The Present Truth, vol. 1
November 1850
THE PRESENT TRUTH. VOL. I.-PARIS, ME.-NO. 11
James White
PUBLISHED SEMI-MONTHLY
VOL. I.-PARIS, ME., NOVEMBER, 1850.-NO. 11.
“The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.”-Psalm 25:14.
THE BETTER LAND
1. We have heard from the bright, the holy land,
We have heard, and our hearts are glad;
For we were a lonely pilgrim band,
And weary, and worn, and sad.
They tell us the pilgrims have a dwelling there-
No longer are homeless ones;
And we know that the goodly land is fair,
Where life’s pure river runs.
PTJW November 1850, page 81.1
2. They say green fields are waving there,
That never a blight shall know;
And the deserts wild are blooming fair,
And the roses of Sharon grow.
There are lovely birds in the bowers green-
Their songs are blithe and sweet;
And their warblings gushing ever new,
The angels’ harpings greet.
PTJW November 1850, page 81.2
3. We have heard of the palms, the robes, the crowns,
And the silvery band in white;
Of the city fair, with pearly gates,
All radiant with light,
We have heard of the angels there, and saints,
With their harps of gold, how they sing;
Of the mount, with the fruitful tree of life,
Of the leaves that healing bring.
PTJW November 1850, page 81.3
4. The King of that country, he is fair,
He’s the joy and the light of the place!
In his beauty we shall behold him there,
And bask in his smiling face. We’ll be there,
we’ll be there, in a little while,
We’ll join the pure and the blest;
We’ll have the palm, the robe, the crown,
And forever be at rest.
PTJW November 1850, page 81.4
MISUSE OF THE TERM “SABBATH.”
It is quite common, in these days, to hear the term Sabbath used to designate the first day of the week or Sunday. But such a use of the term is not only unscriptural, but calculated to mislead the people. Thro’-out the Bible, there is but one sacred day of weekly occurrence called the Sabbath, and that is the seventh or last day of the week. When, therefore, men talk about a Christian Sabbath, and a Jewish Sabbath-a first-day Sabbath, and a seventh-day Sabbath-that so they may slyly fix the term Sabbath upon the first day, and then persuade people that all those texts of Scripture which speak of the Sabbath day are meant of the first day, they pursue a course which is unauthorized, and deserve to be sharply rebuked. There are circumstances, however, which many persons seem to regard as justifying the common practice of calling the first day by the name Sabbath. Let us examine some of them. PTJW November 1850, page 81.5
1. It is said that the term Sabbath signifies rest; therefore the first day, being commonly observed as a day of rest, may properly be called the Sabbath. In reply to this, it may be said, that when by custom and common consent, any term is used to express a particular place or thing, it then becomes a proper name for that thing, and signifies only that thing to which it is applied. For instance, a tabernacle means a place of worship. Yet, in New York, where this name is used to express a particular and well-known place of worship, it would be absurd and false to say you were at the Tabernacle, and mean the Church of the Messiah. So with the term Sabbath; although the word strictly means rest, yet after the Scriptures throughout the Old and New Testaments have used this term to express a particular rest, which occurred on the seventh day, it would be foolish and deceptive to speak of the Sabbath and mean the first day of the week. It may be farther said, that if this argument be good for calling the first day the Sabbath, and if the fact of its being a rest-day makes it the Sabbath, then may the Mohammedans properly call the sixth day the Sabbath, and the fact that they rest upon that day makes it the Sabbath.-Yes, and those Mexican Indians, whom Cortes found keeping the fourth day, may properly call that day the Sabbath, and directly it is made such. Even those people in Guinea, whom Purchase describes as having a rest-day, but which, he says, “they observe not upon our Sunday, nor upon the Jews’ Sabbath day, but hold it upon Tuesday, the second working day of the week,” may properly call that day the Sabbath, and straightway it becomes such. Are the observers of the first day ready to rest upon such ground for calling that day the Sabbath, or to continue to call it Sabbath when there is no better ground? We hope not. And we feel bound, as those who respect the Bible, and dare not charge the Author of that Book with folly in calling the seventh day only the Sabbath, to protest against such abuse of the language of Scripture. PTJW November 1850, page 81.6
2. The second reason frequently urged, is, that the first day comes in the room of the seventh day, and may therefore properly be called the Sabbath. Aside from the fact that the Scriptures say not a word about a substitution of the one day for the other, it may be said in reply, that if the argument be good, then the Lord’s Supper may be called the Passover, and King Solomon may be called King David. PTJW November 1850, page 81.7
