The Testimonies of Mrs. E.G. White Compared with the Bible

By H.C. Blanchard, 1877 (formatted for the Internet by Gary Gent)

"To the Law and to the Testimony: if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." --Isaiah

"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." I Thess. 5:21.

Now, that it is the duty of Christians to be cautious in regard to things pertaining to their eternal welfare, is apparent to everyone. The blessed Jesus has many times cautioned us not to be deceived. In his prophetic discourse, Matt. 24:4, he says, "Take heed that no man deceive you." Notwithstanding this caution he tells us that many will be deceived, v. 11. He also says in Matt. 7:15, "Beware of false prophets." Paul is teaching the same doctrine when he says, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good."

Brief History with SDA Church

But before entering further into this subject it may not be amiss to give a brief history of my experience among Seventh Day Adventists. In the year 1861, I united with them in church fellowship, covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (which since I have endeavored to do). Soon after I received license to preach. At that time I knew but little about the visions of Mrs. White. The first of her writings that I read was Experience and Views. Then the work entitled The Great Controversy [Spiritual Gifts - The Great Controversy Between Christ and His angels, and Satan and His Angels, 1858]. I then believed them to be of heavenly origin. At length her visions on health reform fell into my hands, some of which I did not heartily endorse, [and] consequently said but little on the subject. This was thought by my brethren in the ministry to be of sufficient cause to begin to look after me. In the year 1869, I moved from the State of Illinois to Missouri, being a member of the Ills. and Wis. Conference, in good standing as far as I knew.

But to return to the subject. As I have said, I did not preach the visions and health reform, but I still continued to labor with the Seventh Day Adventists. Some of the officials of the Kansas and Missouri Conference of which I was then a member, went to some of the churches which God, through my labor had raised up, and found them still in the use of tea, coffee, flesh meats, and even pork, in some instances. Now come with me and listen to the following conversation between these officials and some of the church members. The Elder sits down to dinner, and sees tea, coffee, &c., on the table.

"Bro., have a cup of coffee."


"Take a piece of meat."


"Have some of the onions."

"No; they are not fit to eat."

The Elder asks, "Has Elder Blanchard preached on the health reform and visions of Sister White here yet?"


Thus they have followed up from place to place until they came to the conclusion that Eld. Blanchard was not sound in the faith on these points.

In the year 1874, my credentials were withheld. I mention these things that you may see that S. D. Adventists have and do make these things a test of fellowship. The President of the General Conference wrote to me, under date of June 10th, 1874, and after stating that my credentials were withheld, and that he had advised such a course to be pursued, says: "Your position on the visions and health reform has been, to say the least, equivocal." Thus it is plain to see that my credentials were withheld because I did not preach the visions of Mrs. White, health reform, &c. My credentials were renewed in the year 1875, a short time before the Annual Conference, through the influence of Bro. J. H. Rogers, the President of the Conference, with the understanding on the part of Bro. Rogers that I was to make concessions to the Conference, a matter which I was ignorant of until informed by C. F. Stevens, one of the Conference Committee. Bro. Rogers and I had no such talk. He spoke to me in regard to renewing my credentials, at the house of Brother Horn, in Avilla, Mo. I said to him, "If the Conference think they have done wrong in withholding them, and wish to renew them, I have no desire to stand separate from the body if I could be allowed to act on these subjects untrammeled."

I labored under the direction of the Conf. (13 weeks) until the next annual Conf. There was a coolness on the part of some of the ministers. Eld. Canright interviewed me privately on the visions, health reform, pork eating, &c. He said I ought to be the president of the Conf., and so said one of the committee on nominations. My credentials were renewed, as I afterwards learned, through some opposition. It was very clear to my mind that I had to sacrifice what I believed to be the truth of God, violate my conscience, and act the part of a hypocrite, or return my credentials. My brethren were not willing to let me act in regard to these subjects as I thought God wished me to, consequently I returned my credentials to the president of the Conference.

After some 4 or 5 months, I preached my views fully on these subjects to the Labette church (Kansas) of which I was a member. This brought much opposition on the part of some of my brethren. In March, 1876, Eld. Cook visited our church, remained two or three weeks, and I attended his meetings. He treated me with the utmost indifference, comparing me to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. He said, "Rebellion was rebellion in any age of the world, and that they [Korah, Dathan, Abiram] were no doubt as honest as I was."

They could not turn me out of the church, a majority of the members being with me in doctrine. I invited the Elder to discuss our differences before the public, but he refused to do so. I have since extended the same invitation to Eld. Ayers, now President of the Kansas Conference. He likewise refused, and unless they come and meet the issue squarely let them cease to denounce me as a "rebel against God."

May 13th, 1876, at a business meeting of the church, by the advice of G. I. Butler, and others, fourteen members withdrew from the church, passing several preambles and resolutions, some of which I will copy.

Whereas the church of Seventh Day Adventists of Labette Co., Kan., have elements of disunion, represented by the teaching of Eld. H. C. Blanchard (formerly a member of the S. D. Adventists), by gross misrepresentation of S. D. A., saying they had departed from the faith and were giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of Devils, denouncing the health reform, holding up certain extreme personal testimonies as of general force, whether the same reason existed or not, &c., &c., and Whereas these conflicting sentiments will never bring union, Therefore,

Resolved, 1st, That we withdraw our fellowship from Eld. H. C. Blanchard and all kindred movements.

Resolved, 2nd, As we believe the S. D. Adventists are the true people of God, we endorse their teachings, believing them to be true, and will try to put them in practice.

Resolved, 3rd, That in withdrawing from the old organization we do not withdraw from the body, but we do this that we may work in harmony with the body, thus cutting loose from all opposition.

Resolved, 4th, That we endorse the usual covenant of S. D. Adventists.

Resolved, 5th, That we will faithfully stand by and for each other, all to which we subscribe our names.

After passing the above resolutions they withdrew to a private house to finish up their business. After they had gone I made some remarks to the remaining part of the church, who asked me to take the pastoral care of the church. I did so, and we have held meetings regularly since.

I will now return to the subject first introduced to "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." 1 Thess. 5:21. This is an instance where the word "all" does not mean everything. If so, the spirit requires more of us than we are able to do. The "all things" we are to prove are prophesyings, verse 20. Now, as we are told here not to despise prophesyings, but to prove them, it becomes our absolute duty to examine such as come to us claiming divine inspiration. And now the question arises, By what authority shall we test them? The Bible is certainly the true standard by which we should prove them. Isa. 8:20, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." Now, Mrs. E. G. White comes to us claiming to be a prophetess of the Lord. I have now before me prophesyings to the amount of 1000 pages or more, in Testimonies to the Church. Now it is not necessary for me to examine all these various subjects which she introduces to see whether they are of God or not. You will see by the resolutions already mentioned, that I am charged with gross misrepresentations of S. D. Adventists, in saying they had departed from the faith, &c., denouncing health reform, and holding up certain extreme personal "testimonies" as of general force, whether the same reason existed or not.

Health Reform

Now, I think I can show you that this is not true. First, let us see what this so-called health reform is. We will let S. D. Adventists tell us. Principles of Health Reform, page 5, reads as follows:

"We cannot in this tract go into the details of a proper dietary, but would simply say, Let the highly seasoned preparations of fine flour, the abominable swine's flesh, and the meat of all other animals, all of which is more or less diseased, give place to the more nutritious and vastly more wholesome grain, fruits, and vegetables, which the Creator has designed as food for man."

Again, "Pure soft water is the only drink, and should be the only beverage." (Principles of Health Reform, or What Health Reform Is, and What It Is Not, page 9). It also adopts a short dress and pants to be worn by the sisters, and discards butter, cheese, sugar, milk, &c. Now, if S. D. Adventists had advised these things from a health standpoint, I should have no objection. But when they claim that they are sustained by the Bible, and also by divine inspiration through the testimonies of Mrs. White, it becomes of the greatest importance. But on comparing them with the Bible we shall not find them mentioned, but squarely contradicted. I will first read from Testimony No. 11, p. 41. "I was shown that the health reform is part of the third angel's message, and is just as closely connected with this message, as the arm and hand with the human body." Again, "One important part of their work [the minister's] is to faithfully present to the people the health reform, as it stands connected with the third angel's message, as a part and parcel of the same work, which they should not fail to enter into themselves, and should urge it upon all who profess to believe the truth."

Now, my readers, you can see at once why my credentials were withheld and why they withdrew their fellowship from me. And certainly, if these testimonies are what they profess to be, they were right in withdrawing their fellowship from me. But I say, without any fear of successful contradiction, that they are not of God. Where does the Bible tell ministers that they must preach the health reform? It is simply an addition to the word of the Lord. Jesus says, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." What shall we teach them? These testimonies says health reform. Hear Jesus, "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Now, we will see what he says in regard to eating and drinking. He said to the seventy, "Go your ways, ... and into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house... And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give... And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you." Again, 1 Cor. 10:27, "If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and you be disposed to go, whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no questions for conscience' sake." I ask, Can a strict health reformer do as here instructed? Oh what a contrast between the teachings of our Lord and these testimonies on this subject! Ministers, under the former, went out preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom of God. When they were invited to share the hospitality of any one they ate and drank such things as were set before them. But how is it with the latter? I leave you to judge, my reader, and if you have had the experience that I have, I think you will say in many instances they could not follow out our Lord's teachings, and not violate their own conscience.

But not only do these testimonies contradict the Bible, but they subsequently contradict themselves. Now please turn to Testimony No. 12, page 85: "The health reform is closely connected with the work of the third [angel's] message, yet it is not the message. Our preachers should teach the health reform, yet they should not make this the leading theme in the place of the message." This contradicts Testimony No. 11, p. 19, already introduced, where she says the health reform is a part of the message. I should like to know which one of these Testimonies we are to believe? Perhaps we are to console ourselves, as a minister did when I pointed out this contradiction to him. He admitted it, but soon after, in a meeting, when he was urging the visions, I asked him if he did not say there was a contradiction in these "testimonies." He replied Yes; but justified himself by saying there are contradictions in the Bible. I do not deny but that there are apparent contradictions in the Bible, but that they cannot be reconciled I do deny. But there are those among the S. D. Adventists who are determined to advocate the visions, if they know they contradict themselves, the Bible and all common sense; even saying, If they are not of the Lord they have no more use for their Bibles.

If the health reform is part and parcel of the third angel's message, it is well to see what this message is. It is brought to view in Rev. 14:9-12, and is a warning against the worship of the beast of chapter 13:1-10, which Protestants generally apply to the church of Rome. The Romish church presumed to legislate on the law of God, and especially on the fourth commandment. Thus you see we are warned against worshiping or following this usurping power. This addition of health reform bears too plainly the mark of its earthly origin.

We will now contrast some of these "testimonies" with the Bible. Test. No. 18, page 13:

"You place upon your tables the meat, the butter, and the eggs. The children partake of these things. The parents are feeding them with the very things that will excite their animal passions, an then they come to the meeting, and pray, and ask God to bless their children, and save them. How high do your prayers go? You have a work to do first. When you have done all for your children which God has left for you to do, then you can with confidence claim the special help God has promised to give you."

Parents, you have a work to do. What is this work? To keep meat, butter, eggs, and all food of like quality from your children. (How many of you are doing this?) When you have done this then there will be some chance for their salvation!

What does the Bible say in regard to these things? Gen. 9:3, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you, even as the green herb have I given you all things." Deut. 12:15, "Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God, which he hath given thee." Here you can see is another contradiction of the Bible. Again, Testimony 18, page 20: "I broke away from meat, butter, ..." Again, page 194, "No butter nor flesh meats of any kind comes on my table." Thus it is clearly seen that these testimonies do not allow the use of butter. We will appeal to the Bible again. Gen. 18:8, "And he took butter and milk and the calf which he had dressed, and set it before them under the tree, and they did eat." Hear again from the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good."

What about setting eggs before our children? See Luke 11:11-13: "If a son ask bread of any of you that is a father will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish will he give him a serpent? or if he ask an egg will he give him a scorpion? If ye being evil know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Here you will see that Jesus regards fish and eggs as good gifts. But these testimonies forbid the use of them, and that by divine inspiration as it is claimed. Now, I ask, Is Christ divided against himself? No, my readers, he is ever the same blessed Jesus, always teaching the same thing without any contradiction whatever.

In Testimony No. 15, page 56, we read, "Cheese should never be taken into the stomach." The Bible does not talk this way, for it recognizes cheese as an article of food. See 1 Sam. 17:18; 2nd Sam. 17:29. But it is claimed that this is an extreme personal testimony, and not of general force. Eld. J. H. Cook, while laboring with the Labette church, March 1876, charged me with misrepresenting these testimonies. He said they were personal and local; and when the division took place in the church, by the minority withdrawing, they also echoed the same thing. I. D. Santee, in an attempt to meet me on these points, and to sustain their charges, said I had perverted the foregoing Testimonies, especially in regard to what is said of cheese. He said the clause, "Cheese should never be introduced into the stomach," applies to the brother and sister addressed, and those in like condition. Oh, what stupidity! How men get enveloped in their own fog when they leave the light of God's holy word. I maintained that the real meaning of this clause was that cheese should never be introduced into any human stomach. I charged Bro. Santee with knowing better, and offered to leave it to the county school Superintendent, which he agreed to. The decision was given in my favor, making it of general application. And so of all these charges of misrepresentation of these testimonies I defy them to show in one single instance where I have misrepresented them. But instead of coming up and harmonizing these professed visions of the Lord with his word, they are crying, "Rebellion! Rebellion! Gross misrepresentations, &c."

Again, Testimony No. 15, pages 49, 50:

You have repeatedly said in defense of your indulgence of meat eating, However injurious it may be to others, it does not injure me, for I have used it all my life. But you know not how well you might been if you had abstained from the use of flesh meats. You are far from being a family free from disease. You have used the fat of animals which God in his word expressly forbids. It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood. Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast in any of your dwellings. Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood even that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Here, my reader, is another contradiction of the Bible. In the first place you will see by consulting the Bible that neither the Jews, nor any other people, were ever prohibited from eating fat of animals, in a general sense. It is true that they were commanded not to eat certain parts of the fat of animals offered in sacrifice. See Lev. 3:14-16: "And he shall offer thereon his offering, even an offering made by fire unto the Lord, the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is upon them, which is by the flanks, and the caul above the liver with the kidneys, it shall he take away. And the priest shall burn them upon the altar: It is the food of the offering made by fire for a sweet savor: all the fat is the Lord's." Also chapter 7:25, "For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from among his people."

This verse clearly shows that it is the fat of the beasts of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. It is also clear that this prohibition did not extend to all animals, but only to such as were offered in sacrifice, and then only certain parts of the fat which was to be burned on the altar. To see that they were permitted to eat fat let us turn to Deut. 32:14, "Butter of kine and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape." Again, Neh. 8:10: "Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, drink the sweet," &c. So it is clearly proved that the command that is here referred to as being violated is false, and the spirit that dictated this Testimony is false, and such as our Lord told us to beware of.

Again, this testimony in regard to the man's eating fat of animals, against the express command of God can be shown to be false from another standpoint. Suppose we should admit for the sake of argument that God did give a command against eating the fat of animals (a thing impossible if they were permitted to use them for food), I ask is such command binding on people now? Paul says, Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Tim. 2:15. Either Mrs. W. has neglected to do this, or she is actuated by a wrong spirit. Isaiah says, "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Consequently any who speak contrary to the Word are spirits of darkness.

I will now endeavor to show that here are two kinds of laws in the Old Testament, moral and ceremonial, and that they are two distinct and separate laws, the one unlimited the other limited, and that this supposed command in regard to eating fat belongs to the latter. I will first identify the moral law. See Deut. 4:13, "And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Also Deut. 10:4, "And he wrote on the tables according to the first writing, the ten commandments." This law was put into the ark. See Deut. 10:5, and is in full force now. Proof: See Deut 7:9 compared with Matt. 1:17; Ps. 103:17, 18; 111:7-9; 119:160, 172, compared with Isa. 51:6; Matt. 5:17-19; 19:17; Luke 16:17; Rom. 2:17-29; 3:31; 7:7; James 2:80-11; Rev. 12:17; 14:12; 22:14. This is sufficient to establish the perpetuity and universality of the moral law. I shall next identify the Levitical or ceremonial law. See Ex. 24:3-8. Here you will see, verse that Moses told the people all the words of the Lord. They agreed to be obedient, verse 4; he wrote these words, verse 7, and Moses took the book of the covenant (which he had written, verse 4), and read it to the people; they said, We will be obedient. The eighth verse shows the dedication of the covenant. Paul shows in Heb. 9:18-20 that this is the first covenant. He says, "Whereupon neither the first testament [covenant] was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you." That this book is distinct and separate from the oral law is shown by Exodus 24:12, "And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest teach them." Thus you will see that the ten commandments are not part of the first covenant, but the immutable law of God, which, as before shown, was put into the ark, Deut. 10:5; but the book of the law was put into the side of (or more correctly, beside) the ark.

That it was not in the ark is proved by Heb. 9:4. Now, how long was the law obligatory on man? Paul tells us in Gal. 3, that it was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made. He tells us in verse 16 that this seed was Christ. So you can see that this law was limited. Again he says, "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Eph. 2:15. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Col. 2:14.

Now to which of these two laws did the law in regard to eating fat belong? Not to the ten commandments for they say nothing on this subject. By reference to 2 Chron. 34:14, compared with verse 30, you will see that the book of the covenant and the book of the law are interchangeable, that is one and the same thing. We have already shown that this covenant or law was abolished at the cross. Consequently, if it cannot be shown that it was reenacted, it is not in force. But these testimonies, claiming divine inspiration, teach it is as binding. We might simply deny and wait for those who stand ready to defend these testimonies to prove this commandment now binding, but we fear we should have to wait too long.

What saith the Scriptures on this subject? See Acts 15:1, "And certain men who came down from Judea taught the brethren and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." The second verse informs us that Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this matter, and laid it before them, verse 5; but there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees, which believed, saying that it was needful to circumcise them and to command them to keep the law of Moses. In verse 10 Peter says, "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers or we were able to bear." The very thing that S. D. Adventists are doing now. This venerable council came to the following conclusion, as you will learn from verses 24-29. In the 24th verse we read: "Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went out from us, have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, ye must be circumcised and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment." Verse 28, "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." Is there anything said here about eating fat of animals? Not one single word. What was this dispute about? Whether the Gentiles should keep the law of Moses or not. So this law in regard to eating fat was nailed to the cross more than eighteen hundred years ago. Go back to Leviticus 3:17. You will see that says, "that ye eat neither fat nor blood." Then step forward to Acts 15:29, and you will see that they retain the prohibition against eating blood, but not against eating fat. Thus it is clearly shown that this express command eating the fat of animals is wholly an addition to the word of the Lord, and contradicts it. Oh, the delusions of these last days! May God save the honest! But the most distressing feature is to see ministers of the gospel who have so much truth, trying to force these contradictions of the Bible [testimonies that contradict the Bible] on the people.

Again, I quote from Testimony No. 15, p. 82.

God has given you light and brought knowledge direct to you which you have professed to believe came direct from him, instructing you to deny your appetite. Also that the use of swine's flesh was in disregard of his express command; not because he wished to especially show his authority, but because its use was injurious to those who should eat it.... Light has come just as soon as God's people could bear it, in regard to disease caused by using this gross article of food. Have you heeded the light?

Please observe that it is here stated that the use of swine's flesh is in disregard of his (God's) command. Consequently if this testimony is true it follows that those who make use of swine as an article of food are sinners, for sin is the transgression of the law (John 3:4), and are in great danger of being lost; hence we should examine this subject with the greatest care. That you may see that S. D. Adventists do mention that those who eat swine's flesh will be lost, I will give a quotation from the pen of Eld. White: "We affirm on the authority of the sacred Scriptures, that the ordinance relative to eating the flesh of swine, Deut. 14:8, is not done away.... Ye shall not eat of their flesh, is as really binding on Christians as the precept, Thou shalt not steal." Health Reformer, Vol. 7, No. 1.

Again, pp. 18, 19:

These (Christians) profess to receive the word of God as a rule of faith and practice, and yet that very word says of the swine, It is unclean unto you; you shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their dead carcass, Deut. 14:8. If it be said that this prohibition is Jewish and therefore not binding upon Christians, then we reply, The distinction between the clean beasts and the unclean recognized at the flood, long before the existence of a single Jew, was established upon the very character of God's living creatures. This distinction received the sanction of law in the days of Moses; not because God would have an arbitrary rule for the Jews for sixteen centuries, but because these things forbidden were of themselves unclean ["I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." Rom. 14:14], and abominable for man to use as food.

