IN DEFENSE OF THE FAITH
The
Truth About Seventh-day Adventists
A
REPLY TO CANRIGHT
by
William
H. Branson
THE MISTAKES OF MRS. WHITE
In 1882 Elder Canright
voluntarily left his ministry for the Seventh day Adventists and retired
to a farm. Of
his attitude of mind at
this time we have a description in a handwritten letter written from
Otsego,
Michigan, December 9,
1883, addressed to Dear Brother Long:
I am farming now,
which keeps me very busy and hard at work. This is what I naturally love
to do the best
of anything, and so I
feel well contented. I have entirely given up preaching, and have no
intention of ever
engaging in it
again.
My faith in the
whole thing has been shaken. As far as I can see at present much of it
may be true or it
may not be. I do not
feel positive about any of these speculative points as I used to.
I am a member of the
church still, and do all I can to help it. But if I were situated
differently, would just
as soon join some other
church.
In November, 1884, a
general meeting was held at Otsego, during which Elder Canright's faith
was
renewed, and he bore
the following testimony:
It seems to me, dear
brethren, that my whole soul is now bound up in this present truth. I
have told my
brethren that if the
world were before me, the truth is so dear that I know I could make them
see it. I have
also said that I do not
believe any man takes as much pleasure in worldly pursuits as I do in
this. I have
tried to analyze my
feelings, and I have reached some conclusions. Sometimes an individual
gets started on
a wrong train of
reasoning, and he sees it when he is far away. Then he finds it hard to
get back again. This
was my case exactly. I
did not see as the brethren did, and so I concluded I would leave the
work for the
time being. So I went
to farming....
Now I want to say
that I have been changed right around in my feelings and convictions. I
do not say I am
fully satisfied in
everything; but I believe the truth as I used to believe it. Review
and Herald, Dec. 2,
1884.
Soon after this he
contributed to the Review and Herald an article addressed To Those in
Doubting
Castle. As to his
personal experience he testified:
'Twenty five years ago
I embraced this message. The complete system of truth which it presented
seemed
to me something
wonderful and very glorious. The study of the Bible was a continual
feast to me. To
preach it to others,
and see them embrace it, filled my heart with gladness and peace. But at
length things
came up which threw me
into doubt on some points, and finally were the occasion of my ceasing
to preach
the message. As the
same things have affected others more or less and will be liable to
affect still others in
the future, I wish to
give a few of the reasons why I still think that the work is all right,
that the Lord is in it,
and that these doubts
are not well founded. Ibid., Feb. 10, 1885.
In explaining his
doubts regarding the Testimonies and his renewal of faith in them, he
lays down the
following general
counsel:
Are there not
difficulties in these writings hard to explain? passages which seem to
conflict one with
another, or with some
passage in the Bible, or with facts? I freely grant for myself that
there are some
passages which bother
me, and which I do not know how to explain. But I believe them for all
that, just as I
do the Bible. There are
many passages in the Bible which I should have to admit I could not
explain nor
harmonize. If any man
says that he can explain and reconcile all the statements of the
Scriptures, he simply
shows his self-conceit
and ignorance. Yet I profoundly believe the Bible for all that. . . .
Peter admitted that
there were some things in the Scriptures hard to be understood. 2 Peter
3:16. He says
that some wrest the
Scriptures to their own destruction. And that is just what some are
doing with the
Testimonies.
When we consider how
extensive these writings are, extending over a period of nearly forty
years,
embracing ten bound
volumes besides many smaller works, it would be a wonder indeed if in
all these there
should not be anything
in the wording, the sentiment, or the doctrine, hard to understand and
explain, or on
which a sharp opponent
could not make a plausible argument. We know that God's revelations in
the past
have not been given
free from all obscurity and difficulties. Neither will they be now.
If a man reads the
Bible on purpose to find objections, as Tom Paine did and as Ingersoll
does, he will find
plenty of them to
satisfy his unbelief, and confirm him in his infidelity. But if, like
thousands of others
equally learned and
intelligent, he goes to the Scriptures to find light and God and
salvation, he will find
them full and clear, to
the joy of his soul. I am profoundly convinced in the depths of my soul,
after an
experience of
twenty-five years, that the same is true of the Testimonies. -Ibid.
It is well to consider
these principles in dealing with some of the passages in the writings of
Mrs.
White that are later
given by Mr. Canright as evidence that the Testimonies are unreliable
and faulty.
Considering the vast
number of pages combed by the critics of these writings, there is a
surprisingly small
number of points that
can be brought forward in the effort to belittle the work of their
author. The reader of
that part of Mr.
