THE TRUTH
Concerning
Mrs. E. G. White, Uriah Smith, and
The King of The North. 2
Louis Were
URIAH SMITH, AFTER SIXTEEN YEARS TEACHING THE PIONEERS' BELIEF--THE PAPAL KING OF
THE NORTH--CHANGED TO TURKEY
In
"A Word to the 'Little Flock"', the
old Pioneers' belief, including that of Mrs. White's, is expressed:
"Michael is to stand up at the time that the last power in Chap.
II comes to his end, and none to help him.
This power is the last that treads down the true church of God: and as
the true church is still trodden and cast out by Christendom, it follows that
the last oppressive power has not 'come to his end'; and Michael has not stood
up. This last power that treads down the saints is brought to
view in Rev. 13: 11-18. His number
is 666."
The
Seventh-day Adventist denomination unanimously held for "the first third of
the century since 1844" the belief that the Papacy was the King of the
North.
Dr.
Leroy E. Froom, in "The Prophetic
Faith of Our Fathers", p. 11
16, says: "For the first sixteen years of his editorial connection with the
Review, Uriah Smith held this power
[Dan. 11: 45] to be the Papacy ... But in 1871, in his 'Thoughts on Daniel'
articles, he changed his view to that of Turkey."
In
his paper "The Pioneers on Daniel Eleven and Armageddon", Pastor
Raymond F. Cottrell says:
"James
White in the Review of November 29,
1877, some years after Uriah Smith had shifted from his own original position,
substituting Turkey for Rome ...
wrote advising caution in the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy and found
Uriah Smith 'removing the landmarks fully established in the Advent Movement'.
This article leaves no doubt that the position making Rome the power of
Daniel 11: 45 and Revelation 16: 12 had been 'fully established' as a 'landmark'
in the Advent Movement prior to that time, and that it was held by the pioneers
of this message, without exception, from the days of William Miller down to at
least 1863."
A MODERN PREACHER MISREPRESENTS THE FACTS
The
above facts show how impossible is the suggestion that Mrs. White rebuked her
husband for promulgating the old teaching (not "new light"!) that the
Papacy was the king of the north, or that she could have approved of Uriah
Smith's innovation in bringing into the Advent Movement from outside sources the
belief that Turkey is the king of the north of Daniel II.
Yet an ordained minister in our work recently sought to bolster up his
wrong ideas concerning Turkey being the king of the north , by making inaccurate
statements concerning James White's belief on the Papacy as the king of the
north. This minister gave a wrong
impression concerning the Spirit of Prophecy's attitude toward this teaching,
leaving the distinct impression that Pastor James White did not accept the
counsel given by the Spirit of Prophecy. We
believe that this misrepresentation of the facts (whether wittingly or
unwittingly done) should be corrected for the sake of those who would gather
from the statements made that the Spirit of Prophecy frowned upon the belief
that the Papacy is the king of the north.
The
exact words employed by the minister referred to are as follows: "Now
I have here in my hand a book, 'Counsels
to Writers and
Editors', and I want to show
you how Sister White long ago dealt with those who professed to have new
light, and among them her own husband." [Our comment: Far from
being NEW light, the position maintained by James White was one of the landmarks
fully established in the Advent
Movement-James White's editorial in the Review, November 29, 1877.] The
speaker continued, saying: “Now this came very close home.
You all know that James White held some views that were different from
the denominational views. [Our comment: James
White held on to the old denominational
view!] For instance, James White agitated for a number of years that the
King of the North is the Papacy. [James
White consistently held to the old denominational view.]
At
the same time Uriah Smith, the writer of the book 'Daniel and Revelation',
taught that the king of the north was the Turk.
During all the years that Sister White lived she never rebuked Uriah
Smith for teaching that the king of the north was the Turk. [Our comment: Uriah
Smith taught a number of things which
differed from Mrs. E. G. White and she did not rebuke him for teaching
them. She left it for God-fearing
readers of her writings to see where
her writings differed from those of Uriah Smith’s.] She never gave any
contrary teaching in that direction [which,
as we have shown) is not true], but James White tried to break in [a
very incorrect statement for James White, far from breaking
in, was already 'in' with the old teaching protesting against Uriah Smith's
breaking in with his new ideas which he had borrowed from the outside world of
theology] and tried to emphasize that the king of the north was the Papacy
and tried to agitate so aggressively that she rebuked him on three occasions for
doing that." This statement is not only untrue but it also misrepresents
Pastor James White's relationship to the Spirit of Prophecy: it suggests that
Pastor White, out worthy pioneer, refused to accept counsel given him through
the Spirit of Prophecy, which is decidedly untrue and reflects upon his
integrity as a leader in the Cause of Christ.
