Compliments Coming

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 25, 1866

Compliments Coming.

Under the heading of “Ellen’s Visions,” Wm. Sheldon, in the last Voice of the West says: “In due time I intend to pay my compliments to the visions of Mrs. E. G. White.” As a reason for this great step which he has so deliberately resolved upon, he urges that they “positively clash with the Bible in many particulars.” This, when sifted down, means that they clash with his views of the Bible in many particulars. But it will not take long to show that in the many particulars, his views are not Bible.

He then makes an assertion which many others have made before him, and which they persist in making, notwithstanding our repeated denials of the same; and that is, that many place the visions above the Bible, considering the Bible as “impure, crooked, or second-hand, testimony,” in contrast with the visions which are the “pure,” “straight,” and “direct,” testimony. We deny that any of our people hold such a view. Can we have their names? Such assertions can be made for no other purpose than to create prejudice. It is the best weapon they have. With those to whom our correction is not permitted to come, they may for a time have influence; but erroneous statements, whether made through ignorance or malice, cannot in the long run be of benefit to any cause.

After promising evidence in due time that the visions clash with the Bible, he says, “But I will content myself for the present in giving a mere sample, which is enough of itself to prove her visions opposed to God’s Bible.” This he proceeds to do, in the manner following, to wit:

“For instance: Her visions locate the rise of the two-horned beast, and the image of the beast, down this side of the great papal persecution; but John commends the martyrs for not worshiping the ‘beast nor his image,’ Rev. xx, 4, and it would have been an utter impossibility for them to have worshiped the ‘image’ before its existence; and its existence is preceded by the rise of the two-horned beast, Rev. xiii; and certainly the martyrs are not to be praised for standing aloof from mere nonentity. The only conclusion is, the ‘image of the beast’ existed while these martyrs lived, and they refused to worship it, and were killed in consequence. But Ellen does not allow the ‘two-horned beast’ to rise till after the martyrs are all killed.

“How can they get out of this dilemma? Not by claiming a future persecution, for Ellen saw in vision that after they were all ready to kill the saints, that their swords fell powerless—nobody killed in the future struggle. No ‘image of the beast’ when the martyrs were slain, and no martyrs to be slain after the ‘image of the beast’ rises!!

“This is but a sample of the facts which I have to adduce. Prove all things.”

As he offers this as a “sample,” it is doubtless the best and the strongest that he has to present. In most of the efforts of our opponents against us, one thing is very apparent at first sight; namely, an astonishing ignorance of what our real belief is. We certainly think they would appear to much better advantage, if they would acquaint themselves with our views, before they attempt to answer them, or to run us into “dilemmas” over them.

In addition to this, there is, in the present instance, evidence of a very superficial examination of the passage, Rev. xx, 4, on which he professes to show so clearly that the visions are “opposed to God’s Bible.” He says, “John commends the martyrs for not worshiping the ‘beast and his image.’” We reply, He does not. And moreover, John says nothing about the martyrs worshiping either the beast or his image. Has he ever looked at the original of this passage? If he has, he has found that in the sentence, “and which had not worshiped the beast neither his image,” &c., the words “and which” are from the original καὶ οἵτινες; and if he has ever consulted his lexicon for the definition of ὅστις he has found that it means “whoever” or “whosoever.” Robinson in his more extended lexicon of the Greek Testament, defines it thus: In a proper and literal sense, “any one who, some one who, whosoever, whatsoever; differing from [the simple relative] ὅς in referring to a subject only generally, as one of a class, and not definitely, thus serving to render a proposition general.” According to these definitions, the passage literally translated would read as follows: And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and whosoever had not worshiped the beast, neither his image,” &c. Bloomfield remarks on the passage: “Καὶ οἵτινες οὐ προσκ. This is well rendered by Prof. Scholef., ‘and whosoever worshiped not.’”

We thus see that there are two classes most distinctly brought to view in Rev. xx, 4: 1st. The martyrs; and 2nd. Those who had not, or whosoever had not, worshiped the beast neither his image, &c. And this passage does not locate this worship of the image. It is not necessary to refer it to the past. It can just as well be in the future, where other scriptures unmistakably place it.

And so Mr. Sheldon’s first and most brilliant effort to show the visions opposed to “God’s Bible,” by throwing the image of the beast back into the days of the martyrs, is entirely overthrown by a correct understanding of the passage. And if this is “a sample of the facts” he has to adduce, we would counsel him for his own sake to withhold his threatened “compliments,” and save his ink and paper, the only valuable things, apparently, to be wasted in his effort.

His attempted slur in the frequent repetition of the word “Ellen,” we pass by as unworthy of notice. His marks of astonishment belong to himself, not to the visions.

To whomsoever it may concern we would say, that we are confident that we can show that there is no discrepancy whatever between the teachings of the visions and the Bible; and if at any time you are troubled by anything that our opponents may bring up, please state to us your difficulties, and we will at least endeavor to remove them.