A. Developments during 1850-59

After 1849 various Sabbatarian Adventists realized that the scattering time had passed and the gathering time had commenced. ^{1[J. White], “Repairing the Breach,” p. 28; Edson, “Beloved Brethren,” p. 34; Andrews, “Brethren and Sisters,” p. 39; E. G. White, “DBS,” p. 86 (Early Writings, 74).} During the gathering time the shut-door concept continued to be modified through the influence of missionary progress and developments in the understanding of Christ’s sanctuary ministry. David Arnold’s shut-door concept of Mt. 25:10 reflected the influence of the March 24, 1849 vision of E. G. White ^{2See supra, pp. 153, 154.} and the idea of an absence of mercy for the world in general. He stated that the door of the parable represented “not only a change in the position of the bridegroom, (Christ), but also shows a change in his relation to the world, from that which he previously had.” ^{4Arnold, “Shut Door,” p. 45.} Except for children who were not accountable for their actions in 1844, “misguided souls” seemed to be beyond the possibility of salvation. From this time onward there was a growing concern to work for the conversion of the children of Adventists.FSDA 271.2

In the beginning of 1850 E. G. White stressed the necessity for mission among other Adventists but not their leaders, stating that “our work was not to the shepherds who have rejected the former messages, but to the honest deceived who are led astray.” ^{1Letter, E. G. White to the Hastingses, No. 1, 1850. Cf. E. G. White, “DBS,” p. 64.} It seems that meetings were held among these Adventists which were also attended by some interested non-Adventists. The result was that even a few non-Adventists joined the Sabbatarian Adventists to that in February 1850 E. G. White could report that in Oswego, New York, “souls are coming out upon the truth all around here. They are those who have not heard the Advent doctrine and some of them are those who went forth to meet the Bridegroom in 1844.” ^{2Letter, E. G. White to the Collinses, No. 4, 1850.} In other areas, however, such as Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Canada it was “next to impossible to obtain access to unbelievers” in 1850 because the Disappointment “had confused the minds of many, and they would not listen to any explanation of the matter.” ^{4J. White, “TAM,” pp. 65, 69 (TAM, pp. 3, 15). Cf. Edson, “Appeal,” pp. 8, 10; the first angel seemed to have relevance for those few “who are still within the reach of mercy, and salvation” (J. White, “Present Position,” p. 14). Cf. [J. White], “Angels No. 2,” p. 20 (AR, pp. 5, 6). In Dec. 1850 E. G. White stated that “the burden of the message should be [the] first, second, and third angels’ messages, and those who had any hope in God would yield to the force of that truth” (Manuscript 11, 1850).} Two months later J. White described the first angel’s message as “the last mission of mercy to the world” which had been fulfilled in 1844, and the third angel’s message as the “last message of mercy to the scattered flock.” He interpreted the open door of the Philadelphian church (Revelation 3:8) in the context of the sanctuary doctrine as a reference to the “tabernacle of the testimony which was then [1844] opened, that the light of the holy law of God might shine out upon the waiting saints.” The shut door of Mt. 25:10 he also explained in the setting of the sanctuary, stating that at the end of the 2300 days “the time had come for Jesus to shut the door of the Holy, and pass into the Most Holy, to receive the kingdom, and cleanse the Sanctuary. This change, so wonderfully described in Daniel 7:13, 14, answers to the coming of the bridegroom and the shut door, in the parable.” Although he remarked that “the work for the world was closed up” he denied that the door of mercy was shut in 1844 because “God’s ‘mercy endureth for ever.’ See Psalm 136; 106:1; 118:1.” The shut-door concept he applied to “the sinner, to whom Jesus had stretched out his arms all the day long, and who had rejected the offers of salvation.” On July 29, 1850, E. G. White had a vision which indicated that disobedient Adventists would be purged out, but assurance was given that “others who had not heard the Advent doctrine and rejected it would embrace the truth and take their places.” ^{1E. G. White, Manuscript 5, 1850. Cf. Edson, “Appeal,” p. 3. During the summer of 1850, as a result of a vision, E. G. White seems to have admonished Washington Morse, a disappointed Adventist. In an autobiographical statement she said that “he did not think of the mercy of God in granting the world a longer time in which to prepare for his coming, that the warning of the judgment might be heard more widely, and the people tested with greater light.... He should have rejoiced that the world was granted a reprieve, and he should have been ready to aid in carrying forward the great work yet to be done upon the earth, in bringing sinners to repentance and salvation” (“Mrs. Ellen G. White,” p. 165 [Life Sketches of Ellen G. White, 78]). See supra, p. 151, n. 280.}FSDA 272.1

In August 1850, the Advent Review was published which reprinted many testimonies of leaders of the Advent movement from the period immediately following the Disappointment, affirming the validity of the Seventh Month movement and the extreme shut-door view. The purpose of this publication was to make “ashamed” the Adventist leadership who had later on rejected this movement. ^{2Letter, E. G. White to Arbella Hastings, No. 8, 1850. Cf. Letter, J. White to Brother, July 21, 1850.} From these reprints the conclusion should not be drawn that at this time Sabbatarian Adventists in general advocated a shut-door view such as was described in these testimonies. ^{3This remark also applies to later reprints. See e.g., J. White, “The Seven Last Plagues,” RH, Aug. 5, 1851, p. 1; [Hale], “Brother Hale’s Article,” RH, Sept. 16, 1851, pp. 27, 28.} That was made clear when J. White, commenting on this shut-door concept, stated that during the mission of the third angel’s message some of “the scattered children of the Lord ... who were not brought directly under the influence of the ‘everlasting gospel’ [Revelation 14:6], are now coming into the clear light of the third angel’s message.” ^{5J. White, “Tour East,” AdR, No. 1, Aug. 1850, p. 15. Cf. [J. White], “The Work of the Lord, RH, May 6, 1852, p. 5.} These non-Adventists were considered to be saved “at the eleventh hour.”FSDA 273.1

In September 1850, Edson described the open and shut door of the Philadelphian church (Revelation 3:7, 8) in the context of the sanctuary theology. ^{6Edson, “Appeal,” pp. 2, 3.} Viewing the current missionary situation, he felt that they were in the “gleaning time,” when, on the basis of the breastplate-of-judgment argument, non-Adventists who in 1844 belonged to one of the following categories could still be saved: (1) Those who had not had “the light on the second advent doctrine, and had not rejected it, but were living according to the best light they had”; (2) those who had “a sacred reverence for God and his word, and had his fear before their eyes, yet they made no profession of religion, or of conversion”; (3) “children who had not arrived to years of accountability.” ^{7Ibid., p. 3. His shut-door concept included the possibility of repentance and forgiveness of sin for “all who were borne in on the breast plate of judgment, and have not sinned wilfully” (ibid.).}FSDA 273.2

In the same year Bates interpreted the open and shut door of the Philadelphian church in the context of Revelation 11:19 and Luke 13:25. He remarked that the Master of the house, who was identified with Christ the High Priest, rose up (Luke 13:25) and “shut the outer door of his daily ministration with the world, and no man can open it, and opened the door into the holiest of all; where the ten commandments are seen, [Revelation 11:19], and ‘no man can shut it.’” ^{1Bates, “Laodicean Church,” p. 8. (Brackets his.) Cf. Bates, SLG, pp. 19, 20; Bates, TAS, pp. 9, 10, 14, 15; Bates, “Our Labor in the Philadelphia and Laodicean Churches,” RH, Aug. 1851, p. 13. In 1844 Christ’s mediatorial work ceased “for the whole world forever” (Bates, TAS, p. 9). Cf. Bates, “Labor,” p. 13. The two veils of the sanctuary he designated as two doors (TAS, pp. 11, 14).} This change was for him evidence that “the door was shut; and that the last, and only safe one was then opened for the overcomers in the Philadelphian church.” ^{2Bates, “Laodicean Church,” p. 8.} His shut-door concept was modified by the breastplate-of-judgment argument which led him to conclude that there was mercy for “all honest believers, that had submitted to his [Lord Jesus’] will, and children that had not arrived to the years of accountability.” ^{4Bates, TAS, p. 12. Cf. Edson, An Exposition ... Showing the Final Return of the Jews in 1850, 1849; Arnold, “Daniel’s Visions,” p. 63.} The idea that in 1844 the times of the gentiles had been fulfilled (Luke 21:24) signified to him that now the gospel and “mercy” had been “extended to a remnant of literal Israel before the second advent. Romans 11.”FSDA 273.3

