p. 1 | Review and Herald, Vol. 41, No. 8. (2/4/1873)

Review and Herald

Feb 4, 1873

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 4, 1873

Wayside Thoughts:—Working and Waiting.

By Mary Ann Davis

In the humble home of poverty, among a toil-worn and oppressed people, dwelt, in early childhood, one whose name shines forth from the sacred page with a luster all undimmed by the flight of ages. The wisest of sages, the most gifted of poets, the purest and most devoted of leaders, he alone, of all the human family, was admitted to the very presence of the Infinite One, and held converse with him as friend with friend.

Only as a child was Moses taught the worship of Jehovah; at the early age of twelve years we see him separated from his father's house and exposed to all the allurements of an idolatrous court. Of noble form and figure, of talents rare, doubtless improved by all the advantages royalty could bestow, he stands forth, in the vigor of manhood, mighty in word and deed, and, as he leads the armies of Egypt out to battle, is regarded by the nation as their future king. Yet even here, in the full blaze of worldly prosperity and glory, he retains his integrity. Refusing to join that people in their heathen worship, he still reveres the God of his fathers; and it is revealed to him that he is to be the deliverer of his brethren from the house of bondage. Methinks his mind is filled with stirring thoughts of leading them forth, in warfare, against their oppressors; and boldly striking a signal blow, he confidently expects to see them rise, with one impulse, and rally around his standard.

But no; God's time has not yet come—and Moses flees for his life to escape the wrath of an offended king. A lonely exile, he finds a home in the desert with the holy priest of Midian and, in that secluded spot, clad in a shepherd's humble garb, he leads the flocks of Jethro forty long years, while his suffering people still groan beneath the oppressor's yoke.

How slowly those tardy years must have passed away; and oft, no doubt, he questioned, “Why all this delay? this weary waiting?” Ah! God's ways are not as our ways. He who sees the end from the beginning, knows best the training needed to fit that chosen servant for his high and holy mission; and, when the appointed time has come, the voice of the Eternal assigns the life-work for which he has been so unconsciously preparing. On the self-same day, says the record, at the very time determined in his immutable counsels, the hosts of Israel go forth.

As we look, with mingled awe and wonder, upon his long forbearance with that murmuring, rebellious people, how often we forget the years of waiting, when the eager spirit, curbed and disappointed, gained, in tending the flocks in the desert, just the experience needed to fit him to lead God's people as a tender, patient shepherd. May we not learn a lesson from his life? Few are called to such a destiny; yet to every one who would gain the meed of true success must come the lesson of unwearied labor, of patient waiting, and steady, earnest aim.

To every person are intrusted talents of inestimable worth—all the soul's wealth of affection, all mental endowments and physical powers, are the material from which by patient toil each may fashion the implements for his own life-work in the world. Not to ourselves alone is this great work intrusted. The Master-builder himself appoints our discipline, and we can work in harmony with him, or, by neglecting it, and idly loitering, we can mar the precious trust by careless, random strokes. Still the work goes on. Each day, as it comes, finds our characters developing for good or ill; and it may be ours, by faithfully discharging little duties, perhaps in a humble station, to learn lessons which in God's own time may fit us for wider fields and greater usefulness.

Perchance this process may seem wearisome, for oftentimes the period required for the formation of right character is long, the process painful, yet the end to be obtained is worthy of strong effort and great sacrifice. No one may deem the discipline of his own powers or the acquirement of rich stores of knowledge, the object of his life; all these but fit him to become a laborer in the great harvest-field—for he who shuts up in his own bosom the treasures of wisdom, who rejoices in the sunlight of truth without seeking to impart it to his fellows, is little better than the miser, who revels alone in the abundance of his well-filled granaries while multitudes are starving around him. Nay, as the bread of everlasting life is of infinitely greater value than the meat which perishes, so the guilt of one must far surpass that of the other.