3. A third reason alleged for calling the first day the Sabbath, is, because it has long been the practice of Christians to call it so. In answering this assertion, it may be worth while to inquire what has been the practice of Christians in this matter. Few will deny, that wherever, in the New Testament, the word Sabbath refers to a weekly religious day, it is the seventh day. When the first day of the week is spoken of, it is under its appropriate title. For nearly the whole of the first century, then, we have the testimony of Scripture that the name Sabbath belonged exclusively to the seventh day. During the succeeding four hundred years, there were large numbers, both in the Eastern church, about Constantinople, and in the Western church, about Rome, who kept the Sabbath. And when ecclesiastical councils, in the fourth and fifth centuries, began to enact laws against them, they condemned Sabbath-keeping altogether. From this it is apparent, that the idea of calling the first day the Sabbath had not then entered their minds. What day was meant when the term Sabbath was used for five hundred years later still, the learned Dr. Peter Heylyn has told us in the following words:- “Wherever, for a thousand years and upwards, we meet with Sabbatum, in any writer, of what name soever, it must be understood of no day but Saturday.” Indeed, if we search all the books which have been written on this and kindred subjects up to the time of the Reformation, we shall not find that the first day was to any considerable extent regarded as the Sabbath or called by that name. Dr. Richard Whately, Archbishop of Dublin, in a late work on the subject of the Sabbath, says, “in fact, the notion against which I am contending, [viz. that the fourth commandment binds Christians to hallow the first day of the week, and that it may properly be called the Sabbath,] seems, as far as I can recollect, to have originated with the Puritans, not more than 200 years ago, and to have been for a considerable time confined to them, though it was subsequently adopted by some members of our church.” PTJW November 1850, page 81.8
So far is it from being true, then, that the first day has been universally called the Sabbath among Christians, that even now, by the best authorities upon such subjects, it is not called Sabbath at all. The Records of England up to the present time invariably call the seventh day the Sabbath. In the Journals of the House of Lords, whatever is entered as having been done on the seventh day, or Saturday, is under the date, Die Sabbati, upon the Sabbath day. The same is true of the House of Commons. The Rules and Records of the King’s Bench, and the Latin Records in the Court of Exchequer and in Chancery, do likewise call the seventh day the Sabbath. These things may be known by any who will take the trouble to examine; and they show how groundless and erroneous is the supposition to which we are replying. Indeed, in many languages the seventh day is called by a name which indicates its sabbatic character. In Low Dutch it is called rust-dagh, the day of rest. In English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, it has its right name, the Sabbath, the day of rest. PTJW November 1850, page 82.1
Now let us look at some of the consequences of calling the first day by the name of the Sabbath. It has given occasion for Papists to charge Protestants with neglecting the Scriptures to follow their traditions. The Papists claim, that the change of the Sabbath is the work of their own church, and that the Scriptures no where warrant the keeping of the first day, much less the calling it by the name of the Sabbath. Who will deny this latter position? Again, it has led some earnest and pious men to charge the teachers of religion with “befooling and misleading the people.” Proof of this may be found to any extent in books written on the subject in the seventeenth century. The charge is there distinctly and frequently made, of designedly using deceptive arguments. PTJW November 1850, page 82.2
We will not undertake to say, that those who are accustomed to speak in a manner so likely to deceive, design to do that. But we will say, that such would be the natural effect of their language. It would leave upon the minds of many an impression, that they were not only bound to pay peculiar respect to the first day of the week, but that the fourth commandment required of them such respect. For a religious teacher knowingly to make this impression, is to be guilty of directly fostering error. Nay, more; if he should call the first day the Sabbath, and refer to the fourth commandment as inculcating the duty of observing that day; or should, without direct reference to that law, express himself in such a way as to leave his hearers to suppose that it required the observance of the first day, he would be wanting in faithfulness to the truth, and exposed to the denunciation of those who add to or take from it. PTJW November 1850, page 82.3
No doubt many will think, that at a time when the prevailing tendency is to disregard all sacred seasons, it were better not to say these things, but to leave men under an impression that the law of God requires the observance of the first day of the week, and sanctions calling that day the Sabbath. But this prevailing disregard of the day of rest, is an important reason for urging an examination of the foundation upon which the Sabbath rests. Common prudence, to say nothing of Christian sincerity, would require us, in such circumstances, to place the duty upon its true ground. If it will not stand there, it will stand no where. It is a dangerous experiment to encourage or connive at misconceptions in a point like this. And even if we felt assured that it would be right, we are fully convinced that it would be inexpedient. It is exceedingly dangerous to acknowledge an unsound principle, although it may promise to conduct us to desirable results, or, at the worst, to produce no bad effects. It ought to be remembered, that it was in apparently trivial and harmless points, that those false principles were allowed, which have infused their poison into the Romish and other apostate churches-a poison which, commencing with the extremities, has worked its way rapidly towards the vitals, and diffused its effects through the whole system. It is not, then, a matter of small moment. The most important and disastrous consequences may result from baptizing a day of human invention with a name which the Scriptures apply exclusively to one appointed of God.-[Sabbath Tract No. 12. PTJW November 1850, page 82.4
Sabbath Controversy
THE TRUE ISSUE.
