REPORT FROM BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH by John Norton Loughborough

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 31, 1868

REPORT FROM BRO. LOUGHBOROUGH.

By John Norton Loughborough

My labors in this place closed yesterday for the present. I have visited and labored in private with eighteen different families of Charlotte and Windsor churches, and of those investigating the truth; and have given nine public discourses during the last four weeks. The effort has not been in vain. The Lord has given freedom in laboring for his cause and truth, both in public and in private. Some who have been in the dark feel different, and we trust will yet find their way back with the people of God; while some confessed with tears their wayward course and opposition to the work of God. Three were received by vote as members of the church when they shall be baptized. These have recently commenced to keep the Sabbath. We learn that there are two or three others keeping the Sabbath who also design to unite with the church and be baptized.

We find an anxious desire on the part of the people in this vicinity to hear the truth; but for two reasons we did not deem it advisable to commence a series of public meetings here at present.

1. Those professing the truth needed a work done for them, that they might be more firmly united to the body of this people, so that they could stand by the truth in all its parts when it shall be presented, and thus prove a help, and not a hindrance to the work.

2. As it has been muddy and stormy weather, and, as the hurry of sugar-making was coming on, it did not seem to be a favorable time to commence public meetings. Such, however, is the anxiety of the people to hear, that in one neighborhood where I was visiting, those without supposed I was surely going to preach, and so got out an appointment for me. I chose to leave the people hungry to hear the truth, giving them a favorable opportunity to hear it at some future day, rather than present only a portion of it under unfavorable circumstances, and leave them to have the enemy steal away the word from their hearts.

As I intimated in my last report, one great cause of the low state of things here was opposition to the Gifts on the ground of the health reform, Systematic Benevolence, &c. To show what power the enemy has with the human mind, and what perverted ideas people may get, I will give some of the ideas I had to meet. The enemy tried to make some think that because we were teaching the people that it was more for their health to leave the use of flesh meats and live on fruit, grains, and vegetables, that we were that class who “commanded to abstain from meats.” As I said to one brother, if he would convince me that the Seventh-day Adventists were the people that were doing what Paul said in 1 Tim. iv, 1–5, I would leave them at once, for certainly the class who do that have no very desirable characteristics presented. We read: “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; speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron.” Deplorable, indeed, is the situation of the people here described. It certainly has a more ready application to that class of people who teach that “human blood is as good to cleanse from sin as the blood of Christ,” and that “there is no such thing as sin,” and that what is called sin is “undeveloped good.” And to a class of people who are led by the spirits of devils, instead of those who are carefully and prayerfully seeking the ways of God, and making a covenant with him by sacrifice. “Forbidding to marry.” In proof that we were the class represented in this testimony, reference was made to the Testimony of Sr. White, concerning the consequences when some married who were not capable of taking care of themselves, but simply caused misery to themselves and their sickly, numerous offspring. I think the text has a more definite application to those Spiritualists who teach that the present existing legal regulations in reference to marriage are a curse to the human family, and that marriage should only be a contract between parties while they might agree. I suppose this to refer to a time when Spiritualists shall have power to legislate, when we may see, by them, an effort to annul marriage laws, and with it a “commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”

Some are in too great haste in drawing their conclusions from the above words, supposing that the word meat always signifies flesh meat; but let it be borne in mind that it is “meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.” The question then turns on the point as to what God created as the food of man. We read in Gen. 1, 29, “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”

From this it readily appears that the word meat is used in the sense of food, and, also, that what God created for the food of man was not the flesh of animals, but the fruits and vegetation of the earth. Although God has since creation permitted man to eat animal flesh, but finally restricted that to certain kinds, yet it cannot be proved from the word of God that he ever created flesh for the food of man. That meat signifies man's food is also evident from the testimony to Israel as they were passing into Canaan: “Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shalt destroy and cut them down.” Deut. xx, 20. Again, in the record of the shipwreck of Paul, we read: “And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting, having taken nothing. Wherefore, I pray you to take some meat; for this is for your health; for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you. And when he had thus spoken, he took bread and gave thanks to God in the presence of them all; and when he had broken it, he began to eat. Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat. And we were in all in the ship two hundred and threescore and sixteen souls. And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea.” Acts xxvii, 33–38. All can very readily perceive that the meat spoken of in this text was bread made of wheat.