Canright's book dealing with the teachings of Mrs. White will note that
there are many
quotations of a line or
two here and a brief sentence there, woven together by arguments in such
a way as to
make them serve the
purpose of the critic. Most of the supposed difficulties would disappear
were the
context of the
quotations given.
Striking examples of
this are seen in a number of garbled sentences taken from their setting,
which
he lists under the
heading, Her Predictions About the Rebellion a Failure. We will
notice these in order.
He cites first the
words of Mrs. White: The system of slavery, which has ruined our
nation, is left to live
and stir up another
rebellion. Then our critic comments: Was slavery left to live and
stir up another
rebellion? Now we know
that that statement is utterly untrue. Seventh-day Adventism
Renounced, p. 148.
In its setting, this
sentence quoted from Mrs. White will be seen not to have been intended
as her
prediction. It is a
statement of the thoughts of others, as expressing their feelings at
that time. Here is the
entire paragraph, a
reading of which will remove all grounds for listing this as a
mistake:
Those who have
ventured to leave their homes and sacrifice their lives to exterminate
slavery, are
dissatisfied. They see
no good results from the war, only the preservation of the Union, and
for this
thousands of lives must
be sacrificed and homes made desolate. Great numbers have wasted away
and
expired in hospitals;
others, have been taken prisoners by the rebels, a fate more to be
dreaded than death.
In view of all this,
they inquire, If we succeed in quelling this rebellion, what has been
gained? They can
only answer,
discouragingly, Nothing. That which caused the rebellion is not removed.
The system of
slavery, which has
ruined our nation, is left to live and stir up another rebellion. The
feelings of thousands
of our soldiers are
bitter. They suffer the greatest privations; these they would willingly
endure, but they
find they have been
deceived, and they are dispirited. Our leading men are perplexed; their
hearts are
failing them for fear.
They fear to proclaim freedom to the slaves of the rebels, for by so
doing they will
exasperate that portion
of the South who have not joined the rebellion but are strong slavery
men.'
Testimonies, vol. 1,
pp. 254, 255 (dated Jan. 4, 1862).
Thus it is seen that
Mrs. White was simply expressing the fears of others as to what the
outcome of the
Civil War might be,
rather than predicting that it would surely be so.
Again, continues
Mr. Canright, as an instance of a failure of prediction, 'It seemed
impossible to have
the war conducted
successfully.' Another failure, for it was conducted successfully.
Seventh-day
Adventism Renounced, p.
148.
The setting of this
sentence also shows that it was intended not as a prediction, but merely
as a statement of
fact as it existed at
the time of writing, which was during the Civil War. Note the statement
with its context:
A great share of the
volunteers enlisted, fully believing that the result of the war would be
to abolish
slavery. Others
enlisted intending to be very careful to keep slavery just as it is, but
to put down the
rebellion and preserve
the Union. And then to make the matter still more perplexing' and
uncertain, some of
the officers in command
are strong pro-slavery men, whose sympathies are all with the South, yet
who are
opposed to a separate
government. It seems impossible to have the war conducted successfully,
for many in
our own ranks are
continually working to favor the South, and our armies have been
repulsed, and
unmercifully
slaughtered, on account of the management of these pro-slavery men.'
Testimonies, vol. 1, p.
256 (dated Jan. 4,
1862).
. In its setting the
statement quoted cannot be criticized. Isolated from the obvious reason
contained in the
latter part of the
sentence, and with even the tense of the verb changed in order to make
it appear like a
prediction, it gives a
meaning not intended by the writer.
Here is another,
'This nation will yet be humbled into the dust.' Was it? No.
Seventh-day Adventism
Renounced, p. 148.
Considering the long,
sorrowful record of defeat and disaster of the Northern Army during the'
first year of
the Civil War, before
the tide of victory turned to its side, it is hardly a stretch of
language to admit that it
was then humbled in the
dust, though it later rose to triumph. Mr. Canright further challenges
Mrs. White in
these words:
Again, 'When England
does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to
serve, and there
will be general war.'
Did anything of this kind happen? No. Ibid.
The following statement
taken from one of Mrs. White's books and from which Mr. Canright has
extracted
the above sentence, can
hardly be said to be a prediction. It was written during an early period
in the Civil
War, was simply
picturing conditions as they existed at the time of writing, and
reference is made to the
influences which were
at work among the outside nations. She says:
England is studying
whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of
our nation, and
venture to make war
upon her. She is weighing the matter, and trying to sound other nations.
She fears, if
she should commence war
abroad, that she would be weak at home and that other nations would take
advantage of her
weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active preparations for
war, and are hoping
that England will make
war with our nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be
revenged on
her for the advantage
she has taken of them in the past, and the injustice done them. A
portion of the
Queen's subjects are
waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England
thinks it will pay,
she will not hesitate a
moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power, and humble
our nation.
