such arrangement. I am in favor of such action only as shall leave the Review Office in the hands and under the control of the Church, or of such individuals as God in his providence may have selected for that place. We all believe, I suppose (I do most firmly) that God has had his hand in the work; that it is not a human invention, not a great system that we have got up; and that God has placed Bro. White in the position which he occupies. Then we have no right to displace Bro. White, and put another person in his stead; for God has made the arrangement, and it is not for us to disarrange it. I do not think we have a right to enter into any organization which would displace Bro. White. You can see that the object for which we are laboring could be very easily counteracted. That committee might take action that would cripple Bro. White in the management of the Office, so that he could not occupy the position that God has assigned to him. In a word, we can all see how easy it would be for this association to take such a position that Bro. White could not labor in connection with them at all, and we should not have it in our power to correct that difficulty. I cannot for myself, and I do not believe the Conference can, consent to enter into any organization which will turn the current of affairs out of the channel in which the Lord has evidently ordered it. I have said before and say now, that if it is the Lord's will, and if it does not impose too great a burden upon Bro. White, I should prefer that things remain as they now stand. But if Bro. White cannot have the burden, we must enter into such an organization as will not compromise our position or the work. BRO. WHITE. I think that I understand Bro. Waggoner's feelings upon this subject. His remarks are worthy of our consideration, but perhaps there is still further light upon the point. If I understand it, the subject before us is to enter into an organization sufficient to enable us, as a people, to hold our Office of publication, and manage the concern in a legal manner so that the property shall be in the hands of certain officers who shall hold it for the church. Now suppose that that is all accomplished, how is that going to cripple the feelings of those who are connected with it? How can that affect the editorial management of the paper. It seems to me that that is entirely in their hands. Suppose those officers who hold the property should turn the machinery into some other direction, and set the press and type to work for some other purpose, editors and managers would not be bound then to give up the Review. These individuals, it is true, if what Bro. Waggoner has suggested is correct, might turn what property there was to their own use, and the church might lose it; but this would be a small consideration compared with having our consciences bound and the word of God crippled. I cannot see how this would bind me in my feelings, further than this, that I should be sorry to see the property so used. BRO. ANDREWS. I do not know but my proposition may be misunderstood. I have not contemplated that anything that I have proposed would be the means of crippling Bro. White. If an association of brethren were selected as I have suggested, and legally organized to hold the Review property for certain purposes specified in their act of corporation, I should be willing not only that Bro. White occupy a station in the association, but that his voice should have a direct bearing upon who should be members of the executive committee. A selection being made of reliable brethren, it looks to me that to form this association, is the safest thing that can be done. BRO. POOLE. The question comes up in a shape that we cannot meet it on its merits. [Bro. White here followed with lengthy remarks referring especially to the steps which were taken in the days of Luther which arrested the progress of the reformation.] BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH. I do not think that any one, Mr. Chairman, designs that we shall take such steps as were taken by Luther. I have not seen anything like it here. The first point is the necessity of something being done; but I do not understand that the law requires that to hold this meeting-house we must form a creed. BRO. WHITE. I want to say that all that I would advocate in this matter, is the very simplest form by which our brethren throughout the land can build and hold their meeting-houses. The law of this State requires something like this: Let the church in Battle Creek, for instance, come together, choose officers, and make out a certificate, or whatever you please to call it, of the terms of their association, in the presence of some person qualified to hear such testimony. This act is then recorded in the County Clerk's office and then this church is prepared to hold their meeting-house through their trustees. The church in Battle Creek are ready thus to act, but they are waiting till their brethren generally shall become settled in the matter. Now I would call upon my brethren for one text of Scripture to show that this is wrong. And the association for the publishing of our periodicals, &c., may be a very simple affair. After we have framed a constitution and