Our opponents, still eager to maintain their position of unrestrained license in the use of flesh-meats, endeavor to make a point on Paul's testimony: “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” 1 Tim. iv, 4, 5. They claim that this takes off all distinction of meats. If this is correct, then they must abide the conclusion, that, should they happen to have served up for them a dish of toads, snails, snakes and lizards, they must eat, for “nothing is to be refused.” But, it seems to us, that the latter clause of the verse makes all plain: “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” Where has God's word ever sanctified, or set apart, as the term means, swine's flesh, and the vile creatures mentioned above? Taking the whole scope of these texts, then, it refers to those foods which God created for man's use, and which his word has designated as clean, and for his use. The translation of the Emphatic Diaglott is very explicit on this point. It is as follows: “But the Spirit expressly says, that in subsequent seasons, some will apostatize from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits, and to teachings of demons; misled by the hypocrisy of false teachers; whose own conscience has been seared; forbidding marriage, and the use of foods which God created in order to be partaken of with thanksgiving by the believers, even by those who have recognized this truth; that everything created by God [for food, margin] is good, and nothing to be rejected, being received with thanksgiving; since it is sanctified through the command of God, and by prayer.” 1 Tim. 1–5.

Again, it is claimed by some that our course was like those spoken of by Paul to the Hebrews: “For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.” Heb. xiii, 9. How can this be applied to a class of people that are denying self, instead of having their whole desire for unprofitable meats, or “aliments,” as the Diaglott renders it.

Again an effort was made to apply Phil. iii, 18, 19, to this people: “For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly (the stomach, Diaglott), and whose glory is their shame, who mind earthly things.” By reading verse 20, it is readily seen that this company are held up in contrast with those who are looking for the coming of Christ. It would be strange logic, indeed, to charge a people with making a god of their appetite, or stomach, who are earnestly engaged in the work of self-denial, that they may have clearness of mind, strength of body, and the blessing of God to help them in preparing for Christ's coming. A people, who while the world are rushing on, eating and drinking, feasting and making merry, are trying to take heed to themselves, lest at any time their hearts be overcharged with eating and drunkenness and the cares of this life, and the day of Christ take them as a snare. A people who are denying themselves, gradually bringing themselves to an unstimulating diet, will certainly be better prepared for the time of trouble, than those who rush on, gratifying all their carnal appetites, and making no preparation by sacrifice for the events that are coming.

Quite an effort was made by some, to make a point on the fact that the priests were permitted to eat the flesh of some of the offerings that were made. When the facts in reference to this are brought out, it will be seen that all of this permission confirms what we teach on the diet question. It is true the priests were permitted to eat the meat of a very few of the offerings, and but a few; and there are some facts in reference to those offerings which remove all difficulty from this matter, and show that it does not by any means conflict with what is taught in the Testimonies concerning the health reform. They were permitted to eat of wave offerings, peace offerings, and oblations. These offerings were not always flesh. Sometimes it was corn, wine, wheat, &c. The portion of flesh the priests ate, is spoken of in Lev. vii, 15–21, 29–34; x, 12–15, 18; Deut. xviii, 3–5. Of those offerings, all the fat was to be offered to the Lord, and burned. See Lev. iii, 16; iv, 8–10; vii, 31. The people were positively forbidden to eat any fat. See Lev. iii, 17; vii, 23–27. This lean portion of meat, that the priests were allowed to eat, was of young creatures. It was also to be without blemish. See Lev. i, 3, 10; xxii, 18–25. Deut. xv, 19–23; xvii, 1. We learn from all this that the flesh-meat the priests did eat was quite limited, only lean meat, and that of only healthy, young animals. We certainly fail to see how any one is going to get license from this to eat swine's flesh swimming in grease, or how they are going to get any thing in it to weigh against the fact that diseased and fat meat is unwholesome, and unfitted for feeble men and women of this age.

I supposed the priests ate more meat than they did, till I gave the matter a thorough examination in my recent visiting trip here. Let it be borne in mind that they had no part of the real burnt offerings, and no meat of any beasts whose blood was carried into the sanctuary, and you at once begin to see the limited amount they had. See Lev. vi, 30; x, 18; xvi, 27. Heb. x, 9–11.

It is better indeed, in this time, to strive earnestly to shun the associations of those who, when God calls, as anciently, to fasting, and mourning, and weeping, are found “eating flesh, and drinking wine.” Isa. xxii, 13. Joel i, 14; ii, 15. Though they may “think it strange that we run not with them to the same excess of riot.” 1 Pet. iv, 3, 4. We suppose it is equally true at this time as it was in Solomon's time: “Blessed art thou, O land, when thy king is the son of nobles, and thy princes eat in due season for strength, and not for drunkenness.” Eccl. x, 17.

But we are glad to report that the one who has taken the most active part in the work of opposition to the health reform, and the Gifts, laid down his weapons of warfare, and publicly confessed his wrong with tears. We leave this county to return to our labors for a time in Allegan, appointing to be here again, if the Lord will, the first Sabbath in May, to attend to the ordinance of baptism. May the Lord still give success to the preached word. Amen.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Windsor, March 23, 1868.