In 1851, J. White conceded that the shut-door concept did not “exclude ALL conversions” because “conversion, in the strictest sense, signified a change from sin to holiness.” ^{5Reply, J. White to Marshall M. Truesdell, RH, April 7, 1851, p. 64. Cf. Letter, Adventist to Son, RH, Feb. 1851, p. 47.} He applied the shut door to “those who heard the ‘everlasting gospel’ message and rejected it, or refused to hear it” and he distinguished three categories of individuals who could be converted: (1) The “erring brethren” of the Laodicean church-James 5:19, 20; (2) children who were not old enough to make an intelligent decision about the truth in 1844 because God “will give every intelligent being a chance to be saved”; (3) “a multitude of precious souls, some even in the churches” who were compared with the 7000 men who had not bowed before Baal (Romans 11:14) and designated as “hidden souls” who “were living up to what light they had when Jesus closed his mediation for the world.” J. White pointed out that God would manifest these people “IN HIS OWN TIME,” but there was “no message to such now, still ‘he that hath an ear to hear let him hear’ [Revelation 3:13]. Our message is to the Laodiceans, yet some of these hidden souls are being manifested.” ^{6Reply, J. White to Truesdell, p. 64.}FSDA 274.1

J. White provided an extensive treatment of the parable of Mt. 25:1-12. He no longer considered the Advent experience as a literal fulfillment of the parable but as “likened, or compared, unto an eastern marriage,” remarking that “the Second Advent people were to experience a series of events which were to have a natural application to the events of the eastern marriage rehearsed by Christ.” ^{1J. White, “Parable,” p. 97 (Parable, pp. 2, 3).} The going of the wise virgins to the marriage was compared with the going into the most holy place of “all that had not rejected light and truth sufficient to be cut off from Israel” because they were carried on the breastplate of Christ the High Priest. ^{2Ibid., p. 102 (Parable, p. 17). Cf. ibid., p. 101 (Parable, p. 15).} In the literal shutting of the door in the parable he saw an illustration of the change in Christ’s ministry. Employing the sanctuary interpretation of Revelation 3:7, 8, J. White stated that Christ “closed the work or ‘door’ of the daily ministration in the Holy, and opened the door of the Most Holy. ‘The tabernacle of the testimony’ [Revelation 11:19] was then opened; but before this could be done, the ‘door,’ or work of Christ’s continual mediation in the Holy had to be closed. This may well be ‘likened’ to the shut door in the parable.” ^{3Ibid., p. 102 (Parable, p. 18).}FSDA 274.2

During 1850 E. G. White stressed that the “message of the third angel must go, and be proclaimed to the scattered children of the Lord.” ^{4Letter, E. G. White to Brethren, RH, Extra, July 21, 1851, p. [4] (Early Writings, 75).} In August 1851, J. White reported on the opportunities for mission that “now the door is open almost everywhere to present the truth, and many are prepared to read the publications who have formerly had no interest to investigate.” ^{5[J. White], “Present Work,” p. 13.} He observed that many Sabbatarian Adventists believed that “the time has come to swell the loud cry of the third angel ... and to sound the last note of warning to the scattered people of God.” ^{7Letter, Edson to J. White, RH, Sept. 2, 1851, p. 24. Through the influence of Rhodes, a Seventh Day Baptist joined the Sabbatarian Adventists (Letter, Cottrell to J. White, RH, Nov. 25, 1851, p. 54).} The next month meetings were held with Seventh Day Baptists and because of their continued interest Edson expressed the conviction that among them there were some hidden souls. Articles were published suggesting that the Gospel dispensation had not terminated in 1844. The Review and Herald reprinted Crosier’s 1846 idea regarding a transition period from the Gospel dispensation to the following dispensation during which a proclamation of a prophetic message (Revelation 10:11) was to take place. Nichols indicated that “the work under the third angel of Revelation 14, and the tenth day atonement and ministration of Christ in the Most Holy are cotemporary [sic], and will finish the gospel dispensation.”FSDA 275.1