When England does
declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve,
and there will be
general war, general
confusion. Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 259.
It seems to us that the
context here shows clearly that it was still a question whether or not
England would
declare war. If
England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate. England was
represented as studying
whether or not it would
pay to make war upon America. She was weighing the matter, and trying
to sound
out other nations. '
She was fearful of weakness at home, etc. But it is stated that should
she finally decide
to launch upon a war
with America, all nations would then have an interest of their own to
serve, and there
would be general war
and confusion.
But even granting, for
the sake of argument, that this was intended as a prediction, and that
at the
time when Mr. Canright
wrote his book nothing of the kind had happened, if he had written his
book this
side of 1914, when
England and Germany declared war and threw the civilized world into a
death struggle,
would he so flippantly
have held this prediction up to ridicule? Or had he written at the
beginning of World
War 11, would he have
written as he did? For with both world wars came experiences like that
which was
here foretold. The
prediction was literally fulfilled in all its details.
Once more, 'Had our
nation remained united, it would have had strength; but divided it must
fall.' How it
did fall!
Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 148.
Here again the context
shows that this statement quoted by Mr. Canright is expressive merely of
the view
point of other nations,
and is not a prediction by Mrs. White at all:
The weakness of our
government is fully open before other nations, and they now conclude
that it is
because it was not a
monarchial government, and they admire their own government, and look
down, some
with pity, others with
contempt, upon our nation, which they have regarded as the most powerful
upon the
globe. Had our nation
remained united, it would have had strength; but divided it must fall.
Testimonies,
vol. 1, pp. 259, 260.
This entire chapter,
from which these few quotations are garbled by Mr. Canright, may be
found in
Testimonies for the
Church, volume 1, pages 253-260. The utterances stand today just as they
were written
early in the Civil War,
and Seventh-day Adventists still put this forth, confident that those
who will read it
in its entirety, and
with its obvious meaning, and compare it with history as it has been
confirmed by later
records, will find
nothing to criticize.
Instead of predicting
final failure for the North in the Civil War, Mrs., White clearly
intimated
when and by what means
the tide of victory would be turned. Here it is in this same chapter:
The manner in which
the poor slaves have been treated has led them to believe that their
masters have told
them the truth in these
things. And yet a national fast is proclaimed! Says the Lord, 'Is not
this the fast that I
have chosen, to loose
the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the
oppressed go free,
and that you break
every yoke?' When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen [ie., liberating
the slaves], then will
He accept their prayers as far as the war is concerned; but no* they
'enter not into His
ear. Page 258.
At the lowest ebb in
the fortunes of war with the South, President Lincoln issued his
Emancipation
Proclamation. From that
time began the successes of the North, soon, resulting in victory. Can
it be
possible that Mr.
Canright overlooked this prediction, which certainly was fulfilled? It
must be so, for he
says:
I could give scores
of such quotations all through her writings, showing how they have
failed, always and
everywhere [italics
ours]. Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 149.
In an attempt to arouse
patriotic indignation against Mrs. White, Mr. Canright quotes one other
isolated
sentence from an
article on The Rebellion. This perversion of her meaning and
misrepresentation of her
loyalty should be
noticed:
Again, 'Blood has
been poured out like water, and for naught.' Was it for naught, you
brave soldiers? you
liberated slaves? You
freed nation?- ' Ibid., pp. 148, 149.
The context shows that
Mrs. White was here referring to blood that had, been needlessly shed by
the
mismanagement of
certain men in the Northern Army who were in sympathy with slavery. No
one rejoiced
more over the
liberated slaves and the freed nation than did she. This is
what she wrote:
Many professed Union
men, holding important positions, are disloyal at heart. Their only
object in taking
up arms was to preserve
the Union as it was, and slavery with it. 'they would heartily chain
down the slave
to his life of galling
bondage, had they the privilege. Such have a strong degree of sympathy
with the
South. Blood has been
poured out like water, and for naught. In every town and village there
is mourning.
Wives are mourning for
their husbands, mothers for their sons, and sisters for their
brothers. Testimonies,
vol. 1, p. 367.
When the reader
reflects that this statement was made during the war, and not after, the
true meaning is
clearly understood.
Again Mr. Canright
quotes from Mrs. White: `The nations are now getting angry.' Early
Writings, p. 29.
He then remarks:
That was thirty-eight years ago. It takes, a long time for them to
get fighting mad. -
Seventh day Adventism
Renounced, p. 146.
Here again Mr. Canright
spoke too soon by several years, and was too optimistic that peace on
earth and
good will toward men
was to be the order of the day. We ask, did they not get fighting mad
before and
during the recent world
wars? And is there yet any assurance of lasting peace among the nations?
