Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents

The Ellen G. White Letters and Manuscripts: Volume 1

 - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    Lt 9, 1853

    December 5, 1853, Rochester, New York1EGWLM 394.1

    Letter to
    Sister Kellogg.1

    Identity: There are a number of Kelloggs mentioned in the Review of the 1850s, but few indications in this letter to decide which one is being addressed here. The greetings to “Sister C. Smith” at the end probably places “Sister Kellogg” in Jackson, Michigan, where Cyrenius Smith and two Kellogg families resided in December 1853. There is no clue in this letter, however, to whether “Sister Kellogg” was wife of Leander Kellogg or of John Preston Kellogg, both living in Jackson.

    See: Search terms “Kellogg,” “Jackson,” and “Smith” in Words of the Pioneers.

    1EGWLM 394.2

    Portions of this letter are published in Ellen G. White, Early Writings, pp. 115-117; idem, Manuscript Releases, vol. 5, pp. 205, 240, 241; vol. 6, pp. 22, 23.

    A vision regarding the rite of foot washing, together with encouragement for members to testify publicly in meeting of God's goodness. Personal news.1EGWLM 394.3

    Dear Sister Kellogg:

    We received your very kind letter in due time,2

    This letter is not in the White Estate archives.

    and designed answering it before, but have been quite sick. Took cold in my face and head, and suffered much with the teethache, and ague in my face. I tried to continue my writing which weakened my nerves, and it seemed at times I should be distracted. I suffered for about one week, nothing seemed to give me relief. Last Thursday eve, the family bore my case to the great Physician and I tried to have faith for myself and was immediately healed. The glory of the Lord shone about us, and we all rejoiced and triumphed in God for His unbounded goodness to us. All in the room were blest and shouted the praise of God.1EGWLM 394.4

    Dear Sister, I have much that I might write you, but have so much to write to different individuals. But I will give you a sketch of the vision I had at our last conference.3

    The most recent conference attended by the Whites, according to Review records, was in New Haven, Vermont, October 28-29, 1853, near the end of their 10-week eastern itinerary.

    See: “Conference at Rochester,” Review, July 7, 1853, p. 32; [James White], “Eastern Tour,” Review, Nov. 15, 1853, p. 148.

    1EGWLM 394.5

    At our last conference I was shown in vision the backwardness of some in our meetings. Some held back because they had nothing new to say and must repeat the same story. I saw that pride was at the bottom of this. That God and angels witnessed the testimonies that were borne and God was well pleased and glorified by the testimonies of all His humble children. I saw that God and His angels admired simplicity and humility.1EGWLM 394.6

    I saw that God had been displeased and angels grieved that heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus, should suffer precious time to run to waste while the saints sit still, saying nothing in favor of God and the truth. I saw that if the brethren and sisters were in the place they had ought to be in, they would not be at a loss to find something to say in honor of Jesus who hung upon Calvary's cross for their sins. If they would cherish more of a realizing sense of the condescension of God in giving His only beloved Son to die a sacrifice for our sins and transgressions, and the sufferings and anguish of Jesus to make a way of escape for guilty man, that he might receive pardon and live, they would be more ready to magnify and extol Jesus. They could not hold their peace, but with thankfulness and gratitude would talk of His glory and tell of His power, and blessings from God would rest upon them for so doing. Even if the same story was repeated, God was glorified by it. The angel of God showed me those who rest not day nor night crying Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty. Continual repetition, said the angel, yet God is glorified by it. And although we tell the same story over and over it honors God, and shows that we are [not] unmindful of Him, or His goodness and mercies to us.1EGWLM 395.1

    I saw the nominal churches4

    The term “nominal churches” was often used by early Adventist writers to describe the Protestant and Roman Catholic churches that had experienced a moral fall through their rejection of the message of an imminent Second Coming.