In the summer of this year it was decided not to publish any more visions of E. G. White in the Review and Herald because many readers of this missionary periodical were prejudiced against the manifestations of visions. ^{10[J. White], Comments, RH, Extra, July 21, 1851, p. [4]. See supra, p. 121.} Prejudicial attitudes were also present among various Sabbatarian Adventists. ^{11See e.g., Letter, E. G. White to the Howlands, No. 8, 1851, E. G. White, Manuscript 5, 1851, J. White quoted in Spicer, Pioneer Days of the Advent Message ..., 1941, p. 100.} It was therefore decided to publish these visions separately for the benefit of those who were convinced that God still communicated with His church through visions “in the last days.” ^{1[J. White], Comments, p. [4].} This resulted in the publication of A Sketch of the Christian Experience and Views of Ellen G. White in August which included several previously published visions. Some passages of these reprinted visions had been omitted, among which were two references to the shut door. ^{2Cf. E. G. White, “RSA,” p. 14 with E. G. White, CEV, p. 10 (Early Writings, 15); cf. E. G. White, “DBS,” p. 22 with E. G. White, CEV, p. 27 (Early Writings, 45). To E. G. White a major reason for deletions in the first vision was to “prevent repetition” (E. G. White, “Experience and Views,” p. [2]). For other possible reasons pertaining to the size of publication and economy, see A. L. White, “Shut Door,” pp. 34, 35.} Frequently these deletions have been used by later critics as evidence that there was a deliberate attempt to suppress erroneous theological concepts. ^{3For the tradition of this criticism, see Snook and Brinkerhoff, E. G. White, pp. 5, 7; Carver, E. G. White, pp. 51, 52, 60; Grant, True Sabbath, p. 93; Wellcome, Second Advent Message, p. 406; A. C. Long, Comparison of the Early Writings of Mrs. White with later Publications, 1883; Canright, Seventh-day Adventism, pp. 139-46; Conradi, E. G. White, p. 31; Lindén, Biblicism, pp. 80-84; Ronald L. Numbers, Prophetess of Health: A Study of Ellen G. White (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), p. 27. This criticism can be traced back to Snook and Brinkerhoff, two ministers who left the SDA Church in 1865 (Butler, “‘Early Writings’ and ‘Suppression,’” RH, Aug. 14, 1883, Supplement, pp. 3-5; Butler, “A Brief History of the ‘Marion’ Movement,” ibid., pp. 7, 8). E. G. White described Snook and Brinkerhoff as “false ministers” who had gathered “testimonies of falsehood” from former believers like Moses Hull, Ransom Hicks, and participants in the Messenger party-the first secession from the Sabbatarian Adventists (“Our Late Experience,” RH, Feb. 20, 1866, p. 89). This could be an indication that the charge of suppression goes back to an earlier date. Lindén came to the following conclusions: (1) The statement in the E. G. White letter to the Dodges, No. 4, July 21, 1851 that the “visions trouble many. They [know] not what to make of them” provided evidence that her fellow believers had already discussed the changes in the wording of the visions before they had been published. He concluded that in this context she, having seen her early printed visions while in the home of a fellow believer and being conscious of the changes, assured her friends that if all the details should not be printed she would like to write them out at their request; (2) J. White deleted the “heretical” shut-door concept in order to secure a smooth transition to the open-door view or unlimited evangelistic work; (3) the publication of CEV was followed by a reaction which resulted in the fact that E. G. White could not fully assert her authority until 1855. As evidence he pointed to her few articles in the RH during 1851-55 (Lindén, Biblicism, pp. 81, 82, 84 [Letter, Lindén to A. L. White, pp. 9, 11]). Cf. Letter, Lindén to the E. G. White Trustees, Sept. 2, 1971, pp. 4, 5. Regarding Lindén’s first conclusion, contemporary sources indicate that the reason why the visions troubled many was that there existed a strong prejudice against visions even among Sabbatarian Adventists (supra, p. 275, n. 38). Lindén’s translation and interpretation of his final quotation from this E. G. White letter, which he used as support for his argument, indicate that he misunderstood its grammatical construction (cf. Lindén, Biblicism, p. 81 with Letter, E. G. White to the Dodges, No. 4, 1851). Cf. Letter, A. L. White to Lindén, Oct. 21, 1971, p. 7. The immediate context of the original quotation indicates that it was not her early printed visions which she saw at the home of a believer but a vision. In her letter to her friends she said that if all the particulars of the vision she saw there were not published in the forthcoming pamphlet she could write them out. This interpretation accounts for the grammatical structure of the original quotation in its contextual setting and the fact that a few days later she was occupied with the writing out of her latest visions in order to incorporate them in the pamphlet (Letter, E. G. White to Hastings and Harriet, No. 7, July 27, 1851). Compare the similarities between her comments in both letters on the publication of the pamphlet. These facts invalidate his first conclusion. Both his second and third conclusions are based on assumptions and not on contemporary sources. Regarding the third conclusion it should be noted that in July 1851, prior to the publication of CEV, J. White had announced that no more visions would be published in the RH as a concession to the prejudice of many individuals (Comments, p. [4]). This seems to be the major reason for the absence of her visions in the RH. Cf. A. L White, Ellen G. White, pp. 51-53. For an evaluation of Number’s selective use of sources, see Ellen G. White Estate, A Critique of Prophetess of Health, 1976.} The fact, however, that these shut-door concepts could be interpreted in harmony with later shut-door statements may suggest a different reason for these deletions. A more plausible explanation seems to be that in 1850-51, when various non-Adventists became interested in the proclamation of the Sabbatarian Adventists, everything was done to avoid a perpetuation of a shut-door view that interfered with an expanding missionary outreach. Owing to the fact that the omitted shut-door statements could be interpreted in a way which was contrary to E. G. White’s own interpretation, the decision might have been made not to include them in the current publication. ^{1See supreme, pp. 150, n. 271; 154, n. 298; cf. A. L White, “Shut Door,” p. 37.}FSDA 275.2