This misrepresentation of the character and work of Pastor White in an
address stressing the teaching that it is the ministry that has rulership in the
Church" is not only contradictory but is also most reprehensible.
To employ such propaganda when attacking the old Pioneers' teaching that
the Papacy is the king of the north, in order to give credence to the
discredited teaching that Turkey is the king of the north, shows how superficial
indeed is that unscriptural belief. And
as the majority of our Bible scholars and teachers today believe that the Papacy
is the king of the north, as did James White and others of our pioneers, the
statements made in the address under review are a sad commentary revealing the
amazing inaccuracies, inconsistencies and absurdities employed to bolster up the
now largely discarded teaching that Turkey is the king of the north.
Referring
once more to the propaganda-packed presentation by our misinformed pastor, we
quote: "Now when you come to page 77 ['Counsels
to Writers and Editors'] you notice what she says about her own husband: 'My
husband had some ideas on some points differing from the views taken by his
brethren. I was shown that however
true his views were (and she did not say they were true, however true his views
were), God did not call for him to put them in front before his brethren and
create differences of ideas'
Now you will find a lot of people who pick up some little thing of
unfulfilled Prophecy and they make that the great centre around which they build
all their arguments, and they try to throw the whole church into confusion by
agitating, agitating, agitating that little minor point of unfulfilled prophecy.
Now James White was doing just that, and he was daggers drawn with Uriah
Smith on this question of the king of the north and Sister White just calmly
told her husband to be silent … Now she urged on three occasions that her
husband do not agitate those minor things that would bring about
dissension."
We
believe that this misguided preacher will be unable to produce the statements
verifying his assertion that Mrs. E. G. White "on three occasions"
"rebuked" her husband concerning this matter.
Such was Pastor White's belief in the Spirit of Prophecy that this
champion of truth would have needed but one
“rebuke" from one who he believed was divinely inspired in giving
such counsel. Such a statement also
reflects upon the integrity of the large number of our Bible scholars and
leaders who today believe that James White was quite right in his belief that
the king of the north is the Papacy. To
emphasize this feature in an address purporting to stress the need of unity in
the church and the dignity and authority of the ministry, reveals an unbalanced
zeal which strove to protect the preacher's personal viewpoint that Turkey is
the king of the north. But to
obstinately maintain that position by misrepresenting James White, our God
fearing pioneer, is surely carrying things too far.
WHY
MRS. E. G. WHITE COUNSELED HER
HUSBAND AT THAT TIME
All
among us who are keenly interested in the promulgation of truth should know the
circumstances which occasioned Mrs. E.G. White giving
her husband the counsel which is to be found on page 77 of "Counsels
to Writers and Editors". Uriah
Smith's new belief that Turkey was the king of the north had been discredited by
"the Congress of Berlin". Events
had not occurred as predicted by Uriah Smith.
In the words of Raymond F.Cottrell:
"The
supposed fulfilment of Daniel II: 45-the expulsion of Turkey from Europe and the
establishment of its capital at Jerusalem in perhaps 'but a few months' (Uriah Smith,
Thoughts on Daniel, 1873 edition,
pp. 343, 344)-did not occur as so confidently predicted', and nothing happened
which might be pointed to in confirmation of the advent message.
Instead, events actually vindicated 'the landmarks fully established in
the Advent message' and gave emphasis to the validity of the I anxious question
raised by Elder White.
"Remarkably
enough, however, the new position was as confidently maintained as before.
Despite the fact that the major premise had been forfeited by default-the
expected event did not occur (and now cannot occur as then expected)-the
conclusion based upon it was nevertheless retained.
Evidence of this appears in an editorial by James White entitled 'Where
are We?' in the Review a few months
later, in which he is, as it were, asking proponents of the new view what they
propose to do about the situation. Here he reiterates the parallel character of the four major
prophecies of Daniel, asserting that:
“If
the same field and distance are covered by these four prophetic chains, then the
last power of the eleventh chapter, which is to 'Come to his end and none
shall help him', is Rome' (James White, The
Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Oct. 3,1878.
PP. 116, 117).