It would
appear that in this
matter, as in very many others, Mr. Canright, instead of Mrs. White, was
the one who
made a mistake and
figured things out wrongly.
THE REFORM DRESS
One of the worst
blunders Mrs. White ever made, says Mr. Canright, was the move she
made on dress.
-Ibid., p. 149.
1 The issue thus raised
is due to the fact that at a time when tight corsets were worn, when
hoops were in
fashion, and when
women's dresses were dragging behind and mopping up the filth of the
streets, Mrs.
White, like some other
reformers, advocated a reform dress for women. She urged that women's
dresses
should clear the
filth of the streets at least an inch or two, and that nine inches
would be better; that for
warmth an appropriate
undergarment should be worn to protect the lower limbs - pantalettes,
these were
sometimes called. Now
to Mr. Canright this was a shame and a disgrace. Think, says
he, of a modest
woman on the street
with pants on, and her dress cut halfway up to the knees! - Ibid.
And yet a little later
the shears in the hands of fashion leaders began to work, and inch by
inch the skirts
were clipped until they
were six to nine inches from, the ground, then just below the knee, then
above the
knee. True,
conservative and modest women did not carry the clipping process quite
so far, but stopped at
about nine inches from
the ground-just where Mrs. White and other reformers of her day
advocated that the
skirts should stop. And
today a modest woman can go about the streets with her dress cut
halfway up to
the knees and not
have her modesty questioned in the least degree. In fact, the length of
skirt is of the
conservative style, and
is taken as an evidence of modesty on the part of the wearer. The reform
dress,
therefore, only
slightly modified from what was originally advocated, is now the
prevailing style, minus,
however, the protection
to the lower limbs suggested by Mrs. White.
Without giving undue
space to this subject, we think attention should be called to the most
glaring
misrepresentations,
made by the use of garbled quotations, in Mr. Canright's treatment of
this question. As
an instance of direct
contradiction, Mr. Canright quotes two sentences from Mrs. White, out of
their setting,
thus: God would not
have His people adopt the so-called reform dress (Testimonies, vol.
1, p. 421), and a
statement written four
year later, God would now have His people adopt the reform dress.
Ibid., p. 525.
And here is Mr.
Canright's explanation of this seeming contradiction:
What occasioned this
change in the mind of the Lord? The answer is easy: In the time between
the two
revelations Mrs. White
had spent some time at Dr. Jackson's Home, Dansville, New York. Here a
short
dress with pants was
worn, and she fell in with the idea, and soon had a vision requiring
its adoption as
above. - Seventh-day
Adventism Renounced, p. 149.
The whole question
becomes clear when it is stated that there were two distinct styles of
dress referred to.
In the first quotation
let the reader notice that it is the so-called reform dress, that
was condemned by
Mrs. White. The one
referred to thus is what was known as the American costume. In
this costume the
dress was very short,
and the pants worn made the wearer look mannish.
That Mrs. White was
consistent in condemning this, even while recommending another style of
reform
dress, is indicated
by the following quotation from a report of meetings written by James
White:
During the meetings
up to this date, Mrs. White has taken the opportunity to explain and
harmonize her
Testimonies on the
dress question, showing the difference between the reform dress and the
'American
costume,' that while
the first mentioned style of dress reaches to about the top of a lady's
boot, the
'American costume' does
not reach to the knee. Review and Herald, Jan. 15, 1867.
Although Mr. Canright
was, as we shall prove, familiar with this distinction, and with Mrs.
White's
consistent attitude in
condemning the one while recommending a better, yet he sets out as an
apparent
contradiction two
statements, one referring to the American costume, and the other
the reform dress as it
was later developed.
That the reader may be assured that it was this ultra-short American
costume that
was condemned, it is
necessary only to consider Mrs. White's words in their setting. Here is
the quotation
as it stands:
I saw that God's
order has been reversed, and His special directions disregarded by those
who adopt the
American costume. I was
referred to Deuteronomy 22:5: 'The woman shall not wear that which
pertains
unto a man, neither
shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are abomination
unto the Lord
thy God.'
God would not have
His people adopt the so-called reform dress. It is immodest apparel,
wholly unfitted
for the modest, humble
followers of Christ. - Testimonies, vol. 1, p. 42 1.