During 1852 the mission of Sabbatarian Adventists among non-Adventists continued to be so successful that J. White could state that the “work is not confined to those only who have had an experience in the past advent movement. A large portion of those who are sharing the blessings attending the present truth were not connected with the advent cause in 1844.” ^{2[J. White], “Work of the Lord,” pp. 4, 5. In another article he said: “Many of our brethren in this state [New York], who are fully with us in our views of the message of the third angel, had no part in the messages of the first and second angels” (“Truth,” p. 94). On the success in Lorain, New York, he remarked that “the Lord has raised up quite a large company of Sabbath-keepers within a few months, many of whom had but little or no experience in the advent movement” (“Tour West,” p. 94).} This cannot but be the result of an active mission among non-Adventists in certain areas during the previous year. These new converts, according to J. White, consisted of individuals who came out of “the churches and the world at the ‘eleventh hour’” and youth from Adventist parents. ^{3[J. White], “Work of the Lord,” p. 5. For the success among children, see ibid.; [J. White], “The Work of Grace,” RH, Feb. 17, 1852, p. 94. The concern to educate children of believers in the “present truth” resulted in the publication of the Youth’s Instructor [J. White], “A Paper for Children,” RH, July 8, 1852, p. 37).} As biblical evidence that people could still be saved from the fallen nominal Sardis church, he indicated that there were “‘a few names even in Sardis,’ (from which the Philadelphian church came out,) ‘which have not defiled their garments.’ Revelation 3:4.... They are coming out of Babylon.” ^5Ibid. He expected their mission to affect “the world, arrest the public mind, and call out from this great Babylon the scattered members of the body of Christ.” In an attempt to reach members of his former Seventh Day Baptist Church, Cottrell published the article, “To Sabbath Keepers who Have Not Heard the Third Angel’s Message.” Various believers expressed the hope that the 144,000 would be sealed soon.FSDA 277.1

In discussing the shut door of Mt. 25:10 J. White stated in 1852, “that event shuts out none of the honest children of God, neither those who have not wickedly rejected the light of truth, and the influence of the Holy Spirit.” ^{1[J. White], “Call at the Harbinger Office,” RH, Feb. 17, 1852, p. 94.} The mission of the Philadelphian church among these non-Adventists became associated with the invitation “he that hath an ear, let him hear” (Revelation 3:13). ^{2[J. White], “Truth,” p. 94; Letter, Arnold to J. White, RH, March 23, 1852, p. 110; Andrews, “TAR,” p. 211 (TAR, p. 137). Cf. supra, p. 274.} In referring to the open door of Isaiah 22:22 and Revelation 3:7, 8, J. White said:FSDA 277.2