"Again
he appeals to the consistency of Scripture; and the article concludes with a
notice that it will be continued-he has more to say on the matter and proposes
to deal the new view a telling blow, since events substantiated his position and
left his opponents stranded. The
following evening he repeated the same line of reasoning at the close of an
address by Uriah Smith in which reference was made to the Eastern question,
before delegates assembled at the seventeenth session of the General Conference.
"That
James White should thus differ publicly with Uriah Smith at the close of a
sermon whose main emphasis had been the nearness of Christ's coming indicated an
imminent crisis which might have resulted in schism within the church, Bitter
feelings were apparently taking the place of brotherly love and something was
urgently needed to save a dangerous situation from further deterioration.
It seems that Sister White counselled her husband after that evening
meeting to the effect that his taking public issue with Elder Smith was a
mistake. Regardless of the respective merits of the views presented
his course was clearly in error and it was wise to let the matter drop, at least
for the time being. Of this
experience Sister White later wrote:
'My
husband had some ideas on some points differing from the views taken by his
brethren. I was shown that however
true his views were God did not call for him to put them in front before the
brethren and create differences of ideas . . .' (E. G. White, Counsels
to Writers and Editors, pp. 76, 77, which is considered by trustees of the
Ellen G. White estate to refer to this incident).
As a result of this timely counsel the editorial of the preceding day was
never continued', and the sick man of the East was permitted to slumber-so far
as the Review was concerned-for nearly
a quarter of a century. It is
clear, however, that Elder White did not understand the restriction either to
apply to the position he had taken or to be permanently binding, for two years
later he expressed the same view in an article in the Signs of the Times. Once
more he spoke of
”..
four distinct lines of prophecy. These are given in chapters two, seven, eight, and eleven.
The eleventh chapter of Daniel closes with the close of the fourth
monarchy . . . the Roman Empire which comes to its end at the second coming of
Christ' James White, 'Time of the End', an editorial in The
Signs of the Times, July 22, 1880, p. 330).
"This
is the last statement to appear in the official literature of the church in
defense of the 'landmarks' of pioneer days with regard to the king of the north
or Armageddon. Whatever
counsel may have been given Elder
White, then, applied only to the particular delicate situation obtaining at the
General Conference then in session, and was designed to keep the men there
assembled from coming to an open break . . .
"Evidently
the counsel applied to the spirit in which Elder White had spoken rather than to
the views he had expressed; for if anything Sister White may have said was of
the nature of a pronouncement on the subject under discussion Elder White would
certainly have accepted it. The wording of
the quotation given would seem to infer that Sister White approved of Elder
White's point of view but considered it unwise to press the matter"
(Raymond F. Cottrell, in his Pioneer Views
on Daniel Eleven and Armageddon). (Emphasis mine.)
Today
our Godly scholars revere the memory of Pastor James White for, after years of
research and weighing all the evidence, the majority accept the truth maintained
by him that the Papacy is indeed the king of the north.
RETURN
TO THE PIONEERS' TEACHING
We
conclude by again quoting from Raymond F. Cottrell’s outline in his
"Summary", pp. 21-23, he says: “the view making Rome the power of
the last verses of Daniel eleven and the battle of Armageddon the last conflict
of the great Controversy between Christ and Satan was held unanimously by the
pioneers of the Advent message to the year 1863, and may therefore be designated
appropriately the ‘Pioneer View’. More than a third of a century after 1844
it was spoken of in the Review as one of the ‘landmarks’ of the Advent
message…The view emphasizing Turkey in Daniel 11 and in Armageddon has no
valid claim either to being original with Seventh-day Adventists or to being the
view of the pioneers. But was borrowed directly
and exclusively from non- Adventist sources…The Return to
the Pioneer View . . . Finding that neither Turkey nor an East-West conflict
could be established upon the evidence of inspiration, they [our Bible teachers]
abandoned the Traditional View and ere long discovered that their 'new view' was
in reality the position of the early pioneers.
At the present time, the Bible teachers in every college of North America
have, individually and by personal Bible study, become convinced that the view
of the pioneers is in reality the correct one and have accepted it without
reservation. The chairman of the recent revision committee for Daniel and the
Revelation personally concurred in
this, as do many of our ablest evangelists and other experienced and consecrated
men in all lines of activity from the General Conference down through all ranks
of workers."
James
White today stands vindicated and honored by our scholarly Bible teachers, and
his belief that the Papacy is the King of the North is now believed by great
numbers of our thinkers in all departments of our movement.
RETURN
TO TOC |