ONE of the greatest difficulties which we who observe the seventh day have ever found in the Sabbath controversy, is to make our opponents understand what is the real question at issue. So long have their thoughts, feelings and habits, been moulded under one particular view of the subject, that it seems almost a miracle if one is found who can disregard all foreign matter, and look at the precise points in debate long enough to come to any certain and intelligent conclusion about it. But it is evident, that if an opponent is suffered to raise false issues, or to be continually striking off into the discussion of some point which does not affect the final question, we may prolong the controversy ad infinitum. PTJW November 1850, page 82.5
Let us then endeavor to state distinctly what is, and what is not, the issue between us and the observers of the first day of the week. PTJW November 1850, page 82.6
1. The issue is not whether the first day of the week was observed at a very early period by Christians. We admit that it was. We admit that its observance may be traced up to very near the borders of the apostolic age. What more can a generous, conscientious opponent, who scorns any other aid than what the truth will give him, ask? He knows in his own soul that this is the very utmost that can be produced from any of his histories. Let him ransack his old musty volumes all the way backward, till he fancies he can almost talk to the “beloved disciple” face to face, and what more can he find? Verily nothing. PTJW November 1850, page 82.7
But when you have got this admission from us, then we have another question to ask. How-don’t dodge the question-HOW was the day observed by the early Christians? We admit the observance of it; but that is not the issue. The issue respects the manner of observing it. You, if you are consistent, will say that the early Christians observed it not only by public worship, but by abstaining from labor. We, on the other hand, deny that they abstained from labor. We admit that they held public worship; but-we repeat it-we deny that they abstained from labor. We deny that they regarded it as a Sabbath, “resting according to the commandment.” Now with the issue thus fairly stated, we put the laboring oar into your hands, and challenge you to prove your position. Bring proof, if you can, that the early Christians regarded the first day of the week as any thing else than a religious festival; between which and a Sabbath there is a very important difference, the latter requiring abstinence from labor, the former merely requiring public worship in honor of the event commemorated, and allowing the remainder of the day to be spent in labor or amusement. PTJW November 1850, page 82.8
2. When it is once settled, that in a very early period of the church the first day was observed as a festival; when our opponents have fairly jaded themselves to a “weariness of the flesh,” in their “much study” of the old fathers to find proof of it;-though we never called it in question;-then the issue is, whether this festival was ordained by Christ?-whether the New Testament furnishes inspired example of such festival? Our opponents affirm; we deny. We maintain that in every passage of the New Testament, where the first day of the week is mentioned, the context furnishes a sufficient reason why it is mentioned, without the least necessity of supposing it to have been a festival season. No exception can be made to this, unless in regard to 1 Corinthians 16:2. The reason why the Apostle in this place specifies the first, rather than any other day of the week, does not so clearly appear from the context; but the peculiar phraseology employed, “let each one of you lay by him,” [himself,] is against the idea of any public meeting; and if no public meeting, of course no festival season. As every allusion to the first day of the week is sufficiently explained by other circumstances noticed in the context, the inferential proof of its festival character is thereby destroyed. As for clear, positive proof of it, such as express precept or command, no person of modesty pretends it. Still less is there any proof of its Sabbatic character. PTJW November 1850, page 83.1
3. Another point wherein we are necessarily at issue with great numbers of Christians, is whether the institution of the Sabbath is separable from the particular day to be observed. They affirm; we deny. We maintain that God’s blessing and sanctifying a particular day is the very thing in which the institution consists. To render this plain matter yet more plain, we invite close attention to the wording of the fourth commandment; premising, however, that the word Sabbath is not translated from a Hebrew word, but is the Hebrew word itself anglicized, just as baptism is an anglicized Greek word. The proper translation of the word is Rest.-Now let the word Rest be substituted for Sabbath, and how clear it becomes - PTJW November 1850, page 83.2
“Remember the Rest day to keep it holy.” [Surely some particular day is denoted; for it is THE Rest day, not A Rest day.] Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Rest of the Lord thy God. [Is it any where historically recorded as a fact that God rested on THE seventh day? It is. Genesis 2:2. ‘On the seventh day God rested from all his work which he had made.’ Who does not see that that day on which God rested, was the last of the seven which constituted the first week of time?] In it-[in WHAT? why, in the seventh day, the last day of the week; for the pronoun it can have no other antecedent]-thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. [WHY must no work be done on that particular day, the seventh or last day of the week! The reason follows.] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and RESTED on the seventh day, [as the record in Genesis 2:2 proves. See also Hebrews 4:4.] Wherefore the Lord blessed the Rest day and sanctified it.” PTJW November 1850, page 83.3
The conclusion is irresistible, that the Rest day spoken of is the particular day on which God rested from his work, which, as before shown, was the last day of the week. That very day, and no other, God blessed and sanctified. The only reason assigned why he sanctified it, is “because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Genesis 2:3. The Rest day, then, which we are required to observe, is “the Rest of the Lord thy God:” which does not mean the rest which the Lord thy God has appointed, though it is true that he has appointed it; nor does it mean a rest which becomes the Lord’s by reason of our appropriating it to him; but “the rest of the Lord thy God” means THE REST WHICH THE LORD THY GOD OBSERVED. PTJW November 1850, page 83.4
Now from all this we think it must be evident, that whoever observes any other Rest day than the seventh day of the week, does not observe the Rest-Sabbath-“of the Lord thy God.” He may, it is true, appropriate it to the Lord his God, and in that sense call it the Lord’s; but it can by no means be called “the Rest of the Lord thy God” in the sense of that expression in the fourth commandment. Hence, irresistible is our conviction, that he does not obey the commandment.-O brother Christian, why will you persist in maintaining that your Sunday keeping is an act of obedience to the law of the Sabbath?-[Sabbath Tract No. 8. PTJW November 1850, page 83.5
THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT
FALSE EXPOSITION AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.