Elder Canright's
plausible explanation as to Mrs. White's change of mind-though in fact
there was no
change-is that she
adopted a style that she-saw at the Home in Dansville. We are
fortunate in having in
her own handwriting a
letter written by her during that visit to which Mr. Canright makes
reference. Here is
what she wrote
regarding the dress as she saw it worn there:
They have all styles
of dress here. Some are very becoming, if not so short. We shall get
patterns from this
place, and I think we
can get out a style of dress more healthful than we now wear, and yet
not be bloomer
or the American
costume. Our dresses, according to my idea, should be from four to six
inches shorter than
now worn, and should in
no case reach lower than the top of the heel of the shoe, and could be a
little
shorter even than this
with all modesty. I am going to get up a style of dress on my own hook,
which will
accord perfectly with
that which has been shown me. Health demands it. Our feeble women must
dispense
with heavy skirts and
tight waists if they value health. . . .
'We shall never imitate
Miss Dr. Austin or Mrs. Dr. York. They dress very much like men. We
shall imitate or follow
no fashion we have ever yet seen. We shall institute a fashion which
will be both
economical and healthy.
From a letter to Brother and Sister Lockwood, dated September,
1864.
From this letter it
will be noted that all that Mrs. White claimed as being given by
revelation
regarding dress was the
principles that should prevail. It is evident that she was seeking a
style which she
should recommend, a
style that should be modest, healthful, becoming, and economical. She,
with others
connected with the
Health Institute in Battle Creek, worked out the details of a costume
that was adopted
by the ladies at the
health institution, and so recommended itself by its good sense that
some of the patients
adopted it, and took
patterns away with them upon their return home.
Regarding some of the
details connected with the introduction at the Health Institute of a
reform
dress in harmony with
the principles of health and modesty, we have the following statement:
'When the Health Reform
Institute was established, the physicians decided that a better style of
dress for women than
the long, dragging skirts, was desirable. . . . 'The physicians declared
it was not only
desirable, but
necessary in the treatment of some cases; and that being so, it would be
useless and wrong to
receive such cases
without adopting what they were assured was essential to effect cures.
Again, it seemed
to be understood and
conceded by all health reformers who had investigated the subject, that
a reform dress
was necessary, and if
it was not adopted at the Institute, a class of patients would surely be
driven to other
institutions, where
something different from the prevailing fashion was adopted. Therefore
to neglect this
reform would be to
sacrifice the best interests of the Institute, and of a certain class
who most needed its
benefits....
As might be
expected, when it was first being adopted at the Institute there was not
complete uniformity,
but the taste and
choice of the wearers had much to do with the length and appearance of
the dresses
worn....
At my request the
physicians at the Institute named a number of its inmates whose dresses
they considered
as nearly correct in
make and appearance as could be found to that number among the
varieties. I measured
the height of twelve,
with the distance of their dresses from the floor. They varied in height
from five feet
to five seven inches,
and the distance of the dresses from the floor was from 8 to 10 inches. The
medium, nine inches,
was decided to be the right distance, and is adopted as the standard.' -
Health
Reformer, March, 1868.
It is true that
positive testimony was borne by Mrs. White regarding the need of dress
reform, and certain
principles that should
be adopted; yet it was the physicians and others at the sanitarium, as
shown above doubtless
in collaboration with
Mrs. White, who was then living in Battle Creek-who experimented,
designed, modeled, and
recommended it as a dress that conformed to health principles. She urged
its
adoption, as being
consistent with the principles she had been shown.
At the time when the
dress reform was agitated by Mrs. White, it was impossible to devise any
sort of
healthful costume that
would not be so far from the prevailing fashions as to arouse ridicule
from the
devotees of fashion. In
later years, when more healthful styles were adopted, Mrs. White
expressed her
pleasure that
Christians could wear healthful and modest clothes without appearing
singular.
Mr. Canright says of
the reform dress:
It created a
terrible commotion. Husbands swore, brothers refused to walk with their
sisters, men sneered,
and boys hooted.
Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, pp. 149, 150.
Mrs. White, however,
was not responsible for any trouble in families created by the reform
dress for she
distinctly cautioned
her sisters against taking a course to which there was opposition on the
part of their
husbands:
Sisters who have
opposing husbands have asked my advice in regard to their adopting the
short dress
contrary to the wishes
of the husband. I advised them to wait. . . The opposition which many
might receive
should they adopt, the
dress reform, would be more injurious to health than the dress would be
beneficial.
Testimonies, vol. 1, p.
522.
But not all husbands
were, as Mr. Canright intimates, opposed to the new costume recommended
by Mrs.
White. Here is the
testimony of one husband:
The modesty of the
short dress is not the smallest thing to be considered. Any one that has
travelled as
much as I have, can
bear testimony with me to the immodesty of the hoop skirt. A lady with
one on very
seldom enters a
carriage, omnibus, car, and such places, without immodestly exposing
herself. But with the
reform dress on, all
exposure is entirely avoided. After seeing it worn, I think it is the
most modest dress I
have ever seen, and ' I
am not alone in this opinion. -Review and Herald, June 18, 1867.