This OPEN DOOR we teach, and invite those who have an ear to hear, to come to it and find salvation through Jesus Christ. There is an exceeding glory in the view that Jesus has OPENED THE DOOR into the holiest of all, or has passed within the second vail, and now stands before the Ark containing the ten commandments. [Revelation 11:19 quoted here]. If it be said that we are of the OPEN DOOR and seventh day Sabbath theory we shall not object; for this is our faith. ^{3[J. White], “Harbinger Office,” p. 95. Cf. [J. White], “The Shut Door,” RH, April 14, 1853, p. 189. Wm. S. Ingraham, “The Parable-Matt. 25,” RH, June 9, 1853, p. 10.}FSDA 278.1

He also added that they had “never felt greater liberty in pointing out the way of life to sinners in past years, than to such now.” ^{4[J. White], “Truth,” p. 94.} Although this emphasis on an “open door” concept reflected the current success of mission among non-Adventists, the shut-door concept based on the rejection of truth was retained. Thus the “large mass of mankind” or “the mass of the present generation” he considered as being lost because of the assumption that they had “rejected the doctrine of the Second Advent.” ^5Ibid. “Some” of the believers, however, still adhered to the extreme shut-door view. ^{7Cf. Waggoner, “‘Suppression’ and ‘The Shut Door,’” RH, Aug. 14, 1883, Supplement, p. 1.} From the above evidence it is clear that the Sabbatarian Adventist leaders did not advocate the extreme position at this time. In fact, they, including E. G. White, tried to counteract this view.FSDA 278.2

In 1853 the argument that the breastplate of judgment provided the possibility of salvation after 1844 was replaced by Andrews’ argument that on the antitypical Day of Atonement the blood of Christ was employed not only to cleanse the sanctuary but also to pardon or forgive sins. ^{1See supra, pp. 171, 172. Cf. [J. White], “The Sanctuary,” RH, March 17, 1853, p. 176. Edson was one of the first who alluded to this argument (supra, p. 171).} This interpretation harmonized the sanctuary theology with mission praxis.FSDA 279.1

In the same year J. White stressed that the parable of Mt. 25 only concerned individuals participating in the Advent movement, so that “those who were not in the movement, and did not reject its light, stand on the same ground for salvation, as though such a movement had never taken place.” ^{2[J. White], “Shut Door,” p. 189. He added: “Those ... who are now looking for the Lord, and are obeying the present truth, may now rejoice in the true application of the parable of the ten virgins, as well as those who shared in the past great and glorious movement.”} The shut door, he said, pertained to “those moved by the proclamation of the Advent, who had none of the grace of God, no real faith” and “those who were foolish and wicked enough to reject, and fight against the glorious news of a coming Saviour.” ^3Ibid. He stated, however, that “we rejoice to publish to those that have an ear to hear, that there is an Open Door [context of Revelation 3:8; 11:19].” ^{5[J. White], “Luke 13:23-25,” p. 4.} As one of the first Sabbatarian Adventists J. White applied the shutting of the door by the Master of the house (Luke 13:25) “to the close of Christ’s mediation in the holiest of the heavenly Sanctuary.” Then, from his understanding of Christ’s ministry and Revelation 3:7, he concluded that there were in fact two shut doors: “First, when his [Christ’s] work closed in the holy place, at the termination of the 2300 days, and, second, when the atonement shall be finished, and Christ leaves the Sanctuary.” He added that “the last message of mercy is going forth, and soon the Master of the house will rise up, and shut to the door.” A few years later, Smith described the shut door of Mt. 25:10 in a contemporary setting by stating that “those who ... with the present light on this subject [of Christ’s high-priestly ministry], shall attempt to find in Christ a Saviour, while living in violation of that holy law, or shall seek him as minister in the first apartment of the Sanctuary, will find that he has withdrawn himself from them [Host 5:6], and knows them not.” Belonging to the foolish virgins, however, did not preclude a change for the better. The wise and foolish virgins he considered to represent a “class” and not individuals, meaning that “an individual may, without difficulty, though belonging at one time to one class, at another, help compose the other.” ^{1Ibid., p. 189. Adventists who participated in a time-setting movement in 1854 were regarded by J. White as the foolish virgins (“Signs of the Times,” RH, Nov. 12, 1857, p. 3).} Thus more and more the shut door of the parable was explained in the context of the sanctuary theology. ^{2Cf. infra, p. 283, n. 95. Haskell’s interpretation was not normative for that time (“Philadelphia and Laodicean Churches,” p. 6).}FSDA 279.2