Not so did the Great Teacher. His lessons of wisdom fell by the wayside like the seed of flowers, which, springing up, should bless the wanderer with their fragrance and beauty. Every heart was gladdened by his presence, while men listened to his words and, wondering, cried, “Never spake man like this man.”

How many lessons of sacrifice cluster around his name who gave even his own life a ransom for the world!

He has bidden all earth's children work in his vineyard. Never did the world need earnest laborers more than now. Those who have gone before us have done well their part. A great cloud of witnesses who, loving not their lives unto death, by faith, labored, endured, suffered, and are now waiting to share with us, if we, too, persevere, the reward of their labors.

Never did such motives for earnestness and zeal exist, since man lost his Eden home, and the plan of salvation was devised, as now, when a few, fleeting years shall bring the consummation of all things spoken by the holy prophets since the world began.

Let us, then, be up and doing, that when the King in his beauty shall come to earth again, some humble place may be assigned us with those who have turned many to righteousness and shine as the stars forever and ever.

MARY ANN DAVIS.

Battle Creek, Mich.

A Christian Nation.

The Editor of the Banner of Liberty of Jan. 18, seeing the result of the effort that is now being made to constitute this a Christian Nation, by an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, lays the matter before his readers in its true light, and speaks out boldly in defense of the liberty of conscience, as follows:—

How preposterous then to talk of making the United States a Christian Nation by legislative enactments! Are those religious fanatics who from the commencement of our nationality have been so ardently striving to establish a hierarchy in our country, willing to be governed themselves by the laws of Christ? Do they love their enemies, and do good to them who despitefully use and persecute them? Are they ready to beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks? Do they indeed desire and breathe the spirit of peace on earth, and good will to man? Whatever may have been their professions, history brands them with very opposite proclivities. Behold, says God, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness. Is not this the fast that God approves? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

Imagine what kind of a Christian Nation the Puritanic Pharisees would make if they could carry out their designs. With our National Capitol surmounted with the image of a pagan deity, and the interior ornamented with the god of war, and many other emblems of the idolatry of the people, with all manner of corruption, dishonesty in high and low places, thirsting for blood, and ready to destroy one another, yet, wonderful to think, that by a complimentary insertion of the name of God, of Christ, and of a Christian Sabbath, this sin-defiled country, with all its murders, its robberies, its suicides, its crime of every conceivable name and type, is to be transformed into a Christian Nation, by legislative enactment.

As we pass through our towns and cities, how many magnificent temples point their lofty spires up heavenward, inscribed to St. Paul, St. John, St. Stephen, and many other imposing names, in which not one of those saints would be allowed to preach the doctrine of God our Saviour, if they were here in the flesh. What splendid mockery, what garnished hypocrisy! Those who would as eagerly stone the prophets of our God, and shed the blood of the ministers of Christ, as did their fathers the prophets and apostles in the days of old, still crave to be called a Christian Nation, to take away their reproach.

But if it were different with us, even if in truth we could righteously claim to be the most upright, virtuous and blameless earthly nation and people on the face of the earth, still it would be sacrilegious, if not downright blasphemy, to assume the sacred name of Christian Nation. That the church of God is a Christian nation will not be disputed; but it is so because it is the spiritual body over which Christ presides as the head. His subjects being born of God, possess the spirit of Christ, and are called by his name. But if any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his, and consequently has no right to be called by his name. The laws of Christ, by which all his spiritual subjects are governed, are inapplicable to worldly organizations.

If, for instance, the United States were a Christian Nation, none could be admitted as citizens except they were born of the Spirit, and on profession of their faith regularly received into membership as were about three thousand souls on the day of Pentecost. And should all the citizens be received by baptism, there would be no way to expel from citizenship or fellowship disorderly members but by the use of the ax or halter.

The efforts of an aspiring clergy to so change our Constitution as to make their religious dogmas a part of the organic law, betrays a desire on their part for a union of church and state, and the total abrogation of that liberty of conscience which our fathers intended to secure to all the citizens of these States throughout all time.

