Your ShelfYour Projects

ORGANIZATION

3%

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 1, 1861

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 18, No. 18.

Read the full edition

ORGANIZATION.

By Editor

BRO. PHELPS has finally come out with his objections to organization in a communication for the Review. We have concluded to give the entire article, excepting that portion of it referring to Brn. Andrews and Loughborough. We still believe Bro. P. can be helped. We divide his communication as most convenient for a distinct reply to each point, commencing his remarks with Bro. P., and our reply with Ans.
BRO. P.—"I read with a degree of satisfaction the remarks addressed to me in No. 7. There is a candor and friendship in them seldom manifested by any toward those who come out from among their brethren. And I take it for granted from the heading of your remarks, that I am still permitted to speak through the Review, and I gladly embrace an opportunity, though it is quite a tax for me at present to write much. But I wish to notice one or two points in your remarks to me for the purpose of giving an explanation."
ANS.—We are truly gratified to learn that Bro. P. has not been grieved with our remarks, and now has the frankness to state his objections to organization. Again we say, Bro. P. can be helped.
BRO. P.—"First, you say, 'Should not such a declaration of separation from the body be accompanied with your reasons? I will give the reason why I did not accompany my declaration with my reasons. I waited for some one more competent than myself to take up the subject. And a few have spoken a very little, and in some instances I thought were met with severe remarks, which caused me to dread raising my objections to the course taken by the body of Sabbath-keepers with which I was connected. But I had, notwithstanding, made up my mind to speak frankly, until I read in Good Samaritan for June, 1861, Cause of Discouragement. In that it was stated, 'We hope to receive letters of counsel and encouragement from friends in different parts of the field. Be assured that all such communications will be perused with pleasure, while those of a meddling, fault-finding character, or highly tinctured with wormwood and gall will be speedily reduced to ashes. We have something better to do than to reply to, and mourn over, such communications.' This is why I have taken the position which I now occupy without giving my reasons. And now, while I have taken my pen once more to write, I will say, that I hope that none of the friends will feel that I am meddling, or finding fault, or that my communication is highly tinctured with wormwood and gall, for I have nothing but the best of feelings toward all my brethren; but I wish to speak freely, if I speak at all."
ANS.—It is frequently the case when brethren unfortunately take the wrong side of a question, hard to defend, that they feel injured at the frankness and plain speech of those who try to help them, and such will share largely the sympathy of those on that side of the question. Bro. P. had his sympathy in the wrong place, is the reason why our remarks hurt him. When we first suggested organization to hold church property, eighteen months since, we made the following request: "If any object to our suggestions, will they please write out a plan upon which we as a people can act." This request was reasonable, and fully opened the way for any to bring scripture to bear upon the subject, show the error of organization, and state a plan upon which we as a people could act. But the request was utterly neglected, and those objecting to organization did not bring one text of scripture bearing directly on the subject. Such a course deserved exposure and rebuke, and if Bro. P. had been standing on the right side of the question, his sympathy would have been with the one who had to feel the injustice of such organizationists.
Bro. P. knows we have ever treated him kindly. When he gave his influence to that sheet which poured forth its slander upon us, we could pray, Father, forgive, for he knows not what he does, and when we met him afterwards at Crane's Grove, Ills., and heard his confession, with joy we mingled our tears with his. We still cherish a high regard for Bro. P. We believe him to be sincere, and pray God to keep him out of the wake of those who, in order to carry their points, when all other means fail, resort to a hypocritical whining about "harshness," and "a bad spirit."
We cannot accept Bro. P.'s apology for withholding his reasons for seceding from his brethren, for he had no just cause for the fears he expresses. Certainly no one could taste wormwood and gall in his communications unless he put the tincture in. Having received many very highly tinctured communications from numerous sources for the past ten years, we think we have some skill in detecting, and therefore pronounce Bro. P.'s communication free from wormwood and gall. His difficulties seem to arise from misplacing his sympathy, and the want of a thorough examination of the organization question.
BRO. P.—"You say, in speaking of the victory over the beast, &c.—'That great and glorious victory will be sung upon the sea of glass. Rev. xv, 2. It is doubtless the new song of the 144,000 of chap. xiv, 3. But that, dear brother, will be a united company. They will have one name, be sealed with the same seal, and sing the same song.' All this I most firmly believe, and think it is not difficult to determine what name they will have, when we consult Rev. xiv, 1, 'Having his Father's name in their foreheads.' And chap. iii, 12. 'I will write upon them the name of my God.' And with this agrees the apostle in all his epistles. They are addressed to the church of God. Acts xx, 28; 1 Cor. i, 2; x, 32; xi, 22; xv, 29; Gal. i, 13; 1 Tim. iii, 5. Now if we have a right to depart from the simplicity of the gospel in one instance, have we not in another? Most assuredly. Is not this the course that Babylon's churches have all taken? But enough of this at the present."
ANS.—We conclude that Bro. P. thinks that church of God is the proper name for the church. But we do not see how this is proved by the fact that Rev. iii, 12; xiv, 1, describes the 144,000 after, or just before, the Second Advent, as having the name of God written upon them. Bro. P. seems to reason like this: The name of God is to be written upon the saints; therefore they should be called the church of God. But his mode of reasoning would prove too much, for in Rev. iii, 12, Christ also says, "I will write upon them my new name;" therefore the church should be called the church of Christ. Again, the same verse says, in stating what shall be written upon the saints, "and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem;" therefore the church should be called the New Jerusalem church, and the Swedenborgians have it right. These are all excellent names, and all in use before Sabbath-keepers began to talk of a name. Which shall we choose? Or would Bro. P. have us take all three because they are said to be written upon the overcomers? We should not depart from the simplicity of the gospel; but have a perfect right to depart from all positions which do not show wisdom, either divine or human. The New Testament speaks of the people of God as follows:
Churches of God. 1 Cor. ii, 16; 1 Thess. ii, 14.
Church of the living God. 1 Tim. iii, 15.
Church of Christ. Rom. xvi, 16.
Church of the first-born. Heb. xii, 23.
Churches of the saints. 1 Cor. xiv, 33.
Christians. Acts xi, 26.
If either of the above names be selected by which the church should be called, doubtless "Christian" is the one. "And the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Acts xi, 26. On this passage we give the following from Clarke's Commentary, and Horne's Introduction:
"And the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. It is evident that they had the name Christians from CHRIST, their master; as the Platonists and Pythagoreans had their name from their masters, Plato and Pythagoras. Now, as these had their name from those great masters because they attended their teaching, and credited their doctrines, so the disciples were called Christians because they took Christ for their teacher, crediting his doctrines, and following the rule of life laid down by him. It has been a question, by whom was this name given to the disciples? Some think they assumed it; others, that the inhabitants of Antioch gave it to them; and others, that it was given by Saul and Barnabas. This latter opinion is favored by the Codex Bezae, which reads the 25th and 26th verses thus: And hearing that Saul was at Tarsus, he departed, seeking for him; and having found him, he besought him to come to Antioch; who, when they were come, assembled with the church a whole year, and instructed a great number; and there they first called the disciples at Antioch Christians."
"The word χρηματίσαι in our common text, which we translate were called, signifies in the New Testament, to appoint, warn, or nominate, by divine direction. In this sense, the word is used, Matt. ii, 12; Luke ii, 26; and in the preceding chapter of this book, verse 22. If, therefore, the name was given by divine appointment, it is most likely that Saul and Barnabas were directed to give it; and that, therefore, the name Christian is from God, as well as that grace and holiness which are so essentially required and implied in the character."—A. Clarke.
"Some are of opinion that it was first invented by the enemies of religion, and was fixed upon the disciples of Christ as a stigma of reproach. In confirmation of this opinion, they refer to Acts xxvi, 28, and 1 Pet. iv, 16. Others imagine, that the Christians themselves assumed this appellation. Others, with more propriety, conceive that it was given to them by divine appointment."—Horne's Introduction, Vol. I, p. 350.
But, from the fact that the church is called by the above names, it is evident that the Holy Spirit did not design to point out in the New Testament the name by which the church should be called. This is left as a matter of propriety and convenience. Hence our preference and love for the name, Seventh-day Adventists.
BRO. P.—"You said in the heading of your remarks to me you had a firm hope that I could be helped. Well, this is just what I want, and what I must have. If I am ever moved from my present position. And now I wish to ask frankly a few plain, simple, candid questions, for the consideration of Bro. White, or any other brother, not for the sake of discussion, but for the sake of light on the subject, and if Bro. White, or any other brother, will answer them frankly and candidly, and clear up the subject, I as an honest man, and a christian, will be frank in confessing my error."
ANS.—We have taken hold in faith to help Bro. P., and shall certainly help him out, if he will be helped. With pleasure we answer his questions.
BRO. P.—"And the first question is, Are the churches Babylon, as declared by the second angel's message?"
ANS.—The strongest position we have ever taken on the subject is that the Babylon of the Revelation embraces all corrupted christianity, and we have never seen good reasons for changing our position. But it is evident that this subject was poorly understood by the Advent brethren at the time of the giving of the second angel's message. The question with us is, What will stand the test of criticism? and not, What did we once believe?
We once made Rev. xviii, 4, a part of the second angel's message; but we now place this in the future to take place under the loud voice of the third message. We had the second message embrace too much, and were too fast in denouncing voting, the judicial oath, and holding of a civil office, as the mark of the beast, and the very climax of the sins of Babylon. As God's people are commanded to be separate from the world, they should engage in these things as little as possible and do their duty to God and their fellow men. But we do solemnly protest against distorting the subject of Babylon, for fear some one will become like the world and nominal churches. When we commenced to publish, ten years since, the cry was raised, Babylon! At the establishment of the Office, the cry was, Babylon! When the brethren erected an exceedingly plain place of worship at Battle Creek, only 22 by 30, which wouldnot seat comfortably more than one half the present congregation, one of our ministers groaned out, "Ah! this looks like Babylon!" And now, when the simplest legal organization possible to hold church property, and the simplest form of church organization, are suggested, we hear the same cry, Babylon! These things have hindered the progress of the work, and have thrown insupportable burdens upon those who devoted their entire energies to the cause. We suggest that it would be a wiser course to thoroughly investigate the Babylon question, and see if it will not harmonize with sensible efforts to advance the cause, and save the church from ruin, than to hold to all the notions that have attached themselves to the subject of Babylon.
BRO. P.—"If so, what does their confusion consist in? Surely, not in the disagreement of any one sect upon doctrine; for each sect is a unit, and have their name, discipline, doctrine, and usages, from the Catholic church down to the last sect organized."
ANS.—The confusion of Babylon consists in the use of creeds, which have secured false doctrines to the churches, instead of the gifts of the Spirit, given to secure the purity and unity of the church. "And he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Eph. iv, 11–13. If the church had ever enjoyed these blessings, instead of being cursed with human creeds, we should now have but one church, and that, probably, bearing the simple and beautiful name of Christian.
We are surprized that Bro. P. classes name, doctrine and usages with discipline and creeds, as constituting the confusion of Babylon, after giving nine texts for no other conceivable object than to prove that we should take the name of Church of God; and he well knows that a church without doctrine and usage would be no church at all.
BRO. P.—"Does it not take the whole of the religious bodies together, with their multiplicity of doctrines and creeds to constitute Babylon? If so, can we as a people organize, have our name, doctrine, discipline, and church usages, and not have them precisely in harmony with the Bible, and yet not help make up the great confusion."
ANS.—Bro. P. will certainly except that first "religious body" of Christians, the sect everywhere spoken against (Acts xxviii, 22), as not belonging to the great family of Babylon. And he will certainly except the last religious body, who reject human creeds and disciplines, receive the gifts of the Spirit, and are seeking primitive christianity, keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. We are glad that he uses the brotherly phrase, "we as a people," which shows that he has not really cut his log loose. But why this indiscriminate mixing up—name—creed—discipline—doctrine—church usages? Imagine a church with neither name, doctrine, or church usages! Bro. P. must be laboring under confusion of thought as if he himself had been sipping of the intoxicating wine of Babylon.
BRO. P.—"Again, if the churches are the Babylon of Rev. xiv, 8, they are surely the harlot daughters of Rev. xvii, 5, and if so, what does their harlotry consist in? Does it consist in being incorporated by the government, and receiving the protection of the law, as Adventists have always believed and taught? If so, can we as a people do the same, and not become a member of the same great family, or become one of the harlots? For I do not understand there is any difference between the charter of the Seventh-day Adventists and any other sect in the land. If so, do we not then help make up that power which is symbolized by one of the horns on the two-horned beast? Or have we been mistaken in the application of the symbol to the ecclesiastical power, or to the churches of this government?"
ANS.—Here Bro. P. erects a man of straw upon which he is charging most chivalously. There is no Act in the statutes of any State, or county in reference to the Seventh-day Adventists in particular. The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association (which has no connection whatever with church organization) organized under general law, and has no more of a charter from government than Bro. P. has to hold his land. In both cases the papers have to be made out and recorded according to existing law. Those churches who build places of worship, and wish to hold church property, only have to make out papers conforming to existing law, the same as Bro. P. would do to secure to himself and his family real estate. Hence, in condemning us, Bro. P. condemns himself. For, if it be wrong for the church to hold property legally, it is wrong for an individual to thus hold it. Further than this, we have only suggested a more perfect organization of our churches, and the division of the territory of our people into conferences, and the furnishing of our ministers with the papers showing their church standing, all of which has no more to do with the government than Bro. P.'s family prayers.
The harlotry of the daughters of the mother Babylon of Rev. xvii, 5, is explained in James iv, 4. "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." Do we become friends of the world in conforming to law to hold church property? then Bro. P. becomes a friend of the world, and the enemy of God, in securing real estate legally.
Bro. Phelps, dear brother, when you see a people adopting a human creed sustaining popular fables, and thus putting an end to investigation and reform, rejecting the gifts of the Spirit, perverting much of the faith of Jesus, seeking the friendship of the world, and conforming to its spirit and fashions, you may safely include that people in the great Babylonian family. But the Seventh-day Adventists have no human creed or discipline, therefore give room for God to teach through the gifts of the Spirit. They ardently desire to cast aside the traditions and fables of men, and keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ. Their weekly practice in keeping the Sabbath is a standing rebuke on the churches and the world, and on almost every point of Bible truth they stand in direct opposition to the popular doctrines of the churches. And, besides this, there has been an unceasing testimony among us, warning us to stand out separate from the world. The only mark of Babylon among us is the element of confusion that would trample down that organization and order necessary to push forward the great work, and worship God without distraction.
Beware, then, dear brother, how you brand this people as Babylon, who have done no more in uniting with the world, and in seeking the protection of government than you have done in securing property, lest you incur the frown of God, and the penalty of offending Christ's little ones.