Ellen G. White Statements Regarding Conditions at the Time of the Flood (2025)

(Adapted from his book Ellen G. White and Her Critics,pp. 306-322)

In the summer of 1864 the "Steam Press of the Seventh-day AdventistPublishing Association" at Battle Creek, Michigan, published athree-hundred-page EllenG. White volume entitled "Important Facts of Faith in Connection Withthe History of Holy Men of Old." This was the third of a four-volume seriescarrying the general title of Spiritual Gifts.

In this work the narrative of the early history of the world is presented,commencing with "The Creation" and carrying down to the giving of thelaw to Israel, these matters, as the author states in her Preface, having beenopened to her in vision.

In Chapter 6, entitled "Crime Before the Flood," Mrs. White indescribing the deplorable conditions which led to the catastrophic destructionof the world, speaks of the amalgamation of man and beast. In the next chapterthere is another similar reference. Occasionally inquiry is made as to just whatMrs. White did write in this connection and what her statements meant, and whythey are not found in her later works, now current. Some have linked theamalgamation statements with the memory of ancient myths regarding strangecreatures produced by unholy alliance between human beings and beasts, and haveasked if the E. G. White statements do not give support to these fables. It isalso intimated that they tend toward evolution.

The only passages in Mrs. White's writings that are of interest in thisconnection are found in Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, already mentioned andrepublished in Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, in 1870. The first, inchapter 6, "Crime Before the Flood," is this:

But if there was one sin above another which called for thedestruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation ofman and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that hadcorrupted their ways before him.--Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.

Chapter 7 is entitled "The Flood," and contains this statement:

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in theark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result ofamalgamation, were destroyed by the Flood. Since the Flood there has beenamalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties ofspecies of animals, and in certain races of men.--Page 75.

These are Mrs. White's only statements on the subject of the amalgamation ofman and beast.

Just what Mrs. White meant by these passages has been the occasion of somespeculation through the years, and two explanations have been set forth. Somehave held that she taught not only that men and beasts have cohabited but alsothat progeny resulted. However, those who hold this view have contended thatthis does not support the doctrine of evolution. The evolution theory dependsfor its life on the idea that small, simple living structures can graduallyevolve into ever higher forms of life, finally bringing forth man.

That more or less closely related forms of life may cross and producehybrids is not questioned by creationists today. That, in the long ago, whenvirility was greater, and conditions possibly in some respects different, morediverse forms of life might have crossed--such as man and some higher forms ofanimals--can be set forth only as an assumption. But this assumption hasmarshaled against it the whole weight of scientific belief today. Of course,scientists have been wrong, at times, in reasoning that all the past must beunderstood in terms of the processes we now see going on.

We might leave the matter as being beyond the range of investigation orproof. The Bible itself contains some such statements, as all students of theScriptures well know.

But there is another explanation of these amalgamation passages which iswell supported and we believe more satisfying and which avoids any conflict withthe observable data of science.

First, what is the general meaning of the word "amalgamation"? Isit ever used to describe the depraved act of cohabitation of man withbeast? No dictionaries we have had access to, not even the exhaustive OxfordEnglish Dictionary, indicate that the term has ever been used to describethis act. There is another standard English word that may properly be used todescribe such cohabitation. The primary usage of the word "amalgamation"through long years has been to describe the fusion of certain metals, and byextension, to denote the fusing of races of men. In the mid-nineteenth centurythe word was commonly employed in the United States to describe theintermarriage of the white and the Negro race.[1]

The long-established meaning of the key word "amalgamation" as theblending of races should weigh heavily in determining the interpretationof the questioned passages.

Second, the whole tenor of Mrs. White's writings provides strong testimonyagainst the claim that she is here seeking solemnly to present as fact someancient stories about abnormal man-beast progeny. Her writings are not taintedwith fanciful fables of the long ago. Rather, they have a stronglymatter-of-fact quality to them. If she had been a dreamer and visionary, howfrequently might she have regaled her readers with myths and weird stories ofantiquity.