This husband was D. M.
Canright, who expressed this opinion before he severed himself from the
Seventh day Adventists.
And we have the most positive evidence that Mr. Canright, understood the
difference between the
American costume, which Mrs. White from the first condemned as immodest,
and
the reform dress which
was adopted. In a report of a meeting, in which he set forth the
advantages of the
reform dress, he says,
immediately after the paragraph just quoted:
Nearly all decided
in favour of it, and others had but very slight objections to it. . . .
The reform dress and
the American costume
are two very different things. All could readily see this.' Ibid.
In giving the history
of the reform dress agitation, it should be recognized that good
judgment was not
always used by those
who made the change. And no one more than Mrs. White deplored this fact.
Thus she
says:
In some places there
is great opposition to the short dress. But when I see some dresses worn
by the
sisters, I do not
wonder that people are disgusted, and condemn the dress. Where the dress
is represented as
it should be, all
candid persons are constrained to admit that it is modest and
convenient. Testimonies, vol.
1, p. 521.
The reader who desires
to judge for himself as to the good sense manifested in Mrs. White's
advocacy of a
health reform dress, is
referred to a chapter entitled The Reform Dress, in Testimonies
for the Church,
volume 1, pages
521-525.
WAS MRS. WHITE ILLITERATE?
Was Mrs. White an
illiterate fanatic as she is pictured by Mr. Canright? We answer: Ask
anyone who has
ever heard her speak or
who has ever read her five large books in the Conflict of the Ages
Series. Let any
candid man or woman
take up one of these volumes and read it through, and then answer the
question.
These books, while
written in simple language, are elegant in style and profound in their
teaching. They
appeal to both the
intellect and the heart. Preachers from other denominations have often
quoted from her
writings because of the
richness of expression and clarity of thought found there.
Is this the work of an
illiterate fanatic? The question answers itself.
It is true that Mrs.
White did not have the advantage of a college education; neither did
Abraham Lincoln,
nor Professor Butler,
president of the University of Missouri, who stopped school at the age
of thirteen,
neither did James nor
John nor Matthew. Were they therefore ignorant fanatics? If her
scholastic
attainments were
meager, then all the greater glory attaches to God for the mighty work
He accomplished
through her. She was
probably one of the best educated religious leaders of her day, not in
technical,
worldly wisdom, but in
an understanding of the Scriptures. Like Apollos of Alexandria, she was
eloquent.... and
mighty in the Scriptures. Acts 18:24. The fact that she had been
handicapped in her
schooling and yet
produced such marvelous volumes filled with truths so deep and sublime
as to stir the
very souls of untold
thousands, is one of the strongest testimonies that can. be borne to the
fact that God
was with her.
Of Jesus we are told
that as He taught in the temple in Jerusalem, the Jews marveled,
saying, How knows
this man letters,
having never learned? John 7:15.
There is an education
that comes through personal study, close application, prayer, and
meditation, that
may far exceed that to
be had in the schools of the world, and this is what Mrs. White had. And
besides
this, those who were
best acquainted with her life and work, and who are the closest students
of her
teachings, have no
hesitancy in saying that, through the gift of prophecy she had access to
stores of divine
knowledge that enabled
her to flood the Scriptures with a light and radiance hitherto unseen
since the papal
apostasy of the Dark
Ages all but obliterated Bible truth from the minds of men.
On one occasion the
leading citizens of Battle Creek, Michigan, arranged a meeting for her
to speak on
some subject of her own
choosing, and publicly invited her in the Daily Journal to do so on the
occasion of
her visit there after a
camp meeting which she had attended in Grand Rapids. She complied, and
spoke to a
large congregation.
This shows clearly whether she was considered a fanatic, or one unworthy
to speak in
any pulpit. The
following report of the meeting appeared in the Battle Creek Journal of
October 5, 1887:
There was a good
attendance, including a large number of our most prominent people, at
the lecture of
Mrs. Ellen White, at
the Tabernacle, last evening.
This lady gave her
audience a most eloquent discourse, which was listened to with marked
interest and
attention. Her talk was
interspersed with instructive facts which she had gathered in her recent
visit to
foreign lands, and
demonstrated that this gifted lady has, in addition to her many other
rare qualifications, a
great faculty for
attentive, careful observation, and a remarkable memory of details.
This, together with her
fine delivery and her
faculty of clothing her ideas in choice, beautiful, and appropriate
language, made her
lecture one of the best
that has ever been delivered by any lady in our city. That she may soon
favour our
community with another
address, is the earnest wish of all who attended last evening; and
should she do so,
there will be a large
attendance. Quoted in Review and Herald, Oct. 11, 1877.