Thus you will see by the above quotation that Eld. White is teaching the same doctrine that is taught in these testimonies, viz.; That the law making a distinction in meats is now in full force. But we have already shown that the law to which this distinction belongs is done away.

Now where in the new covenant are we commanded to observe this distinction in meats? Where in the New Testament shall we find the chapter and verse where Christ or his apostles forbid us to eat the flesh of the swine? It cannot be found. But, my readers, you can find that this distinction is done away. Jesus said unto the Pharisees, "But rather give alms of such things as ye have, and behold, all things are clean unto you." Luke 11:41. That this distinction in meats is done away is clearly shown in Acts 10:9-15. But the question may be asked, If swine was unclean under the old covenant what change has taken place under the new to make them clean? If they were unclean because of their habits, their nature, &c., then the same argument might be used against their use now. But this is not true, for two reasons. 1st, The swine is not as filthy in his habits as some of the clean animals. For instance, the common fowl. They are certainly more filthy than the swine, literally reveling in the vilest filth. Also the grasshopper which is certainly very filthy in his habits. So any one can readily see that it was not because of their habits that they were unclean. Again the common rabbit (a species of the hare) is a very cleanly animal in his habits, selecting his food from grains, fruit, and vegetables, with taste and care, and yet it was unclean under the Levitical law. The horse is also a model of cleanliness, and yet he was reckoned among the unclean animals.

My second reason might now be asked why were some animals clean and others unclean under the old dispensation? I answer, Not for the reason that the clean were fit for food and the unclean were not, but for a ceremonial or sacrificial purpose, from the fact that the distinction existed before man had any permission to eat animal food. See Gen. 7:2, 8. Chapter 8:20 tells us that Noah took of every clean beast, and of ever clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. This clearly shows us that this distinction was not for a sanitary but for a sacrificial purpose. Hence the reason for this distinction ending with the offering of Christ ("once for all") on the cross, the end of this law, as we have before proved.

I will now show you that Eld. White and wife once taught the same that we are now teaching in regard to the meat question. Mrs. W. once taught in vision that it was not wrong to eat swine, which she has since contradicted (in vision). Testimony No. 5, pp. 27-29. "Some have gone too far in the eating question. They have taken a rigid course and lied so very plain that their health has suffered. I was referred back to Rochester. I saw that when we lived there we did not eat nourishing food, as we should, and disease nearly carried us to the grave.... All this is outside of the word of God.... If God requires his people to abstain from swine's flesh he will convict them of the matter. If this is a duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh he will convict them of the matter. If this is a duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh God will discover it to more than two or three. He will teach his church their duty." What does she mean by nourishing food? Answer: "My husband was a dyspeptic. We could not eat meat or butter, and were obliged to abstain from all greasy food." "Take these from a poor man's table and it leaves a very spare diet. Our labors were so great that we needed nourishing food." Spiritual Gifts, vol. 2, p. 143, 144. Again, when writing to a Sister on the pork question, she says: "Dear Sister Curtis: I felt sorry for you as I read your letter. I believe you to be in error. The Lord showed me two or three years ago that the use of swine's flesh was no test. Dear Sister, if it is your husband's wish to use swine's flesh you should be perfectly clear to use it." Mrs. E. G. White's claims to Divine Inspiration Examined, by H. E. Carver, p. 28.

We will now hear Eld. White on this subject:

Some of our good brethren have added swine's flesh to the catalogue of things forbidden by the Holy Ghost when 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 settles the question with them, and was a cause of rejoicing among the churches, and it should forever settle it with us. Review, Vol. 5, No. 18.

It would have been well for the cause of S. D. Adventists if this truly scriptural doctrine had continued with them.

But what a contrast in their teachings now! Mrs. W. teaches (as we have already shown) in Testimony No. 15, p. 82, "that the use of swine's flesh was in disregard of his [God's] express command." This was in the year 1868. But the Adventist people were slow in receiving it. And in 1872 Eld White, in the health reformer, came out squarely in an article, "Not Done Away," "we affirm on the authority of the sacred Scriptures that the ordinance relative to eating the flesh of a swine, Deut. 14:8, is not done away. We design to prove that the command, 'Ye shall not eat of their flesh,' is as really binding upon Christians as the precept 'Thou shalt not steal.'" health reformer, Vol. 7, No. 1, p. 19. Thus you see these leaders are now doing the very things that they once said God forbids. I will also introduce a quotation from the pen of Uriah Smith, in 1858: "To your query concerning the lawfulness of eating pork, we have not time nor space to gave an extended reply. We will only refer to one declaration of Paul, which in our opinion is sufficient, so far as the Bible is concerned, to demolish completely all distinction which people may endeavor to raise between meats. 1 Tim. 4, he speaks of some commanding to abstain from meats, &c., and then says, 'for every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving.'" Review, Vol. 18, No. 8.

I should like to know what is to become of the flock when the leaders are contradicting themselves and each other as these extracts abundantly show. It appears when this question of pork eating was first introduced it was necessary for Mrs. W. to speak in vision, saying that she had been shown that it was not wrong to eat it. Also Eld. White, to check the fanatical spirit of some of the brethren on the pork question, came out in an article telling them that the apostles had settled the question, and that it should forever settle it with us. Then the Editor of the Review, to cap the climax, introduces Paul in 1 Tim. 4, as completely demolishing all distinction in meats, referring us to the fact that some would command to abstain from meats, &c. (Does any one do this now?) But now we find these same leaders urging the distinction in meats, affirming on the authority of the sacred Scriptures, and also by Mrs. W. in vision, that the law prohibiting the use of swine's flesh is now binding. But how does it go with me when I dared to raise my voice against this Judaizing innovation? Why must I be denounced as a "Rebel," compared to "Korah, Dathan, and Abiram"? "A rebel against God as well as against S. D. Adventists"? And then fellowship is withdrawn from me. And for what, I ask? For teaching the same thing that Mrs. White did, that Eld. White did, that Uriah Smith did, viz., to oppose this Judaizing tendency of the church on the meat question, by giving warning, and introducing the very same Scriptures that they formerly did.

About 17 years ago Uriah Smith introduced 1 Tim. 4 to prove that it was lawful to eat swine. Let us now re-examine some of this chapter. I think that S. D. Adventists come as near fulfilling the predictions of this chapter as any people that I know. Verse 1: "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils." This verse teaches that some shall depart from the faith. This cannot be the Romish church, for it never was in the faith here spoken of. And so of the Spiritualists. You can not depart from the city of New York unless you first go that city. So of this prediction. It must meet its fulfillment in some who have once believed in that part of the faith that is here rejected. I have just shown the reader that S. D. Adventist leaders once taught that the distinction in meats was done away, and should be forever settled with us. But they have departed from the faith in that particular. We will pass on to the third verse. "Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." You will here observe, first, that class of religious teachers forbid to marry. Greenfield renders koluo, the word translated forbidden, to impede, to hinder, to dissuade. Now have the S. D. Adventists tried to hinder, impede, or dissuade marriage in their teaching? See Mrs. E. G. White's teachings in How to Live, Chap. 2, p. 28. "Sickly men have often won the affections of women apparently healthy, and because they loved each other they felt themselves at perfect liberty to marry.... Those who thus marry commit sin." (See Heb. 13:4, "marriage is honorable in all.") Again, p. 29, "It is frequently the case that old men choose to marry young wives.... It has not been the duty of any woman to sacrifice life and health, even if she did love one so much older than herself, and felt willing on her part to make such a sacrifice; she should have restrained her affections.... It is still worse for young men to marry women considerably older than themselves." See 1 Cor. 7:39. Also examine pp. 30, 35, and Test. 18, pp. 38, 39.