The crux of the "amalgamation" passages is this: "amalgamationof man and beast." That statement could be construed to mean amalgamationof man with beast, or amalgamation of man and of beast. In aconstruction like this the preposition "of" is not necessarilyrepeated, though it may be clearly implied. We might speak of the scattering ofman and beast over the earth, but we do not therefore mean that previously manand beast were fused in one mass at one geographical spot. We simply mean thescattering of man over the earth and the scattering of beasts over the earth,though the original location of the two groups might have been on opposite sidesof the earth. In other words, the scattering of man and of beast.

Then why may we not rightly understand this particular grammaticalconstruction in the same way when speaking of amalgamation? If we may speak of ascattering of man and beast without at all implying that scattering started froma single spot, why may we not speak of the amalgamation of man and beast withoutat all implying that man and beast came together in one place in fusion?

We believe that the meaning of the key phrase in question is found byunderstanding it to read: "amalgamation of man and [of] beast." Thusthe passage would be speaking of the amalgamation of different races of mankindand the amalgamation of different races of animals. The grammatical constructionand common usage permit us to understand "of" as being implied.

But does simply the amalgamation of different races of men and theamalgamation of different species of animals suffice to measure up to thedescription of the evil character of amalgamation and the results that followedfrom it; namely, destruction by a flood? Let us look first at the amalgamationof races of men. Note again the text of the first quotation cited (SpiritualGifts, vol. 3, p. 64), and observe these characteristics of amalgamation:

1. It was the "one sin above another which called for the destructionof the race by the Flood."

2. It "defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere."

3. "That powerful, long-lived race . . . had corrupted their waysbefore him."

Two distinct groups of human beings are presented at the opening of thechapter in Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, entitled "Crime Before theFlood":

(1) "The descendants of Seth," and (2) "The descendants ofCain." The two groups were distinct in two marked ways: (1) The first group"felt the curse but lightly." (2) The second group, "who turnedfrom God and trampled upon his authority, felt the effects of the curse moreheavily, especially in stature and nobleness of form." "Thedescendants of Seth were called the sons of God--the descendants of Cain, thesons of men." Here two races are presented which differ both in moral andphysical characteristics.

Then follow immediately these words: "As the sons of God mingled withthe sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost,through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and unitedwith the sons of Cain in their idolatry."--Pages 60, 61. Next comes adescription of their evil course of idolatry, particularly their prostituting tosinful ends the gold and silver and other material possessions that were theirs.Mrs. White then observes: "They corrupted themselves with those thingswhich God had placed upon the earth for man's benefit."--Page 63. From adiscussion of idolatry she turns to polygamy and makes this statement: "Themore men multiplied wives to themselves, the more they increased in wickednessand unhappiness."--Page 63.

Even in this brief chapter we find sufficient to support the position thatthe judgment of a flood upon men was because of the amalgamation of races ofmen. Two races are presented. The amalgamation of the two results in corruptionand idolatry, and polygamy only increases the corruption and wickedness. Thedisputed passage says that God brought the Flood because men "had corruptedtheir ways before him."

Let us now note parallel passages in Mrs. White's writings. In Patriarchsand Prophets, where she writes much more at length on the subject, shespeaks thus of the descendants of Seth and Cain:

For some time the two classes remained separate. The race of Cain,spreading from the place of their first settlement, dispersed over the plainsand valleys where the children of Seth had dwelt; and the latter, in order toescape from their contaminating influence, withdrew to the mountains, and theremade their home. So long as this separation continued, they maintained theworship of God in its purity. But in the lapse of time they ventured, little bylittle, to mingle with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association wasproductive of the worst results. "The sons of God saw the daughters of menthat they were fair." The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty of thedaughters of Cain's descendants, displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them.Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements thatwere now constantly before them, and they lost their peculiar, holy character.Mingling with the depraved, they became like them in spirit and in deeds; therestrictions of the seventh commandment were disregarded, "and they tookthem wives of all which they chose." The children of Seth went "in theway of Cain;" they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment,and neglected the commandments of the Lord."--Pages 81, 82.