When human governments can represent their subjects at the bar of God, and relieve them from their personal responsibility to the eternal Judge, it will be soon enough for them to dictate by legislative enactments, enforced by pains and penalties, what shall be their religious faith, how, when and to whom, they shall pray, and at what altar they shall kneel.

Perfect freedom of conscience, and the liberty for every one to contend for his faith, from the pulpit and from the press, with protection to all in the full enjoyment of their religion, leaves truth free to combat error, and covers all the ground lawful for us to occupy.

What if our neighbors do not worship at our altar, or subscribe to our faith; and even suppose they profess or practice no religion at all; does that infringe upon or interfere with our rights? Certainly not. To God alone they are responsible. Surely the right is not given to any of us to

“Deal damnation round the land To each we deem God’s foe.”

The unhallowed union of secular and ecclesiastical power usurped by men, has in no country or age, from the days of Cain, failed to drench the earth with blood. Let us beware.

R. M. Kilgore.

Methodist Ministers on Future Punishment.

A very lively interest has been awakened in the New York Methodist ministers’ meeting, on the subject of future punishment. These meetings are held every Monday, in the Mission Rooms of the Methodist Book Concern, Broadway and Eleventh St. The following is the report of the meeting, Monday, Dec. 30:—

Rev. Mr. Terry of Poughkeepsie presented the commonly accepted view. He interpreted the affair of Dives and Lazarus as a statement of fact instead of a parable, which is now the almost universal understanding of it, and concluded that the wicked will suffer a torture that shall never end, and that the final state of the wicked is one of everlasting suffering and anguish. Rev. Dr. True was then called for. Dr. True is an able man, highly cultured, and, for some years, a professor at Middletown. He said he had written a review of the question for the Methodist Quarterly, which it had been thought best not to publish, as productive of controversy. He said he was not an annihilationist but a destructionist. Annihilation is the destruction of the material of which man is made, and would require the same exertion of power on the part of the Almighty as the creation of matter. The penalty of the incorrigibly wicked will be the destruction of his conscious existence; a total cessation of all his functions. Man was designed to live forever. He was naturally immortal; the penalty of the law was the destruction of this immortality. There were three great men at three great epochs of the world through whom the divine will was given to man—Adam, Moses and Christ. With the law the penalty of violating the law should be given, and if you do not find the penalty

of eternal punishment given by either of these in direct terms, do not look to parables, figures of speech, or the meaning of words. Dr. True was interrupted several times by Rev. Drs. Curry and Corbett, and severely condemned by them for bringing his views before the meeting. Rev. Dr. Crawford, Rev. George Lansing Taylor, and others, argued that the discussions should be free to all, and that it was best to meet and controvert strange doctrines or acknowledge their force; they defended Dr. True for speaking, as he had done so by invitation solely, though they differed totally from his views. The sentiment of the majority of the preachers seemed to be in favor of allowing a liberal range to discussion. A committee of three was appointed to consider the matter and report rules for the government of the discussions.

The following is the report of the meeting, Jan. 5, as given in the New York World:—

“The Methodist preachers of New York and vicinity held their regular weekly meeting in the Mission Rooms of the Methodist Book Concern, Broadway and Eleventh street.

The following questions were proposed for discussion at the next regular meeting: Shall the wicked be finally destroyed? Will the wicked in hell finally become extinct? Are the future punishments of the wicked permanent? Are the conscious punishments of the wicked endless, or are the punishments of the wicked in hell parallel to the eternal bliss of the righteous in heaven?

An elderly gentleman said that there was a disposition to ignore this subject of hell. The foundation of the church stands upon this question. If there is danger, let the people see it. Why shut out the light? During the past week I have been approached by the members of my congregation, saying, “I see that the Methodists are dropping their eternal damnation.” If the punishment of the wicked is not endless, then the joy of the righteous is not. One doctrine stands with the other. If the views promulgated by Dr. True be allowed to go unanswered it will make me desperate. My very soul is absorbed. It’s an awful thing with me. I propose the following: Do the Scriptures give hope that the wicked shall finally cease to exist? (Cries of “Put him out!”)