Years later, after Mr.
Canright's book was in circulation, in which he so shamefully maligned
Mrs. White,
branding her as a
fanatic, a deceiver, an impostor, etc., this same man attended her
funeral, and as he stood
by her casket with his
brother, B. J. Canright, with tears in his eyes he said, There's a
noble woman gone.
This statement is
attested to by his brother in writing.
Mr. Canright was under
no obligation of any kind to be present at the funeral of Mrs. White,
much less to
offer any eulogy of her
life or character. In view of this, his spontaneous statement,
There's a noble
woman gone, stands
in striking* contrast to the defamatory statements he made concerning
her after he
left the denomination,
and which he published both before and after her death.
Prof.
M. L. Andreasen, general field secretary of the General Conference,
contributes under date of January
17, 1933, this word confirming the statement made by B. J. Canright:
'I
was one of the guards of honor when the body of Mrs. E. G. White lay in
state in the Tabernacle in Battle
Creek, Michigan, and was on duty at the time Mr. Canright approached the
casket. I heard the above words
uttered by Mr. D. M. Canright, and testify to their correctness.
(Signed)
M. L. ANDREASEN.
THE SHUT-DOOR QUESTION
Mr. Canright launches a
thrust against the Seventh day Adventists, and particularly against Mrs.
E. G.
White, because for some
time after the disappointment of 1844 they believed in the
shut-door theory, that
is, that probation for
sinners had closed.
Everybody acknowledges
that the followers of William Miller believed Jesus was coming in 1844.
And
believing that, how
could they have thought otherwise than that probation for the whole
world would close
at that time? That Mrs.
White and her associates at one time believed thus we do not deny.
Indeed, she
herself frankly admits
that fact.
In the troubled period
that immediately followed 1844, when they were endeavoring to understand
the
prophecies more fully
in order to discover where their mistake was, various views were set
forth by
different leaders of
the former Advent body. A full knowledge of God's truth did not come in
a day, nor
even in a year. But
gradually, as they continued to study the Bible, mistakes of
interpretation were
discovered. It was seen
that while Christ's coming is indeed near, even at the doors, the
day and the hour
of that coming are not
revealed in the Scriptures, and that the task before them was a
worldwide one of
preaching that
soon-coming Advent to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and
people.
Their view concerning
those who could still be saved was broadened as God's plan for these
last days
became clear to their
minds. God did not see fit to make them incapable of any error in their
early
endeavors to learn what
the Bible taught regarding the Advent. God has never seen fit to do
that.
The disciples of Christ
had to pass through a period of sadly mistaken ideas regarding Christ's
first advent
and the number who were
to be afforded opportunity for salvation. They thought that Christ would
set up
His kingdom on the
earth at that time. They held this view even after the resurrection, so
wrongly had they
interpreted the
prophecies regarding the Savior. And when they began to preach the
gospel they so
definitely held that it
was only for Israel that they took Peter to task for preaching to the
Gentiles. Peter
himself had gone to
preach to them only after the Lord had specifically instructed him to
go. And when
Peter related how the
Holy Ghost had fallen upon the Gentiles, the apostles
exclaimed with mingled
surprise and joy, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted
repentance unto
life. Acts 11 :18.
According to the chronology in the margin of the Bible, this particular
preaching by
Peter occurred about
eight years after the apostles began to proclaim the gospel message of a
risen Christ!
We may regret that
they, the pioneers of the Christian religion, were so slow of
heart to understand God's
purposes regarding the
first advent of Christ and the founding of the Christian religion; we
may even
marvel that those men
who had been tutored by Christ Himself for three years did not more
quickly learn,
yet we find in all this
no reason for doubt as to the divine origin of Christianity or the
divine guidance of
the apostles. Then why
should anyone attempt to frame a charge against the Second Advent
Movement
simply because the
pioneers of that movement held at first a faulty and limited view of the
Second Advent
of Christ?
But, someone will
say, we will grant that no charge should be brought against the
Seventh-day
Adventist denomination
because the pioneers in general held, for a time, the belief that their
message was
only for a limited
number, and that the probation of the world at large was closed. But Mr.
Canright brings
the more serious charge
that Mrs. E. G. White, whom you declare had the prophetic gift, also
believed and
taught for a time those
same faulty views regarding the close of probation. How do you answer
this?
We would answer by
dividing the inquiry into two parts: First, did Mrs. White believe, in
common with
other pioneers, the
faulty view of the Second Advent doctrine regarding the close of
probation and the
salvation of sinners?