Here Mrs. White paints a picture of cumulative wickedness, climaxing in theFlood, and stemming largely from the amalgamation of the "race of Cain"and the "children of Seth." We are using the word "amalgamation"in its proper dictionary meaning, and according to the common usage of the timein which Mrs. White wrote--the intermarriage of different races.

Further on in Patriarchs and Prophets Mrs. White declares:

Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sinsthat brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world. Yet after the floodit again became wide-spread. It was Satan's studied effort to pervert themarriage institution, to weaken its obligations, and lessen its sacredness; forin no surer way could he deface the image of God in man, and open the door tomisery and vice.--Page 338.

In a comment on the history of Israel, she observes:

It came to be a common practice to intermarry with the heathen. . .. The enemy rejoiced in his success in effacing the divine image from the mindsof the people that God had chosen as His representatives.--Fundamentals ofChristian Education, p. 499.

Then take this passage from another of Mrs. White's writings:

Unhallowed marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men,resulted in apostasy which ended in the destruction of the world by a flood.--Testimoniesfor the Church, vol. 5, p. 93.

Let us summarize: The result of the breaking down of the marriageinstitution, and particularly the intermarriage between the children of God andthe heathen, was to "deface the image of God in man." Further, "Unhallowedmarriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men" carried mankindirresistibly forward in increasing iniquity "which ended in the destructionof the world by a flood." Substituting the word "amalgamation"for "marriage" in the above quotations, note the striking parallel tothe following statements in the disputed passage: "The base crime ofamalgamation . . . defaced the image of God"; and, "God purposed todestroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their waysbefore Him."

In none of the parallel passages we have quoted, or in any others that mightbe cited, does Mrs. White speak of the cohabitation of man with beast as being afeature of the gross and dismal picture of antediluvian wickedness thatprecipitated the Flood. On the contrary, it would appear that she speaks ofintermarriage of the race of Cain and the race of Seth, with its inevitabletrain of idolatry, polygamy, and kindred evils, as the cause of the Flood. Andall this harmonizes with the earlier quoted statement in the opening paragraphof the chapter that contains the passage in question.

As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they becamecorrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of theirwives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in theiridolatry.--Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 60, 61.

As already stated, this introduction to the chapter "Crime Before theFlood" is followed by a recital of the idolatry that grew rampant, thedenial of God, the theft, the polygamy, the murder of men, and the destructionof animal life. Then comes immediately the disputed passage, as thoughsummarizing; "But if there was one sin above another which called for thedestruction of the race by the Flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation ofman and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere."[2]

One apparent stumbling block in the way of accepting this interpretation ofthe passage as an intermarriage of races of men and a crossing of differentspecies of animals is the construction of the statement: "amalgamation ofman and beast which defaced the image of God." How could the crossing ofspecies of animals do this?

But let us look more closely at what she says. Two results follow from the "amalgamationof [1] man and [2] beast": It (1) "defaced the image of God," and(2) "caused confusion everywhere." We have seen how the marriage, theamalgamation, of the races of men produced the first of the results. Why couldwe not properly consider that the amalgamation of the races, or species, ofanimals produced the second, that is, "caused confusion everywhere"?When two related things are described in one sentence, it does not follow thatwe must understand that all the results listed flow from each of the two.

This brings us to a consideration of the second of the two passages relatingto amalgamation:

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in theark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result ofamalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has beenamalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties ofspecies of animals, and in certain races of men.--Spiritual Gifts, vol.3, p. 75.

This passage is separated from the first by only a few pages. Theintervening pages give the account of the Flood.

Here she speaks of "every species of animal which God had created,"in contrast with "the confused species which God did not create." "Confusedspecies" of what? The construction permits only one answer: Species ofanimal. But an amalgamation of man with beast would produce, not a species ofanimal, but a hybrid man-beast species, whatever that might be. Mrs. White ishere most certainly speaking of "confused species" of animals. And shesays simply that such "confused species" "were the result ofamalgamation."

Let us summarize, now, by placing in parallel columns the substance of twostatements by Mrs. White:

 Amalgamation of Man Amalgamation of BeastThe intermarriage, the amalgamation, The amalgamation of "species ofof races of men defaced the image of animals" resulted in "confusedGod. species."