We now call your attention to the second point in the third verse, "and commanding to abstain from meats." Now we will examine the present teachings of S. D. Adventists on this subject. Hear Mrs. W. in How to Live, page 58, Disease and its Causes. "God never designed the swine to be eaten under any circumstances." Language could not be used that would be stronger against the use of swine's flesh than is here used. If God never designed us to use it under any circumstances then we should not use it even to save life. Again, Test. 15, p. 82, that the use of swine's flesh was in disregard of his (God's) express command. Let us now hear Eld. White on this subject. "The command, Ye shall not eat of their flesh is as really binding on Christians as the precept, Thou shalt not steal." Where can you find stronger language than this? If Brother Smith could see a tendency to fulfill this prophecy when the cloud was no larger than a man's hand, why can't all see it now, when it has covered the whole horizon? But they even go beyond this, teaching by revelation of Mrs. W. that we should not use flesh of any kind. With the plain testimony of the New Testament showing the distinction in meats done away, it is fanatical in any one to teach to the contrary.

I have said that they teach that we should not use flesh of any kind. Proof: "We bear positive testimony against tobacco, spirituous liquors, snuff, tea, coffee, fleshmeats, butter, spices, rich cakes, a large amount of salt, and all exciting substances used as articles of food." Test. 21, p. 23. Again, "Meats should not be placed before our children.... Grains and fruits, prepared free from grease, and in as natural a condition as possible, should be the food for the table of all who claim to be preparing for translation to heaven." Test. 17, pp. 191, 192. But, says one, are we not allowed to eat a nice turkey or chicken? Answer: "Those who digress occasionally to gratify the taste in eating a fattened turkey or other flesh meats, pervert their appetites, and are not the ones to judge of the benefits of health reform. They are controlled by taste, not by principle.... No butter of flesh meats of any kind come on my table." Test. 18, p. 194. Here, my readers, is that seductive teaching Paul speaks of. The "testimonies" on this subject are supported by all the leading ministers among the S. D. Adventists, and also by the Health Reformer. I do not see how it is possible for Scripture to meet a more complete fulfillment.

We will now go back to verse 2, "Speaking lies in hypocrisy." This class of religious teachers are to speak lies deceitfully, or that will deceive. Are not S. D. Adventists doing this very thing? Ask one of their number if he believes it wrong to eat flesh meats? His answer is, No. Now come a little closer. Do you believe it wrong to eat pork? No, I do not think it is a sin. But what! Is it a part of your religion not to eat the swine? O no, we think the swine unhealthy to eat; besides, he is so very filthy. This looks somewhat like a lie in hypocrisy. They are trying to deceive. For the facts are they do believe it wrong to eat fleshmeats of any kind, and especially swine, as I have abundantly shown from their late writings. Oh how much better it would be to be plain and honest, and when interrogated on this subject, say, Yes, we do believe it wrong to eat flesh meats, and especially pork. For God has commanded us in his word not to eat their flesh or touch their dead carcass, and has also shown us through the divine inspiration of Sister White that it was wrong to eat flesh of any kind.

Again, they say they do not make these things a test of fellowship. What! not make an express command of God a test? God has spoken direct from heaven (as they claim) and then to make his word a kind of rubber shoe! Oh consistency, thou art a jewel! But here again is deceit, for they do make these things a test, as I have shown in my own case; and scores of others will testify to the same thing. And if these testimonies are what they claim to be, Inspiration of God, they ought to be made a test. It is not a pleasant task for me to point out these things, but if I can be the humble instrument in the hands of God, in pointing out these things in their true light, and thus lead some out from under the yoke of bondage into the liberty of the gospel, I shall be content. Paul says in verse 6, of 1 Tim. 4, "If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained."

That this so-called health reform that is claimed to be a part of the third angel's message is an addition to the word of the Lord, I have not the least doubt. There were professed Christians in the days of apostles who attempted to enforce this distinction in meats on the church, but not to that extent that S. D. Adventists do. The former only wished them to keep the law of Moses, which allowed them the use of clean animals for food; but the latter are teaching by divine inspiration (professedly) that it is wrong to eat any kind of flesh whatever. This is subversive of the gospel, and I fear that hundreds and thousands are being led away from the simplicity of the gospel by it. I have said that there were professed Christians in the days of the apostles, who tried to enforce this distinction on the church, Acts 15:5. Peter tells us this is tempting God, v. 10: "Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." They say in v. 24, that doctrine would subvert men's souls. They decided that the Gentiles need not keep the law of Moses, except four things; see verses 28, 29. And to settle the matter they wrote to the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. They also sent Judas and Silas to tell them by mouth. To tell them what by mouth? That they must not eat any flesh of any kind? No. Tell them that they must be health reformers, or they could not govern their animal propensities, nor make any perceivable advancement in the divine life, and that God would not hear their prayers unless they put from their tables all food of a stimulating nature? No. To tell them that they must not eat such food as good old Abraham gave the holy angels? No. Well, what were they to tell them? Let us hear from divine authority what they were to tell them; verses 28, 29, "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other 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." Now let us hear Eld. White on this subject. "Their decision being right, settled the question with them, and was a cause of rejoicing among the churches; and it should forever settle it with us." Review, Vol. 5, No. 18. It does seem that this would have settled this question for all time, but it did not entirely settle it with the apostles, neither has it settled it in our own day.