In 1853 E. G. White was one of the first to say that the Sabbatarian Adventist mission had relevance for the world when she referred to it as “the last message of mercy that is ever to be given to a guilty world.” ^{3E. G. White, “To the Saints Scattered Abroad,” RH, Feb. 17, 1853, p. 155. Cf. [J. White], “Babylon,” RH, June 24, 1852, p. 29.} From this time onward others began using similar language to describe the mission of the third angel’s message. ^{4See e.g., Andrews, “TAR,” p. 211 (TAR, p. 136); J. White, “The Third Angel’s Message,” RH, Aug. 28, 1856, p. 132.} In general, during the 1850s the concept of their mission to the world was confined to the North American continent. ^{6E. G. White, Spiritual Gifts 1:194, 196. Cf. ibid., p. 197; J. White, “Babylon,” RH, June 24, 1852, p. 29; J. White, “Loud Voice,” pp. 172, 173. He stated that the third angel’s message would be “a test to all men” (ibid., p. 172).} However, in commenting on the apocalyptic-eschatological scene of Revelation 18, E. G. White seemed to suggest that their mission would be much more extensive. She indicated that the loud cry of the third angel’s message would enlighten “the earth,” penetrate “every where” and close “with a power and strength far exceeding the midnight cry.” The interpretation of Mt. 24:14 was similar to that of the Millerites, who saw its fulfillment in the proclamation of the gospel by the Christian church as well as in the preaching of the Second Advent, 1840-44.FSDA 280.1

For several years SDA missionary strategy was influenced by a current idea that the three invitations to the marriage supper of Luke 14:16-24 signified the special warnings of the three angels’ messages. ^{9See e.g., [J. White], “Cause,” RH, Oct. 24, 1854, p. 84; Andrews, “TAR,” RH, Jan. 23, 1855, p. 162 (TAR, pp. 15-17); cf. H. Heath, “The ‘Great Supper,’” AH, January 29, 1845, pp. 194, 195 (RH, Sept. 2, 1851, pp. 21, 22). Later this interpretation we modified (E. G. White, TC, No. 17, pp. 33, 34, 123 [Testimonies for the Church 2:225, 226, 295]; E. G. White, Testimonies for the Church 4:412; Testimonies for the Church 8:71, 72; E. G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons, 219-37; 307-9).} From this J. White concluded that the mission of the third angel’s message, which was identified with the last invitation, was not directed to the “self-righteous professors” or to the churches and the cities where the first two angels’ messages had been given but to the “mixed multitude, in the high ways and hedges [Luke 14:23], rich and poor, professors and non-professors.” ^{1J. White, “Cause,” RH, Oct. 24, 1854, p. 84. Cf. J. White, “Third Angel’s Message,” p. 141. It further implied that the believers should “go forth from town to town, from country to country, and from state to state ... and give the third and last call which has compelling power in it” (ibid.).} In 1855 Bates suggested that a few publications on the third angel’s message be sent “to some of the foreign missionary stations, especially to the Sandwich islands.” ^{2Letter, Bates to J. White, RH, May 29, 1855, p. 240. He expected a few results.} The following year J. White stated that there was a need for “a missionary spirit”-not, of course, to send “the gospel to the heathen; but to extend the solemn warning throughout the realms of corrupt Christianity [Joel 2:1; Isaiah 58:1 quoted],” ^4Ibid. calling upon believers to “send the Message abroad throughout christendom.”FSDA 280.2