We answer, Yes, even as the apostles, whom God used to write much of the
New
Testament, held, for a
time, faulty ideas regarding the first advent and the salvation of
sinners; second, did
Mrs. White, in those
writings that she declared were revelations from God given in vision,
set forth a wrong
view of the close of
probation, or the shut door, as it was called? To this last
question, which is the only
one that has any proper
bearing on the claim of divine leadership in the Seventh day Adventist
movement,
we answer emphatically,
No.
Away back in 1874 Mrs.
White wrote in a letter an answer to the very charge we are examining.
The
portion of her letter
dealing with this matter is here reproduced: BATTLE CREEK, MICH.,
Aug. 24,1874.
DEAR BRO.
LOUGHBOROUGH:
I hereby testify in
the fear of God that the charges of Miles Grant, of Mrs. Burdick, and
others published
in the Crisis is not
true. The statements in reference to my course in forty-four [1844] is
false.
With my brethren and
sisters, after the time passed in forty-four I did believe no more
sinners would be
converted. -But I never
had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. And am clear and
free to
state no one has ever
heard me say or has read from my pen statements which will justify them
in the
charges they have made
against me upon this point.
It was on my first
journey east to relate my visions that the precious light in regard to
the heavenly
sanctuary was opened
before me and I was shown the open and shut door. We believed that the
Lord was
soon to come in the
clouds of heaven. I was shown that there was a great work to be done in
the world for
those who had not had
the light and rejected it. Our brethren could not understand this with
our faith in the
immediate appearing of
Christ. Some accused me of saying my Lord delays His coming, especially
the
fanatical ones. I saw
that in '44 God had opened a door and no man could shut it and shut a
door and no
man could open it.
Those who rejected the light which was brought to the world by the
message of the
second angel went into
darkness, and how great was that darkness.
I never have stated
or written that the world was doomed or damned. I never have under any
circumstances used this
language to any one, however sinful. I have ever had messages of reproof
for those
who used these harsh
expressions.
Turning to a more
detailed statement concerning Mrs. White's teachings in the early days
of the movement,
we find these facts, as
set forth by A. G. Daniells, who has made an exhaustive study of her
writings:
So far as I can
learn from the documents in our possession, I have given the correct
citation to everything
that came from the pen
of Mrs. White from 1844 to the dose of 1851, and I have given every line
of her
statements regarding
the shut door and the close of probation questions. Here is what we
find:
1. That during that
period of six years there were printed in various forms twenty-five
separate messages,
articles, and letters
from the pen of Mrs. E. G. White.
2. That in only five
articles or letters of this number is there any reference made to the
shut door and the
close of probation.
3. That in not one
of the five references to the shut door does Mrs. White state that the
door of the second
apartment of the
sanctuary in which Christ ministers as High Priest or Mediator for a
lost world, was closed
in 1844. Nor does she
once state that there was no salvation for any sinners after 1844.
4. That in all that
was printed from the pen of Mrs. White during the eight years - 1844 to
1851 we find
three statements so
worded that two different and conflicting interpretations can be placed
upon them. But
this is not to be
counted as strange, for we find the same perplexity in certain passages
of Scripture. The
views here maintained
make the statements harmonious with the general tenor of the messages of
which
they are parts, and
with all the rest of her printed messages.
The writer believes
that any one who will study this subject impartially, with only the
desire to arrive at
the truth, must come to
the conclusion that while the early Adventists - i.e., those who were
disappointed in
1844 believed for a
time that probation closed on the tenth day of the seventh month, and
even if Mrs. E. G.
White for a time shared
personally this view in common with those with whom she associated,
there is no
evidence to show that
she ever put it forth as revealed to her from the Lord. The statements
relied upon by
spine to show this, do
not prove it. And it is certain that other things she wrote between 1844
and 1851 are
entirely inconsistent
with such a view.
We would call the
reader's particular attention to the last sentence of this quotation.
During the very years
that she wrote certain
statements which opponents have insisted must be understood as teaching
a false
view of probation, she
also wrote certain other statements that are entirely inconsistent with
this false view.
But to her opponents
this can mean simply that her writings contain not only errors but
contradictions. Yet
those very opponents,
in meeting the Bible skeptic's charge of errors and contradictions,
would contend that
if the skeptic was only
willing to place another interpretation on certain Bible statements, the
supposed
errors would vanish and
also the contradictions. And their contention would be just. On this
very principle
that a writer's
statements should, if possible, be interpreted so as to be harmonious
one with the other, we
remove the. majority of
the so-called contradictions and difficulties of the Bible. And this
principle is a
sound one to employ,
not simply on the Bible, but on any literary work. Is there any just
reason why we
should not invoke it in
examining the writings of Mrs. White? When we do, the charges against
her
collapse.
|