We have already shown that the S. D. Adventists are enforcing that part of the law on the church which makes a distinction in meats. We will also show that there was another attempt made to enforce it on the Gentiles. Paul speaks of the conference which was held at Jerusalem to settle the question in regard to the Gentiles keeping the law of Moses, &c. Gal. 2. In the first chapter of this book he speaks of his conversion, verses 15, 16. Three years afterwards he went up to Jerusalem, v. 18. He says in v. 20, "Now the things which I write unto you, behold, in God, I lie not." Verse 21 speaks of two of the places that the apostles wrote to. "Then fourteen years after I went up to Jerusalem," chapter 2:1. This makes seventeen years after his conversion when he went up to see the apostles and elders about this matter. By referring to Acts 9, you will see that his conversion was in a.d. 35. Seventeen years after will bring you to a.d. 52, the very year of this conference. I have been thus particular to show the reader that Paul was speaking of this conference. And indeed this is the gist of the whole book of Gal. In chapter 2:1-10, reference is made to his going to Jerusalem to settle the dispute that had arisen in regard to circumcision and the law of Moses. Peter calls it a yoke of bondage which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear, Acts 15:10. Paul also calls it a yoke of bondage, Gal. 2:4, and 5:1. But when Peter was come to Antioch (one of the churches that the apostles had written to) Paul withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed, Gal. 2:11. What had Peter done? Ans: For before certain came from James, he did eat with the gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision, verse 12. And what effect did that have? Verse 13 tells us that the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas (Paul's companion) also was carried away with their dissimulations. You will here observe that this trouble was in regard to eating. In the first place Peter had by his own act released the Gentiles from observing the law of Moses (Acts 15), which made a distinction in meats. See Lev. 11. But when he was come to Antioch he refused to eat with the Gentiles. Query: Why did Peter refuse to eat with the Gentiles? Ans., Because they had food on their tables which was unclean, according to the Mosaic law. Paul says they walked not according to the truth of the gospel, compelling the Gentiles to live as do the Jews, verse 14. Why not? Did the death of Christ make these things that were unclean, filthy, and abominable under the law of Moses clean? No; the death of Christ did not change the nature or habits of those animals that were unclean under that law; but the truth of the gospel is, this law was abolished at the cross of Christ. Paul tells us that it was added because of transgression till the seed should come to whom the promise was made, Gal. 3:19. Verse 16 informs us that seed was Christ. Peter also shows us in Acts 10:9-16, that this distinction in meats has ended. Again, 1 Tim. 4:4, to them which believe and know the truth (of the gospel) every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving. So it appears that Peter, in his conduct at Antioch, was enforcing that very law upon the Gentiles that he once destroyed. See Gal. 2:18. Well, says one, this is speaking against the great apostle Peter. At this time he was not under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and as a man "subject to like passions as we are," and hence liable to be swayed and influenced. See James 5:17. It is a fact, as would appear from Peter's allusion to Paul's epistle fourteen years afterwards (see 2 Peter 3:15, 16), that he became reconciled, accepting Paul's teaching on this subject.

The reader will take notice that we have shown that Eld. White and wife, also Uriah Smith, once taught that it was right to eat flesh, even the flesh of swine. But what are their teachings now? The very opposite, and they have carried away more than one Barnabas in their dissimulations and have subverted many souls.

Again, these testimonies confound natural law with spiritual law, making it just as much sin to violate the one as the other. "It is just as much sin to violate the laws of our being as to break one of the ten commandments, for we cannot do this without breaking God's law." --Testimony No. 15, page 58. If this testimony is true it would be a greater sin to violate a law of our being, for it involves two transgressions instead of one. But this is a contradiction of the word of the Lord.

Again, "Your appetites are morbid, and because you do not relish a plain simple diet composed of unbolted wheat flour, vegetables, and fruits, prepared without spices or grease, you are continually transgressing the laws which God has established in your system." -- Page 55. Here is the law of our being that these "testimonies" are making such an ado about. Because these persons here addressed did not discard flesh meats, and eat only graham bread, fruits, and vegetables, prepared without spices or grease, they were sinners in a double sense, for in doing this they were not only violating natural law, but God's holy law. "Men and women cannot violate natural law in the indulgence of depraved appetite and lustful passions and not violate the law of God. Therefore God has permitted the light of health reform to shine upon us that we may see our sin in violating the laws God has established in our beings." -- Testimony No. 22, p. 49.

Paul says: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." -- Col. 3:8; see also Gal. 4:3, 9. I will now favor the reader with a specimen of this vain philosophy.

The following is the code of laws to the advocacy of which health reform is devoted, and the careful observance of which is requisite for the maintenance of health.... With reference to quality of food it is maintained by logical reasoning, founded upon scientific facts, that the use of spices, condiments, and all irritating and pungent articles, is not only unnecessary, but absolutely injurious. It is also shown by science, reason, and experience, that the use of animals fats, and especially of friend food, is a most common cause of ill health and indigestion. It is further shown by anatomy and physiology, as well as experience, that the most natural food for man consists wholly of fruits, grains, and vegetables, prepared in a simple and healthful manner. Indeed, it is clearly proved that the use of animal food is actually unsafe on account of the great liability to disease to which all animals are subject.... Pork is regarded as unclean [There is nothing unclean. -- Paul], unhealthful, and entirely unfit for food under the most favorable circumstances. -- Principles of Health Reform, pp. 5, 7, 8.

These quotations are simply echoing the testimonies of Mrs. W. on health reform, which make Noah, Elijah, Paul, Christ, and a host of the ancient worthies sinners, for they all used flesh meats; yes, and even the angels. "And he [Abraham] took butter, and milk, and the calf which he had dressed [good and tender], and set it before them, and they did eat." -- Gen. 18:7, 8. "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth." -- Lev. 11:2. "Notwithstanding, thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God, which he hath given thee." -- Deut. 12:15. "And the ravens brought him [Elijah] bread and flesh in the morning and bread and flesh in the evening." -- 1 Kings 17:6. These scriptures prove that the testimonies are not of God, for they make Noah, Elijah, Abraham, and the children of Israel, transgressors of the ten commandments, and contradict more than one hundred passages of Scripture.

Again, these testimonies teach that those who do not live out the health reform cannot discern sacred things.

You should indulge in the use of the most simple food, prepared in the most simple manner, that the fine nerves of the brain be not weakened, benumbed, nor paralyzed, making it impossible for you to discern sacred things, and to value the atonement and the cleansing blood of Christ as of priceless worth. Test. No. 15, p. 34.

The indulgence of these idols is destructive to health, and has a benumbing influence upon the brain, making it impossible to appreciate eternal things. Test. No. 12, p. 72.

The health reform is essential for you both. Sister ----- has been backward in this good work, and has suffered opposition to arise, and has not known what she was opposing. She has opposed the counsel of God against her own soul. Intemperate appetites has brought debility and disease, weakening the moral powers and unfitting her to appreciate the sacred truth, the value of the atonement which is essential to salvation. Test. No. 14, p. 80.

If this is true then the apostles could not discern sacred truth, the value of the atonement which is essential to salvation, and of course will be lost, for they did not live out this so-called health reform. The reader will remember that these testimonies, as I have shown, discard all flesh meats. No one with common intelligence and honesty will attempt to deny but that the above worthies did use flesh as an article of food. And according to these testimonies Abraham, the father of the faithful, and the friend of God, indulged in a depraved appetite to the weakening and benumbing of his brain, making it impossible for him to discern sacred truth. This is preposterous; for we learn from the sacred Scriptures that Abraham lived in close communion with God, and was especially blessed of him.

These Testimonies also teach that those who use flesh meats, tea, coffee, and tobacco, are idolaters.

The indulgence of these idols is destructive to health and has a benumbing influence upon the brain, making it impossible for them to appreciate eternal things. Test. No. 12, p. 72.

What does she mean by these idols? Let her answer.