Dr. True said that it was without any intervention on his part that he was called upon to speak. He had been patient to present his views to the public. For seven years he had taught them to his flock with good results. I did not think that when I spoke I endangered the souls of those present. If you want to reach the point I propose that the following proposition be discussed: “That the eternal future of the wicked is not the eternal consciousness of sin and misery;” or, “Is death, eternal death, eternal punishment?”

Mr. Corbett asked how punishment could be eternal if the soul ceases to exist.

Dr. True—There must be a difference between utter nothingness and destruction. For instance, a house can be destroyed, or a tree, but it is a something. I am so sanguine of my views that I believe the whole Christian church will sooner or later embrace them. If the other question does not meet your approbation, try this: “Does the future punishment of the wicked imply their eternal consciousness?” (Hisses.)

An excited member here sprang to his feet, saying: “We had too much of this at the last meeting, and the notices of the press have occasioned considerable talk. There is danger. (Cries of “Amen.”) We are now to startle the religious community for ten weeks to come, when we should devote our efforts to something higher. The devil is rubbing his hands gleefully; he has never had a better chance than the present. If this question be adopted I must read up on hell instead of warning sinners from the wrath to come. Are we to begin the year with this devilish or hellish excitement? I have no objection that this theme be discussed in March. I see reporters present from this city, from Brooklyn, Jersey City, Newark, and other neighboring places. I am not in favor of the discussion of this question with open doors.”

Mr. Corbett said there was no use ignoring the subject. It will not interfere with the salvation of souls. Mr. Wesley did not hesitate to speak of hell and damnation; why should we? Perhaps there may be greater ones here than he. I think this question should be discussed for the salvation of souls. If the doctrine of destruction be accepted I go about carelessly; but make punishment eternal and I go along carefully. I do not pretend to be an angel. I am liable to err, but when the doctrines of the church are assailed, I rise to arms for its defense. You tell me to be calm. I cannot when that which is so dear to me is wronged. I know that the discussion will do good. The reason why we do not get along faster is because we do not have enough hell in our religion.

A vote was then taken on Mr. McAllister’s motion to lay the question on the table, which was lost.

A tall gentleman addressed the assemblage. He was sorry that it was said that the church was ambiguous. It would be unfortunate if a question of such moment be not discussed. He was not in favor of having the reporters admitted. The press tomorrow would have the proceedings of this meeting, and the world at large would see that we are afraid to touch this subject of hell. If a brother is so low as to be afraid of altering his views by a discussion, I recommend that he stay at home and pray. In Wesley’s time they preached sermons on subjects like these: “A few groans from hell,” or “A nut for damned sinners to crack.” I hope we will act like sensible men and not as children. We should not shirk from this question. I go in for fair play. (A voice, “Hallelujah!”)

The next speaker said that if a little intellectual investigation be denied they would go where it would not be denied. One of the greatest hindrances in the cause of God is that the people are not impressed enough with hell. This preachers’ meeting should speak with no uncertain sound. We want truth. (Cries of “Glory!”) I want this question discussed next Monday, and to be continued until finally disposed of. (A voice, “Put him out!”) I shall not be frowned down.

Another reverend doctor did not think that this question was one of the doctrines of the Methodist church, neither did he know that he was in a manufactory of Methodist doctrines and creeds. The house built by those shining lights of our church, he said, was built. Shall we take out the foundation stone and show it to the world? (Cries of “No!”) We owe something to our people. They have their convictions fixed. Are we authorized to alter them? (Cries of “Yes!”)

The motion to postpone the debate until the first Monday in March was lost—twenty-seven to nineteen.

A gentleman moved that when they do adjourn it will be to meet the first Monday in March.