THE Fourth Commandment has been variously expounded by its professed friends. Among these expositions, none has been more injurious than that which represents it as requiring the observance, not of the Sabbath, and the seventh day, but of a Sabbath, and a seventh day-not of a certain well-known time, but of an uncertain and varying time. Yet this is the exposition of it which is given both by commentators and writers on the subject of the Sabbath. It will be found, however, that this view is generally presented in order to prepare the way to introduce the first day of the week, under the specious name of Lord’s Day, into the place of the Sabbath. Thus some are made to think, that the name Sabbath may as well be applied to the first day of the week as to the seventh. But to such an exposition there are several serious objections:- PTJW November 1850, page 83.6
1. It is a perversion of the original text itself. In every place where the weekly Sabbath and the seventh day are spoken of, the Hebrew article is uniformly used. This article is often used like our demonstrative this-but more commonly like our definite article the-never as our indefinite article a or an; and Gesenius, in answer to the question whether it may be used indefinitely, says, “The definite article cannot rightly be said to stand indefinitely.” To this opinion agree all our translators, both ancient and modern, who have rendered the terms, both in the fourth commandment and all other places of the Scripture, by the Sabbath and the seventh day. PTJW November 1850, page 83.7
2. It makes the Fourth Commandment to be indefinite and absurd. If that commandment only requires the observance of a Sabbath or rest, and that on a seventh day, then one man might keep the seventh day, another the third day, and another the fifth day, yet all obey the commandment. What confusion would thus result from carrying out this exposition to its legitimate results!-But God’s commandment is not yea and nay after this manner. It says, “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” That man will not be held guiltless who misinterprets and misrepresents it, for however pious a purpose he may do so. PTJW November 1850, page 83.8
3. It is contrary to the teachings of the very men who give this exception; for they affirm, that the fourth commandment required the keeping of the seventh day until Christ came. Now, if the Jews before Christ, were bound to keep a certain and definite day, and that the seventh day, then the commandment required a certain and definite day, and that the seventh day. PTJW November 1850, page 83.9
From these considerations it is evident, that those who represent the fourth commandment as requiring observance of only a Sabbath, and that upon some one day of the seven indefinitely, are guilty of a false exposition of the commandment, and of handling the word of God deceitfully. They make a plain passage of Scripture to signify one thing for some thousands of years, and then ever afterwards to signify another thing.-Thus do they make void the commandment of God, that they may keep their own traditions. PTJW November 1850, page 84.1
Now let us turn to a consideration of some of the consequences of this kind of exposition. Among these we will mention only three. PTJW November 1850, page 84.2
1. It overturns all certainty in explaining the Scriptures. If a man, in translating from a Latin or Greek author, should pervert his author’s meaning in this manner, by using words in a different sense from that in which they were intended, he would be cast out and despised. But yet when a preacher represents the term the Sabbath as meaning simply a rest, that so he may call the first day of the week a rest, and therefore the Sabbath, he deals worse with the Scriptures than the translator just mentioned does with his profane author. Instead, however, of being cast out and despised, his speculations are allowed to go for truth. Thus unbelievers are encouraged in their infidelity; and occasion is given for them to say, that the Bible is interpreted by its friends to mean just what they please to have it. It is dangerous for men to use their wits thus to blind the eyes of their fellows. PTJW November 1850, page 84.3
2. It abolishes the Lord’s Sabbath, and makes the Fourth Commandment to be a mere cipher. First, it abolishes the Lord’s Sabbath, because it teaches that the observance of the seventh day, on which God rested, and which he introduced into the commandment as one with the Sabbath, is not at all binding, but the day may be spent in any kind of labor. Is not this to abolish the Lord’s Sabbath? Second, it makes the fourth commandment a cipher, because it takes away the time, which is the seventh day, and the event commemorated, which is God’s resting from his creative work. Now read the commandment, as these expounders would have it, bereft of the time and the event commemorated. It then commands only a rest, without any precept or example as to its length or frequency. One person, therefore, may rest one hour in each day; another one day in a month; and a third one month in a year; and each may call this keeping the Sabbath. Does not this make the fourth commandment a mere cipher. PTJW November 1850, page 84.4
3. It abuses God’s Word, and misleads his people. It abuses his word by representing that the Word teaches what it does not teach, and that it fails to teach what it attempts to teach. It misleads his people, on one side, by pressing the fourth commandment to sustain the first day of the week, which it says nothing about, thus laying a yoke upon the people, requiring them to observe a day, in regard to which they will finally be asked, Who hath required this at your hands? On the other side, it misleads the people, by encouraging them to neglect a day which God hath sanctified, and commanded them to keep holy. PTJW November 1850, page 84.5
Such are some of the consequences of this false exposition of the fourth commandment. They affect both the sabbatic institution itself, and those whose duty it is to remember it. It is true that the persons who countenance such expositions are called very zealous and godly men; but this, instead of bettering the case, makes it worse. If they were enemies to the commandment, such things might be expected, and would be comparatively unimportant; but that the wound should be inflicted by its own friends, aggravates the evil. There is occasion to tremble for such religious teachers, who profess great interest in the Sabbath, but who yet refuse to hear the truth in regard to it. Some such there are, who, if the truth be presented to them, instead of inquiring if these things are so, imitate the Jews of old who, when they were cut to the heart, gnashed on their reprover with their teeth; and when they could endure it no longer, “stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord.” Such would do well to inquire if they are not in this thing teaching error for truth, and their own traditions for the commandments of God.-[Sabbath Tract No. 9. PTJW November 1850, page 84.6
[Letter from Bro. Rhodes.]