by-laws, and chosen certain officers,171then we are by some simple act, to be so legalized that we can sue and be sued. This is the object of the law, of course, to secure to us our rights. Now I want one text of scripture to show that this is wrong. If brethren have any let them be produced. We have rejoiced, and, I like to have said, boasted, before the world that we were a Bible people, and now for us to come up here and meet this question by saying, I am afraid, or, I do not feel as though this was right, &c., looks to me too much like some Methodists who say, I will keep the Sabbath if I can only feel it. BRO. CORNELL. I think I realize that this is the true position for us: Is it wrong to meet the necessity that exists? It is not in relation to matters of faith, but temporal matters. Now is it wrong to meet this necessity? To do this, we must be known by some name. Is there any scripture to show that it is wrong to have a name? Are the churches Babylon because they have names? I doubt it. I cannot see the force of the objections that have been brought up against legal organization. I am glad to see the true issue now coming up. When a necessity exists, it should be met if we can do this and not go contrary to scripture. BRO. HULL. I am in favor of taking a name; but I do not know of any scriptures for or against it. BRO. WHITE. There is no scripture to tell us whether a man should hold a deed of his property or not; and it seems to me that the very reasons that might be presented here against holding meeting-houses, might also be urged against our holding our houses at home. We may have equal fears about one as the other. BRO. WAGGONER. We cannot justly be called upon for express scriptures upon many points. I remember an individual who challenged me to produce the scripture which said that any of the Protestant churches were Babylon. I retorted upon him by asking him to show the scripture which said that the Roman Catholic church was Babylon. We must decide these questions from principle, by a process of reasoning. The question with us in regard to organization, is, What can we do? not what we would like to do. BRO. ANDREWS. I hope I am not understood as opposing such organization of individual churches as would enable them to hold church buildings legally. At this stage of the discussion, the original motion before the house, viz., that the church so organize as to hold property legally, was withdrawn, whereupon Bro. Loughborough offered the following.—
Resolved, That this Conference recommend to our individual churches so to organize as to hold their church property or church buildings legally. BRO. WAGGONER. I would amend that resolution so that it shall read, that we recommend to such churches as already have church buildings, or intend to have them, to so organize as to hold them legally. BRO. BUTLER. I was anxious to have the question come up in such a shape that I could act upon it. But before I can do this, I must call for a further definition of the motion. BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH. Will Bro. Butler vote as an individual, if he does not feel free to do so as a delegate? BRO. BUTLER. So far as principle is concerned we all want to take such a course as to free ourselves from criticism. BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH. That we never can do. BRO. ANDREWS. I think no difficulty really exists in Bro. Butler's way. As the question is set before us here, it simply contemplates a church with such officers as the New Testament recognizes. This New Testament church, constituted just exactly as we find it in the New Testament, conforms to the law of the land to hold a meeting-house. I do not see that this would conflict with Bro. Butler's idea at all. BRO. WAGGONER. I do not think the action of any one should be trammelled by a resolution adopted by the Gilboa church without the benefit of the present discussion. I have been benefited by this discussion and trust the Gilboa brethren would have been also, if they had been here. BRO. SPERRY. I think there is a principle involved in this question, upon which I cannot act; that is, if we are to be brought into a position where we can sue or be sued. BRO. WAGGONER. If the church can hold property they must be in a condition of course to defend it. BRO. ANDREWS. All that is meant by the expression sue and be sued is that we have a legal title to the property. If a man has a farm he holds it in this very manner. The idea that we should do, say such thing as to sue or be sued, was not, in my opinion, involved in the question at all. BRO. WAGGONER. I think it is implied that it would be right to defend such property by legal means. BRO. SPERRY. The brethren will see where the difficulty lies in my mind. I should in that case be unable to dispose of the Saviour's words, "If any man take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also," &c. The question was here called for, and the resolution adopted. BRO. CLARKE. I move that a committee be appointed to arrange business for the Conference this evening.—Adopted. Brn. Andrews, Waggoner and Butler were then appointed by the chair as that committee.
Adjourned to 4 o'clock P. M. Sunday, Sept. 30, 1860, 4 P. M.