Some are indulging lustful appetites, which war against the soul, which is a constant drawback, a hindrance to their spiritual advancement. They bear an accusing conscience constantly, and are prepared, if straight truths are talked, to be hit.... They feel grieved and injured, and withdraw themselves from the assemblies of the saints.... They soon lose their interest in the meetings and their love for the truth, and unless they entirely reform, will go back, and take their position with the rebel host who stand under the black banner of Satan. If all these will crucify fleshly lusts, which war against the soul, they will get out of the way where the arrows of truth will pass harmlessly by them. While they indulge lustful appetite, cherish their idols, they make themselves a mark for the arrows of truth to hit, and if truth is spoken at all, they must be wounded. Satan tells some that they cannot reform, that health would be sacrificed should they make the attempt and leave the use of tea, coffee, and flesh meats. This is the suggestion of Satan. --Ibid. 70, 71.

Those who use tobacco, tea, and coffee, should lay these idols aside, and put their cost into the treasury of the Lord. Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 4, p. 53.

The above quotations fully prove my assumption, that those who use tea, coffee, and flesh meats are idolaters. Thus you see they have consigned with one stroke all who use these articles of food. We might bear these calumnies as heaped upon ourselves, but it falls with equal force upon Jesus and his disciples. We read:

For John came neither eating nor drinking [as people ate and drank in those days, his meat being locusts and wild honey], and they say he hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking.

What? Nothing but grains, fruits, and vegetables, and drinking nothing but pure soft water? Did he not adopt the health reform? No, indeed, as Mrs. W. once said, "all this is outside the word of the Lord." What did the Jews say about his eating and drinking? "Behold a man gluttonous [See Test. No. 15, p. 8.] and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children." Matt. 11:18, 19.

The same old Pharisaical slander is now repeated and applied to myself by some of my former brethren, because I have felt it duty to speak in defense of the Scriptures on this subject. Jesus conformed to the common custom in eating and drinking. He sometimes attended feasts, John 2:1-11; Luke 5:29, 32. Query: Why did the Pharisees murmur about his eating with publicans and sinners? Ans., Because they considered them unclean, and not fit for them to eat with; not having been circumcised and also using food that was unlawful for the Jews to eat. Hence they said, See the "glutton"! See the man who makes a god of his belly! And as he used wine, and on one occasion turned water into wine, they say, "Behold a wine bibber!" But we hear him say "wisdom is justified of her children."

I have shown the reader that when Jesus sent the disciples out to preach, he instructed them to eat and drink such as was set before them. Luke 10:1-8. Verse 4, Carry neither purse nor scrip [a kind of provision sack, Bible Dic.] a command some of the S. D. A. ministers have not regarded. For some of them have carried along their provision for fear that they would have to eat something that was not in their bill of fare. As some in their attempt to sustain the health reform deny that the Saviour and his apostles ate flesh, I will prove that they did. Let us hear Jesus: "Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb. And he took it and did eat before them." Luke 24:41-43. For the benefit of any who may deny fish being flesh, I will quote from 1 Cor. 15:39. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds." Again Jesus ate the Passover supper with the twelve (see Mark 14:12-18), at which time a lamb was eaten. Ex. 12:1-10; see also Luke 9:12-17. And on one occasion the Pharisees found fault with Jesus because his disciples did not wash their hands before eating. After having called the attention of the multitude he said unto them, "hear and understand. Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man, but that which cometh out of the mouth this defileth a man." Matt. 15:1-11. "There is nothing from which a man that entereth into him can defile him." Mark 7:15. "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake." 1 Cor. 10:25. Shambles: a meat market. --Bible Dictionary. A place where butchers kill or sell meat. --Webster. Now is it not apparent to all that these Scriptures with many others that might be introduced entirely sweep away all distinction in meats that persons may attempt to raise? For they come to us with the authority of God, that we are to "eat such things as are set before us." That such meat as we find for sale in the market we can eat. But what a contrast in these Scriptures and the teachings of Mrs. W. If you eat flesh her revelations accuse you of "pampering a depraved appetite," being an "idolater," and going back under the "black banner of Satan." Some charge me with opposing Christian temperance in opposing the said reform; but this is not true, for the health reform is not synonymous with Christian temperance. Temperance, moderation, moderate indulgence of the appetite or passions. Temperate, moderate in food or drink. --Webster.

In contrast, the reform movement is total abstinence from all flesh meats, tea, coffee, &c. That we are to be temperate in the use of food and drink is clearly taught in the Scriptures; but to assert that in order to do this we must not use flesh meats, butter, eggs, cheese, &c. is as far from the truth, as the east is from the west. It is just as intemperate to eat in excess in "Graham pudding" as it is in flesh or anything else that we use as food. It is not the kind of food the Scriptures speak against, but it is excess, gluttony. "Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink" (Col. 2:16), a thing which the spirit that has been actuating Mrs. W. in her teaching on the meat question has neglected to do. And what is even more cruel, especially among the leaders of the S. D. Adventists, they are actuated by the same spirit, withdrawing fellowship from those who cannot endorse all these monstrous contradictions of the Bible, branding them "vision haters," "rebels," "swine eaters," "gluttons," "tobacco sots," &c.

Oh how much better it would be to settle this question of meats as it is in Rom. 14, "for one believeth that he may eat all things, another who is weak eateth herbs." Here is one class of believers that think it right for them to eat all things; evidently the all things embrace flesh meats, as well as herbs. Another class believe in eating herbs exclusively, somewhat like our modern health reformers. Now what course should we pursue? Tell those who use flesh that they are "sinners," that they are "idolaters," that they cannot "discern sacred truth?" No; no; hear what the Lord says about it.

Let not him that eateth [all things] despise him that eateth not [all things]; and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth.... Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Rom. 14:3, 4.

With this heavenly instruction I am fully satisfied. I have not the least objection to any one using exclusively grains, fruits, and vegetables; but when they profess that such is a revelation from God, and that those who do not adopt it are sinners, transgressors of the ten commandments, "they have become wise above what is written," and should be held up in their true light, so that all may see where the truth lies.

As the health reform introduces a dress that is to be worn by the females, and is claimed to be shown Mrs. White by direct revelation from God, I will examine some of her testimonies on this subject. Test. No. 11, p. 10:

The dress should reach somewhat below the top of the boot [Gaiter shoe usually worn by women; her explanation of boot], but should be short enough to clear the filth of the side walk and street, without being raised by the hand.

Compare with this the following. Test. No. 12, p. 34:

I would earnestly recommend uniformity in length, and would say that nine inches as nearly accords with my view of the matter as I am able to express in inches.

These Testimonies are contradictory. The gaiter shoe referred to will average about eight inches; the highest that I have measured being between eight and nine inches. Observe, (1) "The dress should reach somewhat below the shoe," which makes it less than eight inches from the floor. But (2), It should be nine inches from the floor. Now when it can be shown that somewhat below means somewhat above, then they may talk about the harmony of these testimonies. Notwithstanding these contradictory statements she teaches that the sisters must adopt it, or meet the judgments of God.

The Reform dress God would have his people now adopt, not only to distinguish them from the world as his "peculiar people," but a reform in dress is essential to physical and mental health. Test. No. 12, p. 39.