We believe these parallel passages fully warrant the conclusion, alreadyreached, that when Mrs. White said, "amalgamation of man and beast,"she meant (1) the amalgamation of races of men, and (2) the amalgamation ofspecies of animals. The first "defaced the image of God," the second "causedconfusion everywhere."

Mrs. White says that "since the flood" there "has beenamalgamation of man and beast," and adds that the results may be seen in(1) "almost endless varieties of species of animals," and in (2) "certainraces of men." There are several important conclusions that follow fromthis passage:

1. Mrs. White speaks of two clearly distinguished groups that testify tothis amalgamation. There are (1) "species of animals" and (2) "racesof men." There is no suggestion that there were species part man and partanimal. But how could there be amalgamation of man with animal and the result beanything else than hybrid man-animal species? She does not even hint of subhumanmonsters or caricatures of man. On the contrary, as just noted, she speaksunequivocally of "species of animals" and "races of men."She does not single out or name any particular race as bearing the evidence ofthis amalgamation.

2. Mrs. White speaks of the "almost endless varieties of species ofanimals" that have resulted from amalgamation. Now it has been suggestedthat Mrs. White in the matter of amalgamation reflected the thinking of thosewho believed the fiction of man-animal crosses. If we rightly understand thatfiction, as it has been wafted through the centuries by the winds of credulity,a few large, mythical creatures of antiquity were supposed to have resulted froma union of man with animals. And these creatures were always supposed to revealboth human and animal features. But there is nothing in the ancient fiction thatsupported the idea that "almost endless varieties of species of animals"were the result of an unnatural cross of man with animals. Mrs. White is herecertainly not expressing an ancient, mythical view. Not even thecredulous pagans, wholly devoid of biological knowledge, would have thought ofentertaining such an idea. How much more reasonable to interpret the passage tomean that these "almost endless varieties of species of animals"resulted from an amalgamation of previously existing forms of animallife!

3. Mrs. White calls upon the reader to look about him for proof of what sheis saying. In other words, whatever this amalgamation has been, its fruitage isevident today. "As may be seen," she says, "in the almost endlessvarieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." But cananything be "seen" in our day that would provide support for theancient myth of beast-men? Certainly there is nothing in the savage races ofsome remote heathen lands that even suggests a cross between man and animals.[3]And if the most degraded race of men does not suggest such a cross, much less doany species of animals suggest it. But the results of the amalgamation of whichMrs. White speaks "may be seen" by the reader.

At the time she wrote her amalgamation statement in 1864, Darwin's influencewas only beginning to be felt in the world. Until he published his Origin ofSpecies (Nov. 24, 1859), most scientists, and religionists generally, hadheld firmly to the view that the species are "fixed," that is, theycannot be crossed. Darwin theorized that all creation is in flux, with noultimate bounds on any form of life. He reasoned that natural law, expressingitself through natural selection and survival of the fittest, causes simpleforms to become increasingly complex and to rise constantly in the scale oflife, until man finally appears. His theory and the doctrine of the fixity ofspecies could not live together. One devoured the other. To Darwin and those whoagreed with him, it seemed that the chief obstacle to acceptance of his theorywas the doctrine of species fixity. And to orthodox Christians belief in speciesfixity seemed absolutely essential to belief in Genesis.

Thus when the battle began between the Darwinites and the believers inGenesis the fighting was chiefly over this question of the fixity of species.Creationists generally considered the term "species" as equivalent tothe "kinds," in Genesis, to each of which was given the divine orderto "bring forth . . . after his kind." Gen.1:24. Such an equating of "species"and "kind" we now know to be unwarranted.

The outcome of such an uneven fight is known to all. Evolutionists hadlittle trouble in proving that there are "endless varieties ofspecies of animals," if we might borrow Mrs. White's words in heramalgamation statement. And whenever creationists have sought to make theirstand on the point of fixity of species, as that term is generally understood,they have been put to rout.