The afternoon session commenced at the appointed hour. Meeting opened by singing, and prayer by Brn. Loughborough and White. CHAIRMAN. The meeting is now open for the report of the committee. BRO. WAGGONER. Your committee will have to ask the lenity of the Conference. Notwithstanding we took all the time from the close of the forenoon meeting till this, we found that we had too much on our hands. You must be aware from the nature of the discussion thus far, that we had no slight task imposed upon us. The first business that we designed to bring before the Conference was the adoption of a name; one that we might recommend the local churches to take in organizing, as we have recommended them to organize. But we have not been able to agree upon any name. Objections were raised in the committee to any name suggested. We shall have to leave that matter, therefore, to the Conference. Another point of interest which we have to present before the Conference is this: the raising of funds to defray the expenses attending this Conference, which it does not belong to us to specify. As we cannot report upon the previous point, this is the first business we present before the meeting. After some remarks by Bro. White, a committee was appointed of Brn. White, Andrews and Loughborough, to ascertain the wants of those preachers who had been laboring on missionary ground, and receive contributions from the brethren and sisters for their benefit, and for other purposes.
Brethren then handed in their contributions to the amount of $194.03 BRO. WHITE. I would express my gratitude to the brethren and sisters present. I do it because I took upon myself the responsibility of inviting preaching brethren from a distance to this Conference. Be assured brethren that promptness on your part does my heart good. May God bless you; and may we, here in Michigan, always be ready for every good word and work. BRO. WAGGONER. Your committee would present as the next business the subject of general organization. By this we mean an organization to hold the publishing property of the church. And as the best means of bringing the matter before the meeting, we present to the conference the following recommendation:—
1. We recommend to the conference the organization of a Publishing Association that may legally hold the Review Office.
2. That the Association shall consist of seven members selected by this Conference, who shall apply to the legislature for an act empowering them to hold the Office property and carry on the business of publication.
3. That members may be admitted to this association on the payment of one dollar annually, and they may become life members on the payment of twenty-five dollars.
4. That the officers of the Association shall consist of a business agent, a committee on publication, a treasurer who shall also act as secretary, and an auditor, to be elected annually.
5. The Business Agent shall be the presiding officer of the Association.
6. This Association shall be called the Advent Review Publishing Association.
7. It shall be located at Battle Creek, Mich.
8. The whole amount obtained by donations, subscriptions, sales of publications, or otherwise, shall be expended in the publication of periodicals, books and tracts, and for charitable and benevolent purposes.
We give this not as any definite form, but as the main principles to be embraced in the constitution which we recommend for the association. The numbers and figures are introduced of course just to fill up. On motion of Bro. Clarke the report of the committee was accepted. BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH. I now move that this schedule that has been presented by our committee be adopted as embodying the principles of a constitution for a publishing association. This motion was so amended as to call for an expression of the Conference upon each item of the above schedule, separately.
The first item was then read and adopted. The second item was read and its adoption moved and seconded, whereupon Brn. Andrews and Waggoner remarked that they hoped the brethren would take opportunity to consider thoroughly upon all these points, before adopting them. BRO. WHITE. I do not think that, in a meeting like this, with our faith, and the object for which we are all of us aiming, before us, if it can possibly be avoided, there should be none who should be non-committal. We are not in such great haste, that we cannot hear their reasons if any object to the adoption of these items. If there are any such we will try to help their minds if possible. We have preached and believed the doctrine that it was our privilege to be of the same mind and the same judgment. But if we cannot find the unity of the faith upon the subject before us, assembled together as we are here, and with good ministering spirits which we trust have come up here with us—if, I say, we cannot come to this point here, we may despair of ever reaching it. Is this saying too much? Now I believe the Lord is with us, unworthy as we are, and I do believe it is our privilege here to pray and talk and act over this matter, till we can all of us raise our hands cheerfully. I do not get up here to preach a discourse on the unity of the church, but I do hope the brethren will think upon these things till they can adopt them cheerfully. JOSEPH BATES, Chairman.
URIAR SMITH, Secretary.
(To be Continued)