During the 1850s new interpretations of Revelation 10 reflected the contemporary mission expansion among the various groups of European immigrants in the U.S.A. The phrase, “There should be time no longer” (Revelation 10:6), was no longer referred to as probationary time but as the end of “prophetic time,” which was seen to have ended in 1844. ^{5[Smith], “Synopsis of the Present Truth,” No. 13, RH, Feb. 4, 1858, p. 100.} Since that date the “mystery of God” (10:7) was being “finished,” a process defined by J. White as “the closing work of the gospel of Jesus Christ, embracing the last message of mercy to the world.” ^{6J. White, “Mystery,” p. 205.} The mission of the third angel’s message came to be identified with the prophetic call, “Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings” (10:11). ^{8See e.g., Hutchins, “World,” p. 168; [Smith], “The Conference,” RH, May 27, 1858, p. 13. To Smith Revelation 10:11 could have its fulfillment in the U.S.A. He stated that by reason of analogy it would seem that the mission of the third angel’s message would be “co-extensive with the first: though this might not perhaps [italics mine] be necessary to fulfill Revelation 10:11 since our own land is composed of people from almost every nation” (Reply to A. H. Lewis, RH, Feb. 3, 1859, p. 87).} At first this text was not interpreted as having world-wide implications, and when, in the 1850s, European immigrants began to accept the message, it seemed to some that it would find fulfillment within North America.FSDA 281.1

To reach these immigrants, publications were prepared between 1856 and 1858 in German, French, and Dutch. ^{9J. White, Note on the German Tract, RH, Jan. 28, 1858, p. 96; [Smith], “Business Items,” RH, March 25, 1858, p. 152; J. White, “Publications in Other Languages,” RH, May 6, 1858, p. 200; J. White, “From the Field,” RH, July 8, 1858, p. 64. The first publication in Dutch was published in 1858. It contained translations of Waggoner, Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, an extract from a Sabbath Manual, and several pages of the Bible Student’s Assistant (J. White, “Field,” RH, July 8, 1858, p. 64). It was entitled De Natuur en Verbinding van den Sabbath Volgens het Vierde Gebodt; met Aanmerkingen op den Groten Afval en Zwaren Tyden in de Laatste Dagen, trans. John Fisher. Already in 1855 there were preparations to publish a pamphlet in Swedish (Letter, Gustaf Mellberg to J. White, RH, Feb. 20, 1855, p. 183).} In 1858 J. White reported that there were Sabbatarian Adventists in the U.S.A. whose mother tongues were “German, French, Norwegian, Swedish, Dutch, etc.” and whose desire it was “to see publications on the present truth printed in their native languages, to circulate in America and in Europe.” ^{1J. White, “Publications in Other Languages,” RH, May 6, 1858, p. 200, Cf. Letter, M. B. Czechowski to E. G. White, RH, Sept. 23, 1858, p. 144; J. White, “Third Angel’s Message,” p. 141.} Thus relatives and friends in Europe began to be exposed to the third angel’s message through the sending of literature. ^{2Letter, J. Andrews to Smith, in “Extract from a Letter from Ireland,” RH, Aug. 14, 1860, p. 103; Letter, Jane Martin to J. White, in “The Sabbath in Ireland,” RH, Nov. 19, 1861, p. 199; Letter, Jno. Sisley to J. White, RH, July 2, 1861, p. 47.} The result was that in 1859, in Ireland, S. E. Armstrong accepted this message as one of the first in Europe. ^{4A Seneca Indian settlement was visited by Cottrell and Ingraham (“The Cause in Western New York,” RH, Feb. 12, 1857, p. 117). For the sermons given, see Cottrell, “Sermon Preached to the Seneca Indians,” RH, May 14, 1857, pp. 12, 13; Cottrell, “A Discourse Written for the Seneca Indians, To Be Delivered Through an Interpreter. No. 2,” RH, June 10, 1858, pp. 28, 29.} Perhaps the first attempt to reach American Indians was made in 1857. In that same year a report was published on the authority of a French Baptist minister in Canada who claimed to have encountered individuals in France who also proclaimed the third angel’s message. In 1859 a Norwegian immigrant, who had become a Sabbatarian Adventist in the U.S.A., reported that he thought he had heard the third angel’s message proclaimed by a Swede in Norway in 1848. Neither report was confirmed in later publications.FSDA 281.2