DEAR BRO. WHITE,-By the help and blessing of the holy Lord God, whom my soul loveth, I continue till the present time holding fast the holy doctrine of Christ, taught us by the Holy Ghost, through God’s written word, during our past experience, while looking for the personal appearance of our blessed Saviour, Jesus Christ. While searching the “rich word of the Lord, I often exclaim, O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God.” And while contemplating the fulness there is in the Scriptures of truth, showing the chronology of the third angel’s message, and proving so clearly the correctness of our position, my heart melts with gratitude to God for his goodness, and mercy in calling me to see, and understand his saving truth. Oh! what floods of light continue to shine upon my ravished vision, unfolding to my mind new fields of meditation, sweet as Heaven. I know that I see with more clearness than ever before, the restoration of the present Church to the position occupied by the woman clothed with the sun, etc., Revelation 12:1, before our Lord shall come; for Christ hath said, “Elias shall first come, and restore all things.” Thanks be to God for truth that binds all opposition, and makes the child of God so free. PTJW November 1850, page 84.7
I do not remember where I was when I wrote to you last, and will begin the history of my journey, and labors in Wisconsin. I found Bro. Holcomb and his wife holding fast to their past experience, as far as the tenth day of the seventh month, ‘44; but had imbibed much of the spirit of the world. After hearing a little on the third angel’s message they both confessed the truth. Their eldest daughter, living near them, with another neighboring woman, is with them, strong in the faith. Their children, (four in number,) from ten to sixteen years of age, seemed to be deeply affected with the truth. The night, or a few nights before I arrived at Bro. Holcomb’s, the good Lord sent his Angel, in answer to prayer, and warned one of the family, in a dream, of my coming. Let us thank the Lord for dreams. PTJW November 1850, page 84.8
I went to the meeting where I expected to find N. A. Hitchcock, and found that he had moved far west, and no one knew where he lived. I had a more severe battle to pass through, than at the North Plains, Mich. [See Review No. 3.] The blessed Lord palsied the influence of six or seven preachers, and stood by poor unworthy me, in power, and took a few from the mouth of the lion, and planted them on the commandments of God, and will, if they continue, give them the faith of Jesus, etc. I baptized three the morning that I left. Higgins from Maine was at the meeting, with more animal magnetism than I have seen in any one since the seventh month, ‘44. The truth is mighty in binding these foul “Spirits of Devils.” I know that these spirits will soon be subject to the Saints of God. I returned rejoicing towards Wisconsin. Had a communion with Bro. Holcomb’s family, baptized four of his children, left them by Lake Pleasant weeping and rejoicing, while I started in haste to meet the Stage for Milwaukee. Arrived in Jackson, Mich., by Railroad, stopped with the Brethren over the Sabbath, broke bread, washed the Saints feet, got abundantly blessed. Left the band in Jackson in as good a place as any band I have seen in all my travels. May the Lord keep them unto his coming. I felt that I must see Bro. Case again before I left for the East. I went to North Plains, found him in the present truth, and more than a match for all his enemies. His eldest child fourteen years of age, was buried in baptism. Her face did truly shine, while her heart and mouth praised the Lord. Salvation is sweet, thank Heaven, Amen.-Bro. Case left with me for Bro. Guilford’s, found them in an awfully dark place. The eldest one confessed all the truth, several others came into the Sabbath, I think our labor will not be lost in that place; for the Lord wanted me to go there. Bro. Case came with me to Detroit, and then returned with horse and wagon to Jackson. Spent last Sabbath, probably there. I think he will go in search of the scattered sheep, for the Lord is showing him his light and truth very fast. I pray God to make him mighty in the truth. I want to see you very much, God bless you, Amen. S. W. RHODES. Greece, N. Y. Oct. 14, 1850. PTJW November 1850, page 84.9
[Letter from Bro. Bowles.]
DEAR BRO. WHITE,—I embrace the present moment to address you a few words. I left Bro. Rhodes the 9th inst., 160 miles west of here, (at La Porte, Indiana.) The particulars of our route, no doubt, he will give you. Suffice it for me to say that I think Bro. Rhodes has been the means in the hands of God of raising up three in the West that will be able to give the message, and that will give it, viz. Brn. Case, Kemp, and Catlin. Several were brought in on our way. I left Bro. Rhodes at Bro. Catlin’s, with a good prospect that others would embrace the truth. From there he goes to Illinois and Wisconsin. I think that he will be back here in about two or three weeks. The Brn. here are trying to do the best they can. We like the “Review.” Bro. Edson’s call to the Laodiceans, I think is in the right place. Yours in the blessed hope. PTJW November 1850, page 85.1
J. C. BOWLES.
Jackson, Mich., Sept. 17, 1850.
[Letter from Bro. Case.]
