DEAR BRO. WHITE:—A few days since, as I was glancing at the Watchman of March 30th, and while perusing the Epistle called, "Spiritual Hints," by J. T., my mind was suddenly arrested by a passage therein contained, which was evidently arranged by the writer as explanatory of the 15th verse of the third chapter of Matthew. It was as follows: "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill (the law) all righteousness. Then John suffered him, having understood the necessity of Christ fulfilling all the law."
What peculiarly struck my mind, was, the parenthesis in the above passage. Whenever I see a parenthesis placed in the midst of a scripture text by an expositor, I generally pause to consider. While thus considering upon this new idea, and as Albert Barnes' Notes were before me, curiosity led me to see what he said on that text, and whether he could explain upon it without using a parenthesis. I immediately took up the first volume of the Gospels, turned to the text and read as follows:
"All righteousness." The phrase, "all righteousness," here is the same as a righteous institution or appointment. Jesus had no sin. But he was about to enter on his great work. It was proper that he should be set apart by his forerunner, and show his connection with him, and give his approbation to what John had done."
Thus I saw that Mr. Barnes seemed to have no difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to the meaning of the text, without first wrestling it by a parenthesis.—But I suppose that he had not then learned that "all righteousness" meant all law. Perhaps he was not hard pressed on a theory. However, I read the remainder of the aforesaid epistle, and should probably have passed it in silence, considering it trifling in comparison with many other absurdities which have of late appeared in that paper, by the same author and his partisans, had it not been for the abominable incongruity of the same J. T., which appeared in another of his epistles in the same paper, called, "The shortening of the Days." There is a passage in that work which reads as follows:
"Let us not try to support a position by a forced construction of any portion of the word; It is distressing to see the Bible made to limp along to the support of an unsound position." Amen thought I. And especially by a man who has in times past taken two or three different "positions" on a vital subject which he spit at in his first epistle of the 30th, and now does not come forth in argument on any position. If J. T.'s heaven-daring work on Matt. iii, 15, is not a "forced construction," and even wrestling the word of God, then I know not what can be.
I stood a living witness to the voice of the first and second angels' messages. Rev. xiv. I heard both cries, and saw the fulfillment of each in all its minutia. But I must confess, that until within a few weeks, I did not understand the true import of that of the third angel. But I now plainly see that in order to exercise faith, consistent with former faith, I must allow the third angel's message to have as literal a fulfillment as those of the former. Now in order to be a consistent believer, showing my faith by my works, I plainly see that I am required to turn my foot from the Sabbath, which I have ignorantly trampled on, according to the dictation of the Pope, for half a century. This will I do God helping me.
And now, seriously, I should like to know what J. T. and his partisans would teach concerning the Sabbath, providing they should attempt to teach anything; for certainly, there is no two that I have read as yet that are agreed, except in ridicule. And, that is the principal of what I have seen written by them of late.
Their writings, touching the Sabbath Question, remind me of Dowling, Stewart, Bush, Smith, Campbell and others fighting against Millerism, each one upsetting the others theory, or argument.
Do these anti-seventh-day Sabbath teachers regard us as being in error, relative to observing the seventh day as the Sabbath? If so, why do they not unite in taking some position and then vindicate it by the law and the testimony? Are we to be convinced of being in error by the various opinions and blasphemous scoffings of our opponents? Is the truth on this point divided? no verily; it is a unit still. But A. says, the seventh-day Sabbath is abolished. B. says it is not abolished; but changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. C. says the two foregoing positions are not good. He doubts whether either can be sustained. He thinks the truth on this point is couched in this; that mankind are morally bound to observe, and keep sacred one day out of seven, and optional with each individual to observe which day he pleases. (Babylon.) Now all these views (with an abundance of scoffing) have been advanced by Sunday-keepers, and have come under my observation within five weeks. And now I would ask again, is a truth divisible? No, the truth is a unit, and always easy to be sustained.
I will now close by saying of these contenders against the seventh-day Sabbath, as Bro. Miller once said in his closing remarks, in a review of Smith and Campbell, on the little horn, and return of the Jews. It was as follows:
"So let Messrs Smith and Campbell take which horn of the dilemma they please. As it is the main object of these writers to try to support a Millennium before Christ's second coming. I challenge them all, or either, to PROVE it by the Bible: let them keep to the point." Instead of "Millennium before Christ's second coming," as Bro. Miller said, I would say Pope's Sunday until "Christ's second coming."
I purpose to write you in a few days, touching more fully my experience, since receiving the great and instructive truth contained in the third and last angel's message to man. Why so glaring a truth should be hid from my understanding for more than eight years, after having and understanding distinctly the first and second angels' messages, I cannot tell. But so it has been. I have seen, also, within five weeks the same corroborative testimony to this truth, that I saw in forty-three when the same spirit was out against "Millerism," viz: The tumultuous discordant views among the faction. Ah, brother, truly, "Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
Yours waiting for Redemption at the appearing of Jesus,
RANSOM HICKS.
Providence, R. I., Apr 4th, 1853.