Present-day creationists who have any knowledge of genetics, which treats ofthe laws governing "heredity and variations among related organisms,"fare much better than did their fighting fathers. Genetics shows how endlessvarieties may develop within certain limits--the limits of the potentialvariations within the original strain--but no farther. In other words, thesimple fact of variations in species does not, in itself, provide any proof forevolution. That much is certain. Thus we may believe in "endless varietiesof species" after Ararat without believing in evolution. Mrs. White wrotein 1864 that these "almost endless varieties" "may be seen,"though creationists at that time, and for about a half century more, saw no suchthing; they saw only fixity of species. Yet Mrs. White had no leanings towardDarwin's theory. From the outset she spoke vigorously against evolution!

Mrs. White describes the "amalgamation of man and beast" as a "sin"and a "base crime," but why should the amalgamation of various speciesof animals be thus described?

Note first that Mrs. White, in the chapter "Crime Before the Flood,"is using the word "crime" as loosely synonymous with "sin."The key word before us, therefore, is "sin." And what is sin? It istransgression of the law of God. This is often restricted in theologicalthinking to violations of the Ten Commandments, the moral law. That Mrs. Whitefrequently uses the word "sin" in a much larger sense, as includingany violation of so-called natural laws, is evident from an examination of herwritings. The reason she does this is that she declares that these so-calledlaws of nature are as truly an expression of the mind and will of God as are theTen Commandments. For example: "It is just as much sin to violate the lawsof our being as to break one of the ten commandments, for we cannot do eitherwithout breaking God's law."--Testimonies for the Church,vol. 2, p.70.

Now let us turn to the Bible record of the condition of the whole createdworld, man and beast, before the Flood:

"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from theface of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls ofthe air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." Gen. 6:7.

Why should the Lord repent that He had "made them," the beasts andbirds and creeping things, as well as man? In a few verses farther on is foundthe answer:

"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for allflesh had corrupted his [A.R.V. their] way upon the earth." Gen. 6:12.

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and ofcattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,and every man." Gen. 7:21.

When God first made the world He placed upon it a wide variety of animalsand plants, distributed over hills and valleys, on sunny plain and in shadydell. The picture was one of beauty and harmony in diversity. We can, of course,only conjecture as to details of the Edenic world. The record declares that Godcommanded that each form of life should bring forth "after his kind."Gen. 1:24.

And the fossil records bear silent testimony that between the major forms oflife there appear to be no intermediary forms. There are sharp gaps instead.Whether the Lord designed that His perfect earth should also preservedistinctions between the more closely related forms of life, we can only venturea guess. But if He placed all these more or less closely related forms upon theearth, it would seem a reasonable assumption that He did so as an expression ofHis divine conception of what a perfect world should be like.

We think this is even more than a reasonable assumption in the light ofspecific counsel later given to Israel, as God sought to set up in this sinfulworld a government according to the plans of heaven. Through Moses God said toIsrael:

"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with adiverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall agarment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Lev. 19:19. (See alsoDeut. 22:9-11.)

The Bible presents a picture of a controversy between God and the devil thatstarts with the beginnings of our world and covers everything that has to dowith our world. That Satan, as a free moral agent, has been allowed of God toroam the earth and use his diabolical skill in creating disorder anddestruction, the Bible amply testifies.

The first instance of Satan's attempt to bring disorder in our world was hisspeaking through an animal, a serpent. And though Satan was the instigator ofthe serpent's wily words, the Lord included the serpent in the judgments metedout at the fall.

Where the Scripture record is so brief we must be slow to dogmatize. But wemay find in the fact of Satan, his evil purposes, and this specificallymentioned instance of his control of a member of the animal kingdom, a strongsuggestion that the animal kingdom has suffered from his diabolical cunning. Wecannot believe that in Eden there were blood-thirsty beasts, ill-tempered,snarling, and vicious. All believers in the Bible grant that these evil changesin the beasts were the result of sin. But how could a beast, which does not havea moral nature, and therefore has no knowledge of sin, be changed in nature bythe entrance of sin into the life of Adam and Eve? The Christian mind will notpermit the idea that God so changed the animals. In the fact of Satan, whosedomination of the serpent is recorded for our learning, is surely found the onlyreal explanation of the sorry change that came over the animal kingdom. Part ofthat change, we believe, was the confusing of the species, the blurring of awondrous picture of divine harmony in diversity.