DEAR BRO. WHITE,-For the first time I sit down to write to you a few words. My mind is full. O, how shall I be thankful enough to the Lord that he put it into the heart of Bro. Rhodes to come to this dark part of the world, to give us the light on the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. This truth ravishes my soul. Truly it is the light that “shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” Glory to God! the path is plain and glorious. PTJW November 1850, page 85.2
While Bro. Rhodes was showing me the third angel’s message, the light in relation to the two horned beast, Revelation 13:11, came to my mind all at once, and to me the thing is clear that the two horned beast is the power of Church and State. It is an “image” of the Papal Beast to whom the dragon gave “his power, and his seat, and great authority.” The Papal Beast was church and state united. An image must be like the thing imitated; therefore, the image-beast is composed of church and state united-Protestant churches and Republicanism. The word of the Lord is plain. PTJW November 1850, page 85.3
I have been in a dark region a long time, and no one to give me spiritual food since 1844. I have read the “Harbinger” and “Herald,” and have seen their hatred towards each other, and none of the blessed spirit of Jesus seemed to be there. I did not know what to do or where to turn for to get the light that I wanted. I took up the “Harbinger” and “Herald” to get light, and found none; but frequent calls for money, read a little in them, and laid them down not at all satisfied, and wondered what was the matter. “The blind” were leading the blind, and if Bro. Rhodes had not come to see me, I think that I should have fallen into the “ditch.” O, praise the Lord for the light. PTJW November 1850, page 85.4
There are those with whom I have formed an acquaintance, in the State of New York, whom I have buried in baptism, beneath the yielding waves of the different waters there, that I should like to see rejoicing in the present truth, and know that they were keeping the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And could I see them, I believe they would receive the word and be sealed of the Lord, and help compose the army of the Lord, [Joel 2:11,] before whom he will utter his voice in the day of the Lord. I feel the truth in my soul, like fire shut up in my bones. I want to proclaim the third angel’s message; but I have not the means, or I would soon be out, trying to pull souls out of the fire. O, that the way may open before me. PTJW November 1850, page 85.5
The excitement that the truth has produced here is not small. Those who call themselves brethren have turned their influence against me, and are trying to injure me all they can, and keep the brethren from hearing the truth. We read of such characters in the LAST DAYS. “As Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses so do these also resist the truth,” etc. But thank God, “their folly shall be made manifest.” If the way opens I want to go into the field once more, to get some precious “jewels” for the “second casket.” PTJW November 1850, page 85.6
Yours in hope.
H. S. CASE.
North Plains, Mich., Sept. 15, 1850.
[Letter from Bro. Holt.]
OSWEGO, N. Y., Oct. 21, 1850.
DEAR BRO. WHITE.-Since I returned from Canada I have visited the brethren in Camden, and found most of them strong in the faith. Seven were baptized. I then went to St. Lawrence County, and found a few that manifested a desire for the truth. On my return, I visited the brethren in Copenhagen and Lorain. I found them steadfast in the truth, but in need of strength. PTJW November 1850, page 85.7
I then went to Oswego, and met with the brethren on the Sabbath. The Lord poured out his Spirit, and we had a time of refreshing; fourteen were baptized. I then went to Bro. Chapin’s and other places in that vicinity. Some confessed the truth. One week yesterday I met with Dear Bro. Rhodes four miles from Rochester. I called to see Bro. and Sister Rood in Ontario, who have lately come into the truth, and some others that there is hope of. PTJW November 1850, page 85.8
We met in conference the 18th, at Bro. Stoor’s. The spirit and power of God was poured out in the meeting from the commencement to its close. The Spirit of the Lord seemed to take the entire lead of the meeting; thirty-three were baptized. I rejoice to see the people of God rising in Western New York. I feel like going night and day to bear the glorious message. It grows better and better. Glory to God. My love to yourself, wife and all the saints. GEO. W. HOLT. PTJW November 1850, page 85.9
Bro. Rhodes writes from Oswego, Oct. 21,-“I feel strong in the strength of the living word of God. We have had a meeting similar to the one you wrote of at Topsham, Me. The brethren at Oswego and Sterling were free. PTJW November 1850, page 86.1
You have my heart and prayers in publishing a paper. I know that a paper is needed very much. I start this P. M. for Volney, Schroeppel, Bro. Miller’s, Fayetteville, Brookfield and Camden. PTJW November 1850, page 86.2
Pray for unworthy me. I ask it with tears. O, how I love you. Love and fellowship in the Holy Ghost to all in Christ.” PTJW November 1850, page 86.3
S. W. RHODES.
[ARTICLE BY MRS. E. G. WHITE, pp. 86, 87, “Dear Brethren and Sisters”—Omitted-See EGW CD] PTJW November 1850, page 86.4
SWINE’S FLESH
Some of our good brethren are troubled in regard to eating swine’s flesh, and a very few abstain from it, thinking that the Bible forbids its use. We do not object to abstinence from the use of swine’s flesh, if it is done on the right grounds. We think that too free and abundant use of it, and other animal food, of which many, and even some of our brethren in the present truth are not guiltless, is a sin; for it clogs and stupefies the mind, and in many cases impairs the constitution; but we do not, by any means, believe that the Bible teaches that its proper use, in the gospel dispensation, is sinful. But we do object to a misapplication of the holy scriptures in sustaining a position which will only distract the flock of God, and lead the minds of the brethren from the importance of the present work of God among the remnant. Error, however small it may appear, darkens and fetters the soul, and if persisted in will lead to gross darkness, and great errors, and sooner or later its fatal results will appear. PTJW November 1850, page 87.1
The principal texts that are quoted to prove that the Gentile church is forbidden to eat swine’s flesh are Isaiah 65:4; 66:17. Now we do really think that these texts fall far short of affording sufficient proof on this point. In fact, we must believe they have no direct bearing on this time. The burning of “incense upon altars of brick,” remaining “among the graves,” lodging “in the monuments,” and sacrificing “in gardens” are rebuked in connection with eating “swine’s flesh.” Now, if one applies literally to our day, then, certainly all do; but we think that no one will undertake a literal application of the whole of Isaiah 65:4; 66:17, to this time. This is one reason why we think that these texts have no literal bearing on this time. PTJW November 1850, page 87.2
The first verse of Isaiah 65, is evidently the call of the Gentiles. The three following verses show the rebellion and idolatry of the Jews. It was a sin for them to eat swine’s flesh. The fifth verse shows their blindness, self-righteousness and hypocrisy. “Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou.” The Jews boasted of their zeal in the law, rebuked the Son of God, and falsely charged him with its violation, and finally crucified him. PTJW November 1850, page 87.3
But as we may not all see just alike as to what the Prophet teaches on this subject, let us come to the New Testament. And what do we find? Certainly, if eating swine’s flesh is a sin in the sight of Heaven, in this dispensation, the New Testament has in some way taught us the fact. But we find that the New Testament does not, directly nor indirectly, teach any such thing. PTJW November 1850, page 87.4
Our opponents say that the Sabbath is not taught and enforced in the New Testament; but it is a false assertion; for the followers of Jesus rested on the Sabbath according to the COMMANDMENT, after the crucifixion. St. Paul preached every Sabbath day, not only in the synagogues, but by the water side, and what is more than all, and which is proof positive that the Sabbath is taught and enforced in the New Testament, is, that the law of God, and the commandments of God, which embraces the Sabbath, and which means nothing more nor less than the ten commandments, are, by Jesus and his apostles shown to be immutable, and are made a test of christian fellowship and of eternal salvation. PTJW November 1850, page 87.5
But the New Testament so far from teaching that the use of swine’s flesh is wrong, that it affords good testimony that it is not forbidden. First, take the case of the Apostle Peter, when God was about to send him to preach to the Gentiles. His Jewish views and feelings in relation to common and unclean beasts that did not part the hoof and chew the cud, see Leviticus 11, must first be removed before he could see that God was no respecter of persons, and that there was salvation for the Gentiles. “About the sixth hour,” (noon,) “Peter went upon the housetop to pray.” “He became very hungry, and would have eaten;” and in this state “fell into a trance.” The opening heavens discovered to him “a certain vessel” descending, in which “were ALL MANNER of four-footed beast.” etc. Certainly, swine were there. The sudden appearance of these beasts no doubt aroused Peter’s Jewish feelings and prejudices for he considered many of them “UNCLEAN.” At this point “there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter, kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or UNCLEAN.” This vision, and the connected circumstances, rid the Apostle of his exclusive feelings, and opened the way for him to preach to, and eat with the Gentiles. PTJW November 1850, page 87.6
Now look at some of the trials of the apostolic church, on the subject of eating with the Gentiles, and some other points of the law of Moses, and the final decision of the conference of apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem. See Acts,chap 15. Judaizing teachers taught the churches that they, in order to be saved must keep the law of Moses. This at once caused divisions among them, and called forth the following from the Apostle Paul. “Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not, JUDGE him that eateth.” See Romans 14:1-6. “Let no man therefore JUDGE you in meat, etc.” See Colossians 2:14-17. The Gentile converts used swine’s flesh, and other meats which were “abomination” to the Jews, while the converts from the Jewish church were inclined to still follow the law of Moses in these things, and were JUDGING the Gentile converts, and binding on them burdens which the gospel did not require. PTJW November 1850, page 87.7
A conference was convened at Jerusalem to settle the question. Now read their decision, which they wrote to the brethren which were “of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia.” PTJW November 1850, page 87.8
“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. Acts 15:28, 29. PTJW November 1850, page 87.9
Mark this: Their whole christian duty was not embraced in the “letters” which they sent to the Gentile churches, as some would make us believe, in order to do away with God’s Holy Sabbath, no, certainly not; but those points of dispute were embraced which were dividing the flock of God. PTJW November 1850, page 88.1
Some of our good brethren have added “swine’s flesh” to the catalogue of things forbidden by the Holy Ghost, and the apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem. But we feel called upon to protest against such a course, as being contrary to the plain teaching of the holy scriptures. Shall we lay a greater “burden” on the disciples than seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and the holy apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ? God forbid. Their decision, being right, settled the question with them, and was a cause of rejoicing among the churches, and it should forever settle the question with us. PTJW November 1850, page 88.2
Some may be interested in learning the origin of the Hymn on the first page of this number. In the spring of 1845, the author of the vision, published in this paper, was very sick, nigh unto death. The elders of the church were finally called, and the directions of the apostle [James 5:14, 15,] were strictly followed. God heard, answered and healed the sick. The Holy Spirit filled the room, and she had a vision of the “city,” “life’s pure river,” “green fields,” “roses of Sharon,” “songs” of “lovely birds,” the “harps,” “palms,” “robes,” “crowns,” the “mount” Zion, the “tree of life,” and the “King of that country” mentioned in the Hymn. A brother took up his pen, and in a very short time composed the hymn from the vision. It has been published in two or three Second Advent papers, Smith’s collection of hymns, and finally found its way into the “Advent Harp,” published by J. V. Himes in 1849. Let those who “despise prophesyings,” and reject the fulfillment of God’s word in visions of the “LAST DAYS,” remember when they sing this hymn, that it was composed from a vision. PTJW November 1850, page 88.3
THE PAPER. The brethren may now expect to receive a few numbers, and we hope that our brethren and sisters, who can write, will be free to send in their communications. They should be brief, and strictly confined to the present truth. We shall not object to long articles, if they are full of truth and interest. We want to hear, especially, from the dear brethren that travel, how the cause prospers, and of their success in searching out the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Such letters will give interest to the paper, and cheer the “little flock.” PTJW November 1850, page 88.4
We have sent the paper to many that we have not heard from, and fear that we have been at expense and labor in sending it where it is not wanted. To avoid this, we invite all who receive this number, who have not expressed a desire to receive, to write immediately, if they desire it continued. It is a great pleasure to send it out free of charge, especially to the poor, and all who have any interest in the truth can do no less than to write if they wish the paper continued. Therefore, we shall drop quite a number of names, if we do not hear from them soon. PTJW November 1850, page 88.5
Let all the brethren be prompt to send the names address of those who wish to receive the paper. PTJW November 1850, page 88.6
SUPPLEMENT TO THE HYMN BOOK. A few more Sabbath hymns are needed, and we think best to get out a supplement to the Hymn Book, to contain Sabbath and other appropriate hymns. We want the brethren to send in hymns, original or select, at their earliest convenience. PTJW November 1850, page 88.7
THE CHART. A chronological chart of the visions of Daniel and John, calculated to illustrate clearly the present truth, is now being lithographed under the care of Bro. Otis Nichols, of Dorchester, Mass. Those who teach the present truth will be greatly aided by it. PTJW November 1850, page 88.8
Further notice of the chart will be given hereafter. PTJW November 1850, page 88.9
There will be a conference of the brethren at Paris, Me., Nov. 16, to hold over the first day. We hope that Bro. Rhodes will meet with us. The scattered brethren are invited to attend the meeting. PTJW November 1850, page 88.10
[We give a portion of a very interesting letter from Bro. Bates. The most of it is omitted for want of room.] PTJW November 1850, page 88.11
“Perhaps, a brief sketch of my tour in Vt. and N. H. after I parted with you at the general conference in Sutton, Vt., may be interesting to you and also to the little flock. PTJW November 1850, page 88.12
You know Bro. Stephen Smith was anxious for me to go with him to Lebanon, N. H., to visit Eld. Joseph Baker, who was one of God’s strong men, in the judgment hour cry, and fall of Babylon. Bro. Baker, and his companion, received us kindly. Our meeting commenced in the evening. After a while, I said, I fear I shall weary you. No, said he, go on brother, I want to hear the whole. I was trying to chain the three angels messages together, making the work of God a straight, clear, perfect, and harmonious history, for the last ten years. The next morning before we parted, said he, this is the truth; it has been working in my mind these years. I learned afterwards that his brethren were anxious to see him out with the third angel’s message. I trust that God is fitting him to sound this mighty cry. PTJW November 1850, page 88.13
Our meeting at Waitsfield was blessed of God. Brother and Sister Butler came from Waterbury with Brn. Chamberlain and Churchill. Brn. Hart and Brailey came from Northfield; and those in the place with Bro. Lockwood’s family, composed our meeting. PTJW November 1850, page 88.14
Bro. Butler finally yielded to the present truth. His wife was much strengthened and blessed. Brn. Hart and Brailey, of Northfield, confessed the whole truth; and praised the Lord for the third angel’s message. PTJW November 1850, page 88.15
The Lord made it our duty to accompany Brother and Sister Butler to Waterbury. Here at the house that has been open for meetings, so many years, a little company gathered, and Bro. Butler drank deeper into the straight truth. His eldest daughter, then at home on a visit, heard readily and settled on the right Sabbath. Praise the Lord. PTJW November 1850, page 88.16
At Bennington, we met Bro. Smith again, also, our tried Bro. Hastings, son and daughter. Our meeting was interrupted once, by a professed teacher in the open door and no-Sabbath view. We listened to him a while. I believe that all were satisfied that he was enveloped in thick darkness as to the present truth. A little after he had given his unexplained message, he left us; the meeting progressed, all growing stronger, and stronger in the truth. PTJW November 1850, page 88.17
The two Bro. Martins and their companions, with two others in Bennington, professed their clear convictions of the seventh-day Sabbath, and shut door. So you see, dear brother, that in places where all was dark and dreary, a few weeks since, light is now springing up. Then let all the swift messengers that God has called, and still is calling into the field, to give the loud cry of the third angel, move forward.” PTJW November 1850, page 88.18
JOSEPH BATES.
Fairhaven, Mass., Nov. 4, 1850.
Our Post Office address is Paris, Maine.
JAMES WHITE.