Rev. Dr. Roach asked, Why do we propose to discuss the question at this time? Is it proper to doubt that the future happiness of the pure be everlasting? I have no doubt that Mr. Corbett will do the subject full justice. Hell was preached three or four hundred years ago, and discussed with avidity. It is now settled. The wicked shall be turned into hell. I believe that nothing but evil will come by the discussion of this theme. Have we the authority to discuss questions like these in public? (A voice “Sit down.”) These meetings have been reported broadcast. We are not justified in these open proceedings.

The motion to lay the whole subject on the table was lost by a vote of twenty-seven to twenty-eight.

Rev. Mr. Merwin, the chairman, said that he could not afford to allow so much waste of precious time.

Rev. Dr. Curry said that he wanted to waste a little. I express myself decidedly against the discussion. That a representative body of Methodists should gather together and act so unwisely was to be deprecated. It is humiliating to view this question in the light of the profane. That a body of ministers unknown as to their ecclesiastical polity should here discuss the very foundation of Methodism is horrible. If this discussion be allowed, I desire to have my name stricken from the rolls. It should most certainly not be in public, but should be done in private, logically and learnedly. I confess that people have been educated by these meetings through the press. But we do ourselves a serious harm by crudely discussing such a momentous question without due deliberation. I believe that the reports as given by the press of these meetings are substantially correct. But this question will damage ourselves and those who look to us for influence.

Mr. Buckley said he did not attach any importance to any member who says he would be influenced by these questions, which are sometimes spoken of gravely, other times in ribaldry. We are not afraid to grapple with this question. I hail this glorious time. Many things have been said against me. I fall back on my reputation to save me from the false reports circulated against me. Several years ago a question of similar import was discussed in Boston. It lasted three or four months, and was very exciting. But when completed it was found that but two members dissented from the orthodox views.

Dr. True said he appeared before them by accident—providentially, perhaps. At the last meeting there was but one who stood by me. (A voice—“You brought him in.”) I have not advanced a principle contrary to Methodism, but only a modification. We are not stereotyped in the principles of John Wesley. We live in an age of reform—in a progressive age. I, too, doubt whether this is the proper place to discuss. I want no angry controversy. During the seven years that I have accepted this theory of destruction I have converted four hundred and fifty souls. I have not lost an iota of my interest for the salvation of mankind.

A motion was here made that the whole subject be postponed, amid cries of “We want no gag-law here.”

The motion was lost by a vote of thirty to twelve.

The question will therefore be taken up for discussion next Monday.

ARE THEY TRIFLES?

“Who hath despised the day of small things?” Why do we speak of “little things,” And “trifles light as air?” Can aught a trifle be that brings One moment’s joy or care? The smallest seed in the fertile ground Is the germ of a noble tree; The lightest touch on a festering wound— Is it not agony?

What is a trifle? A thoughtless word, Forgotten as soon as said. Perchance its echo shall yet be heard When the speaker is with the dead. That thoughtless word is a random dart, And strikes, we know not where; It may rankle long in some tender heart, Is it a trifle there?

Is it a trifle—the first false step On the dizzy verge of sin? ’Tis treacherous ground—one little slip May plunge us headlong in; One light temptation, and we may wear Death’s galling chain for aye; One little moment of heart-felt prayer May rend those bonds away.

Drops of water are little things, But they form the boundless sea. ’Tis in little notes the wild bird sings, Yet his song is melody. Little voices, now scarcely heard, In Heaven shall bear their part; And a little grave in the green church-yard Holds many a parent’s heart.

This world is little, if but rightly weighed, And trifling its joy and care; But not while we linger beneath its shade— There are no trifles here. The lightest burden may weigh like lead On the faint and weary soul, In the up-hill path it perforce may tread, Before it may reach the goal.

Cease, then, to speak of a “little thing,” Which may give thy brother pain; Shun little sins, lest they haply bring The greater in their train. Seize each occasion, however small, Of good which may be given; So when thou shalt hear thy Master’s call, Thou shalt be “great in Heaven.”

Continue reading: Discussion on the Sabbath Question