If the church would manifest great interest in the reforms which God himself has brought to them, to fit them for his coming, their influence would be tenfold what it now is. Many who profess to believe the Testimonies live in neglect of the light given. The dress reform is treated by some with great indifference, and by others with contempt, because there is a cross attached to it. For this cross I thank God.... The dress reform answers to us as did the riband of blue to ancient Israel. Test. No. 22, p. 65.


  1. This dress is to distinguish God's people from the world as his "peculiar people." Query: Whose people are those who do not adopt it?

  2. God himself has brought the reform [including, of course, the dress] to fit them for his coming! What will become of those who do not believe, and hence do not adopt them?

  3. The dress reform answers to us as did the riband of blue to ancient Israel. What was that for? Ans: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe a riband of blue, that ye may remember and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God." Num. 15:38, 40. Then it seems necessary for our wives and daughters to wear a short dress and pants, to constantly remind them to do all the commandments of the Lord.

    I ask, Does it have this effect? No; but it does remind them that they are made a "taunt and byword," laughed at when they go in company, and some have learned to their sorrow that it is not safe to travel alone among strangers and wear it. I pity the woman that professes Christianity, and then in order to keep God's law in her mind she must wear the said reform dress! This might do for an outward, fleshly, formal church, but not for the religion of Christ. "I will put my law in their inward part, and write it upon their hearts [not in a reform dress] ... for they shall know me." See Jer. 31: 31-34.

  4. Observe, this dress is to distinguish God's people from the world; but this cannot be true, for it is only for the females and therefore could only distinguish them. Perhaps the brethren are so far in advance of the sisters that they do not need the antitype of the blue riband. But this testimony says "the dress answers to us as did the riband of blue to Israel." All Israel, not simply the females, consequently all should wear the dress or they are not God's "peculiar people."

  5. Many who profess to believe the testimonies live in neglect to the light given. Hear what she says about this: "Those who have the light and do not follow it, will find that their blessings will be changed into a curse, and their mercies into judgments." Test. No. 22, p. 67.

  6. "The reform dress God would have his people now adopt. There is a cross in it. I thank God for this cross." This was written ten years ago, and yet there are persons all through the ranks of S. D. Adventists who profess to believe these testimonies that do not wear it. And I am credibly informed that Mrs. White does not wear it in California; and when she was asked why, replied, "The time has not come yet to adopt it in this State." This was three years ago, and would be seven years after the testimony given to now adopt it. I will leave all to draw their own conclusions. In my second observation the reader will notice she says God has brought the light on the reforms. If this is true then God is thirty years behind the time, for these reforms were advocated by Fowler and Wells, Graham, Jackson, and others long ago. There is nothing new in Mrs. W.'s writings on this subject, except the novelty of hitching it on to the third angel's message.

Again, she contradicts the Scriptures in regard to medicine and disease.

Medicine deranges nature's fine machinery, and breaks down the constitution, and kills, but never cures. How to Live, Disease and its Causes, p. 57.

Drugs never cure disease. Ibid., p. 62.

Compare with the following: "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine." Prov. 17:2. "There is none to plead thy cause, that thou mayest be bound up: thou hast no healing medicines." Jer. 30:13. "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" Jer. 8:22. Stupid questions if "medicines kill, but never cure." See also Jer. 46:11; Matt. 9:12.

Other Contradictions

These Testimonies also contradict the Bible in regard to the clothing of the angels.

This sinless pair [Adam and Eve] wore no artificial garments. They were clothed with a covering of light and glory, such as the angels wear.... They had not been clothed, but were draped in light, as were the heavenly angels. Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, pp. 25, 41.

These quotations teach that the angels do not wear artificial clothing, but are draped in light. What saith the Scriptures? "And the seven angels came out of the temple, ... clothed [not naked, as Adam and Eve were, Gen. 2:25] in pure and white linen, and having their breasts girded with golden girdles." Rev. 15:16. "Then I lifted up mine eyes and looked, and behold, a certain man clothed in linen." Dan. 10:5. "And entering into the sepulcher they saw a young man, sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment." -- Mark 16:5. These scriptures show very conclusively that the angels do wear real clothing, even telling us in some instances the material of which it is made.

Again, her teaching would make Adam ten or twelve feet high, and some men forty. This may appear at first thought like an exaggeration; but let us see.

He [Adam] was more than twice as tall as men now living upon the earth. Eve was not quite as tall as Adam. Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, page 25.

The reader can see that Adam could not have been less than ten or twelve feet high.

God so ordered that men, beasts, and trees, many times larger than those now upon the earth, ... should be buried in the earth in the time of the flood. Ibid., p. 90.

Notice, men many times larger than those now upon the earth. "Many -- numerous, a great number." --Web. So the Scriptures. See Rom. 5. Now if this testimony is true there must have been men forty feet high (!) before the flood, which would then be a great contradiction of the word 'many.' Any one that can believe such doctrine must be very credulous.

Again, I think the following contradiction the reader can judge for himself.

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create (?), which was the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Spirit of Prophecy, p. 78.

I was shown that very large, powerful animals existed before the flood, which do not now exist. Ibid., p. 87.

It is claimed by S. D. Adventists that these large and powerful animals that were destroyed by the flood were such as came by amalgamation. Now, as Geology has been brought forward several times by S. D. Adventists to corroborate Mrs. White's visions about the flood, I will introduce it against her. The reader will notice that the only chance to escape a contradiction is to set up the claim that it was not the animals that God created that were destroyed (I wonder who did create them!) but such as was the result of amalgamation. Geology gives us a list of eleven species of animals that were destroyed by the flood, but no geologist gives any account of Mrs. W.'s mongrels. See Cuvier, Lyell, Hugh Miller, Comstock, and others, Animals destroyed by the deluge.

Again, she contradicts the Bible with reference to Noah.

Every living substance upon the face of the earth upon which man could subsist had been destroyed; therefore God gave Noah permission to eat of the clean beasts which he had taken with him into the ark.... In the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed he permitted them to eat animal food. Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, p. 79.

(1) The reader will notice she says God gave Noah permission to eat of the clean animals. The Bible reads, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you." Gen. 9:3. (2) In their peculiar circumstances in which they were placed every thing upon which man could subsist had been destroyed therefore God gave them permission to eat animal food. Query: Where did the animals obtain their food until a sufficiency was produced? This testimony reflects upon the wisdom of God. He had directed Noah to build an ark for the saving of himself and family, with the animals and fowls, and to take in food for himself and the animals; but after a year and ten days he goes forth from the ark; but alas! his stock of provisions are exhausted. But in his peculiar trying circumstances God tells him that he may eat some of the clean animals. Still, such a course would shorten his life, inflame his animals passions, stupefy and benumb his brain, making it impossible for him to discern sacred truth! God is too wise and good to do so; but he fully directed Noah to take sufficient food into the ark. "And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee, and it shall be food for thee and for them.... So did he." Gen. 6:21, 22.

And now, reader, I will say with Elijah, "How long halt ye between two opinions. If the Lord be God, follow him."

Category: Online Books Bible vs. Mrs. White
Please SHARE this using the social media icons below