    See: P. Gerard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission, pp. 179-192.

    had fallen, coldness and death reigned in their midst. God gave them His word to humble them, if they had followed His teachings. But they got above the work, it was too humbling for them to repeat the same simple story, when they met together. They tried to get something new and great, and studied how they could please men, and have their words exact to their ear, and God's Spirit left them, for instead of praying and talking to God, they prayed and talked to man.1EGWLM 395.2

    I saw that when we followed in the humble way, we should have the movings of the Spirit of God, and there would be no jargon.5

    “Jargon” used here perhaps in the sense of “confusion.”

    All would be in sweet harmony and we should not be in danger, if we followed the humble channel of truth depending wholly upon God, of the evil angels taking possession of us and affecting us at all. It is when we get above the Spirit of God, moving in our own strength, that the angels of God cease watching over us, and we are left to the buffetings of Satan.1EGWLM 395.3

    I saw that duties were laid upon us in God's Word to be performed to keep us humble and separate from the world, and from backsliding like the nominal churches. Washing feet and the Lord's supper should be more frequently practiced by us.6

    For the transition from a sporadic observance of the ordinances in the 1840s and 1850s toward a quarterly observance in the 1860s and beyond, see Roger H. Ferris, “The Ordinances of Foot-Washing and the Lord's Supper in the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination,” pp. 28, 29, 42, 46.

    Jesus set us the example and told us to do as He had done to us. I saw that the example of Christ should be as exactly followed as possible. Yet brethren and sisters have not always moved as judiciously as they should in washing feet, and confusion has been caused. I saw that the messengers of God must be careful how they introduce this duty. I saw that no example was given us in God's Word for the brethren to wash the sisters’ feet, but there was an example of the sisters washing their brethren's feet.7

    Should this passage on intergender foot washing be taken as implying that it was common practice among Sabbatarian Adventists in the early 1850s for men to wash the feet of women and vice versa? Does the passage constitute instruction radically curtailing such practices? There are only a handful of reports in the Review, during this period, of the foot-washing ceremony being observed, and none of them describe how it was carried out. It seems unlikely, however, that mixed gender washing, particularly men washing the feet of women, was a common feature. Such a practice was considered scandalous and had raised a hue and cry in both the secular and religious press during 1845-1846, when some Millerite factions had adopted “promiscuous” (i.e., mixed) foot washing. It seems more than likely that if mixed gender washing had been a common feature of Sabbatarian Adventism in the early 1850s it would have been highlighted by critics of the movement. Although no comprehensive study has been done of early critics of the Sabbatarian Adventists, random reading of this literature has not uncovered accusations of such practice.

    An alternative interpretation of this passage is that Ellen White is primarily addressing those who argued that foot washing per se was an unbiblical practice. According to one such argument, as set out here by B. Mathewson in 1858, “in Christ Jesus ‘there is neither male nor female. … Where is one example where Christ ever separated the sexes for worship or the performance of an ordinance?” Hence, he argues, “there can be no impropriety for the sexes to engage … promiscuously … in the ordinance of the Lord's supper.” And yet, as “all must see,” such a mixed service “would have an appearance of evil” and “be a great source of scandal to the church.” The inescapable conclusion is that Christ never intended foot washing as a general ordinance. To this kind of argument James White responded some years later, in 1859: “We reply that confining ourselves strictly to the example set us in the sacred record involves no breach of propriety. We have the examples of females washing the feet of males, but not vice versa.” James White's counterargument clearly echoed the position found in this 1853 letter by Ellen White.

    For a history of the ordinance of foot washing among Seventh-day Adventists, see Roger H. Ferris, “The Ordinances of Foot Washing and the Lord's Supper in the Seventh-day Adventist Denomination.” For examples of contemporary critics of foot washing as an ordinance, see B. Mathewson, “Some Reasons for Not Practicing Feet Washing as a Religious Ordinance,” The World's Crisis, Sept. 8, 1858, p. 4; L. H. Chase, “Feet-Washing,” Advent Harbinger, Sept. 24, 1853, pp. 114, 115. James White's response to Mathewson is found in “Feet-Washing,” Review, Feb. 24, 1859, p. 108. For reactions to mixed gender foot washing in 1845-1846, see George R. Knight, Millennial Fever, pp. 251, 252, and David Tallmadge Arthur, “‘Come Out of Babylon,’” pp. 116-119; EGWEnc, s.v. “Lord's Supper.”