We grant that this belief as to the cause of the confusing of species cannotbe supported by a clear text of Scripture. We affirm only that this belief isconsistent with such scriptures as discuss those earliest days. And nothing morethan this need be affirmed in order to protect the belief from being lightlydismissed by any Bible believer, as an unreasonable explanation.

It is evident that on this view of the confusion of species in the animalkingdom we find a satisfying answer to the question: How could the crossing ofdifferent forms of animal life be described as sin? Was sin involved in theactivity of the serpent? We all answer Yes. But we immediately think of Satan.Even so with the crossing of animals. Any and every move to mar God's original,orderly plan can be described only as sin.

One cannot read far in Mrs. White's writings before becoming aware that sheviews the whole drama of our world from its earliest days onward as a greatstruggle between God and the devil.[4]Mrs. White pictures Satan as stalking over the earth, bent on disorder anddevastation, even as the Bible pictures him. It is true that she did notspecifically refer to Satan in the amalgamation statements in SpiritualGifts. However, another reference to amalgamation discloses her views as tothe cause of certain of the changes that took place in our world after Adam andEve fell. The statement reads:

Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, butafter Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of thesower the question was asked the Master, "Didst not thou sow good seed inthy field? how then hath it tares?" The Master answered, "An enemyhath done this." All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb isof his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted theearth with tares.--Selected Messages, book 2, p. 288.

This statement, viewed in the setting of the whole tenor of Mrs. White'swritings which attribute to Satan the active responsibility for all evil in ourworld, fully warrants us in concluding that she attributed to Satan the "confusedspecies" of animals. Hence she would most certainly describe these "species"as a manifestation of sin, even as she could properly speak of the appearance ofinsensate but "noxious, poisonous herbs" as an exhibit of the activityof the "evil one." Thus her amalgamation statement regarding "sin"is consistent with all that Scripture has revealed of earth's early days, interms of the interpretation we have given to the key phrase, "amalgamationof man and beast."

We come now to the consideration of the fact that the amalgamationstatements were not incorporated by Mrs. White in Patriarchs and Prophets,now current, and the natural inquiry as to why these statements do not thereappear. Some have conjectured that these two statements have been purposelysuppressed.

The fact that a passage is not retained in later publications, or that aparticular book is not republished, is not in itself valid ground for assumingthat suppression has occurred. The groundlessness of such a suggestion is madetransparently clear when we give these pertinent facts in the case:

From 1858 to 1864 there appeared from Mrs. White's pen four small volumescarrying the general title Spiritual Gifts. With the exception of volume2, which is largely autobiographical, and the latter half of volume 4, thevolumes present a portrayal of sacred history from the creation to Edenrestored.

From 1870 to 1884 she brought forth four larger volumes, under the titleThe Spirit of Prophecy. These volumes cover more fully the subject ofman's religious history from Eden to Eden. In large part the material in SpiritualGifts, except the autobiographical volume, is reproduced in The Spiritof Prophecy. Often the text of the former is exactly reproduced, chapterafter chapter, in the latter. In some instances there are deletions, and oftenthere are additions. A detailed study of the matter reveals that here apply theprinciples by which an author, in bringing out a new and more complete treatmentof a theme, may properly add or subtract or revise. The two amalgamationpassages appear verbatim in The Spirit of Prophecy, in volume 1,published in 1870.

How easy it would have been for Mrs. White to drop out the amalgamationpassages in the 1870 edition. The passages had already raised questions, as isevidenced by the reference to them in Uriah Smith's work, Objections to theVisions Answered, published in 1868. That was the time to "suppress"them if she cared to do so. But two years later she reproduced the chapterscontaining the passages, so that both the passages and the context remain thesame.

Up to this time Mrs. White had been writing quite exclusively for thechurch. The next step was the planning of books that might be sold to thoseoutside the Seventh-day Adventist church, even to those who might not have anyreligious background or connection. Naturally, included in such a plan would bethe desire to give an appropriate emphasis to certain truths that distinguishthe preaching of the Advent movement. Now, even as a minister, turning from hiscongregation to address a mixed multitude, would quite change his treatment of asubject, by addition, subtraction, or revision, even so would a writer. In 1890the great subject of man's early history, which is the theme of SpiritualGifts, volume 3, and Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, was covered in anew way in the book Patriarchs and Prophets, prepared for sale to thegeneral public. This is one of a set of current works which cover the religioushistory of man from Eden to Eden, and known generally as the 'Conflict of theAges' Series. In each volume of the series the field is covered in an amplifiedand sometimes new way, and no pretense is made of reprinting an earlier work. Itwould be just as consistent to contend that the whole four volumes of TheSpirit of Prophecy have been suppressed as to contend that a certain fivesentences--the total involved in the amalgamation passages--have beensuppressed.

In this connection we remind the reader that the four volumes of SpiritualGifts, which are the original source of the amalgamation passages, arecurrently available in a facsimile edition.

_______________________________

[1] The CenturyDictionary, edition of 1889, says, under "Amalgamation": "2.The mixing or blending of different things, especially of races." The ideaof the blending of races, as one meaning of the word, seems to have faded out ofsome dictionaries, probably in view of the fact that the term "hybridization"is now generally used to denote fusion, or crossing, of living things. However,the 1949 printing of Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary says,under "Amalgamate": "3. To form into a compound by mixing orblending; unite; combine; as to amalgamate diverse races. Usedspecifically, in the southern United States, of marriage between white and blackpersons."
A Dictionary of American English (Oxford University Press, 1938-1944, 4vols.) says:
"Amalgamate, v. (1797-, in general sense.) Of persons: a.To combine or coalesce, esp. by intermarriage. /b. (See quot. 1859) ... 1859BARTLETT 8 Amalgamate ... is universally applied, in the United States,to the mixing of the black and white races.
"Amalgamation. (1775- in general sense.) /The fusion of the whiteand black races by intermarriage."

[2] Some might contendthat the construction of this sentence indicates that the writer is listing anew crime to the series, something in addition to the unholy marriages,idolatry, murder, etc. We do not believe that such a conclusion is required. Itis no unusual thing for a writer to list a series of items, and then, inconclusion, focus upon one of them, with some such introductory phrase as, "Ifthere is one item above another . . ." Nor do we believe that any specialweight should be placed on the fact that in thus recapitulating, the writeramplifies on the particular point under discussion, as though the very focusingon it seems to draw the writer's mind to a related thought. This, we believe, isa wholly reasonable way to view the construction before us. Mrs. White returns,in the last paragraph of the chapter, to focus on the main cause of the Flood,as earlier set forth in the chapter. In so doing she expands a little to includethe related "confusion" in the animal kingdom that had resulted fromthe entrance of sin into the world.

[3] In the middle ofthe nineteenth century, when some dark recesses of the earth had scarcely beentouched by explorers, strange stories were often told as to the kind of savageswho dwelt there. Probably some who first read Mrs. White's amalgamationstatements unconsciously allowed these strange stories to determine theirinterpretation of the passages. Needless to say, now that all the savage racesare fairly well known, the testimony of those who have come in contact with themis that though they may be depraved, they are exceedingly human in everyrespect, and need only the opportunity to acquire the white man's habits andvices! Mrs. White does not comment on the phrase, "certain races of men."She gives no details as to how the races intermingled after the Flood, nor doesshe say that such postdiluvian intermingling was a "base crime." Weneed only to note that she makes the simple statement that "amalgamation"produced "races of men," not races part man and part animal.

[4] A four-volume workby Mrs. White, published between 1870 and 1884, entitled Spirit of Prophecy,carries the secondary title: The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan,not to be confused with the later work Great Controversy, which is anexpansion of the fourth volume. In the first volume the two amalgamationpassages are reprinted in their original context.