    Mary washed the Saviour's feet with her tears and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Also the widow who is mentioned. If she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet. I saw that God had moved upon the sisters to wash the brethren's feet and it was according to the gospel order and would glorify God when He laid this cross upon them and it would humble the one that performed it. All, I saw, should move in this thing understandingly and not make the washing of feet a tedious ceremony.1EGWLM 396.1

    Dear Sister, it is almost dark [and] I can write but a few words more. Hope you and your dear children are prospering in the Lord. Tell them to live humble, close to the bleeding side of Jesus; tell them to pray much and subdue all pride and selfishness and live wholly for God. Much love to them and your husband and self. We received your donation, thank you for it. Will try to use it to the glory of God. Husband did not know but that the money might be credited to the paper; did not know but some like Brother Case [Hiram S. Case]8

    Identity: The concern expressed here that “Brother Case” might accuse the Whites of misappropriation of funds is a clear indication that Hiram S. Case is referred to. Hiram Case, cofounder of the Messenger Party, had earlier accused James White of speculation in connection with the selling of Bibles in Michigan.

    See: James White, “Western Tour,” Review, May 23, 1854, p. 142; EGWEnc, s.v. “Messenger Party.” For a view of the speculation charges from the point of view of a Messenger Party member, see J. B. Bezzo, “H. S. Case,” Messenger of Truth, Nov. 2, 1854, pp. [2-4]. For further Messenger Party allegations that James White was misappropriating donations for the Review, see C. P. Russell, “From Bro. Russell,” Messenger of Truth, Nov. 2, 1854, p. [2]. This letter provoked a robust response from J. N. Andrews, R. F. Cottrell, and U. Smith in “Malicious Insinuation,” Review, Nov. 21, 1854, p. 117.

    might say that money had been sent in that had been made no account of. I did not know as all understood that any present sent to me was not credited in the paper. How do you understand it? Tell Sister C. Smith9

    Identity: See note 1. The name of Cyrenius Smith's wife was Louisa.

    See: Obituary: “Louisa Smith,” Review, Jan. 10, 1882, p. 30.

    I thank her for her present. Much love to her and all that family; also all the brethren and sisters. Pray for us. We are quite well except Luman [Luman V. Masten].10

    Identity: No doubt the same Luman of whom Ellen White wrote some three months earlier that he “is coughing again; his lungs are affected.” She added that Luman worked in the Review office. Years later, writing of the Rochester, New York, period, she recalled that “we buried Luman, foreman of the office, with consumption.” Doubtless Ellen White was here referring to “L. V. Masten” (as he was always referred to in the Review), foreman of the printing operation, who died of consumption a few months later, on March 1, 1854, “aged about 25 years.”

    See: Ellen G. White, Lt 7, 1853 (Aug. 24); Lt 95, 1886 (Feb. 16); obituary: “Bro. L. V. Masten,” Review, Mar. 14, 1854, p. 63; “The Pamphlet,” Review, Oct. 14, 1852, p. 91.

    We are believing for him.1EGWLM 397.1

    E. G. White

    Tell the brethren and sisters to write us and for the Instructor. That little paper will come out soon if the friends send in matter. Tell all to be interested and write for the Instructor if they want it.11

    Launched in August 1852 as a monthly paper for children and youth, the Youth's Instructor seems to have been faltering at the time of this letter, with no issue published since August 1853. This might explain the plea for articles to be submitted.

    See: SDAE, s.v. “The Youth's Instructor.”

    Write us often.1EGWLM 397.2

    In love.1EGWLM 398.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents