Page 1
by Arthur L. White
At a meeting of the Bible and history teachers held in Washington, D. C., on
August 1, 1919, (following the Bible Conference), Elder W. W. Prescott
declared:
I contributed something toward the revision of Great Controversy.
I furnished considerable material bearing upon that question.--"Minutes of the
1919 Meeting of Bible and History Teachers,"
p. 121. (Published in Spectrum,
volume 10, No. 1, page 54, column 2.)
Dr. Desmond Ford in his 991-page document states that many of The Great Controversy pages were changed because of the Prescott criticisms and
suggestions, implying a strong Prescott influence in what is said to be a
revision of the book. One gains the impression from these two witnesses that
there were very significant and rather sweeping revisions of the book in
response to the Prescott input.
The facts are that the Prescott suggestions which would have resulted in
sweeping changes in the book were, after careful consideration, rejected
outright. Only a little more than half of the 105 suggestions were accepted and
a large part of these related to precision of expression or called for
supporting references or Appendix Note explanations.
The facts fail to sustain the assertions of either Prescott or Ford, but
very few, if any, researchers of this day have gone to the trouble to ascertain
just what the facts are. Only in so doing can the truth be known.
This paper is dedicated to such an investigation. To assure the reader of a
fair and correct evaluation, the Prescott suggestions, as conveyed in his
letter to W. C. White on April 26, 1910, are presented in
Page 2
toto. In reporting on the response to these suggestions, the contemporary
records have been summoned and where changes were made in the text of the book,
the 1888 reading is presented, followed by the wording in the 1911 edition.
Only in this way is it possible to convey just what was done and why. The
reader may thus judge the number and weight of the changes made in response to
the Prescott input.
In July, 1911, a new edition of Great Controversy
came from the presses of the Pacific Press and the Review and Herald. It is
often spoken of as the 1911 "revision" of The Great Controversy. The
term revision is much too broad for what was actually done. The word
"refinement" would be more in keeping with both what was intended by the author
and her staff at Elmshaven and what actually took place. While the work was in
progress, workers involved made it clear that the book was not being revised.
The word "revision," in the interest of accuracy, was studiously avoided, and
rightly so. C. C. Crisler, writing to H. C. Lacey, September 20, 1910, said:
"No revision of the text has been attempted."
Not only have the terms used in reference to the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy been used loosely--and the White Estate is not guiltless
in this respect--but at times very inaccurate statements have been made as to
the book and the work done on it. This is clearly evidenced in the minutes of
the 1919 Conference of Bible and History Teachers.
On January 5, 1910, C. H. Jones, manager of the Pacific Press wrote to W. C.
White concerning The Great Controversy as follows:
It will be necessary to print another edition of this book on or before
July, 1910. You are aware that the plates are worn out. New plates ought to be
made before printing another edition.
This set in motion plans for resetting the type and the making of new
printing plates. The work was entered upon with no expectation of any
alteration of the text. It was merely a routine undertaking, but embodying
plans to improve the illustrations, et cetera. Type-setting and plate making
commenced immediately. Ellen White informs us, however, of her attitude toward
the project:
When I learned that The Great Controversy must be reset, I
determined that we would have everything closely examined, to see if the truths
it contained were stated in the very best manner, to convince those not of our
faith that the Lord had guided and sustained me in the writing of its pages.--
EGW to FMW, July 25, 1911.
This, together with a long-standing request that the historical quotations
in the book be properly credited, prompted W. C. White to call a halt in the
operation. The considerations led him to take up correspondence with the book
committees of both the Pacific Press and the Review and Herald and to confer
with several individuals opening the way for suggestions relating to the new
reset book.
One of the individuals W. C. White conferred with was Professor W. W. Prescott.
He did so in connection with a trip to Washington in early April, 1910. Prescott
was then editor of The Protestant Magazine and as The Great Controversy
had considerable to say about the Roman Catholic Church, it was logical that
he should be asked to look the book through, especially in the light of Ellen
White's desire to "have everything closely examined, to see if the truths it
contained were stated in the very best manner." Prescott, with the views that
he held in regard to inspiration,1 was
reluctant to do as he was requested, but he accepted the assignment and in the
matter of two
Page 4
or three weeks submitted his report to W. C. White. This was in the form of
a 39-page, double-spaced letter, dated April 26, 1910.
We shall quote all of the 39-page Prescott letter to W. C. White in which he
renders his report. In doing so, we shall intersperse his suggestions with the
response of Ellen White and the Elmshaven staff.
Prescott refers to W. C. White's request given orally by W. C. White while
he was in Washington in early April. The White Estate files fail to disclose a
W. C. White letter to Prescott. For the sake of convenience, the points made by
Prescott are numbered. He writes:
My Dear Brother:
In harmony with your urgent request, I have taken a little time to
go through The Great Controversy, and to note some of the things which
seemed to me to indicate the need of a revision. Inasmuch as the book covers
the period beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem, and ending with the
coming of the Lord and the new earth, it could hardly be expected that I should
be able to deal in any way exhaustively with the facts of history which are
treated upon in this book. I can only notice such matters, and make such
suggestions, as are within the range of my reading.
1.
There is one general feature of the book to which I will call attention
without attempting to refer definitely to each case, as this would require much
space, and involve much repetition. Throughout the book there are very many
quotations, both from other writers and from verbal conversations which ought
to be accurate, and which I think ought to
Page 5
have in nearly all cases suitable references. It is very difficult now,
however, to locate these quotations, as oftentimes there is no hint which would
enable one to look them up. I shall call attention to some which I have been
able to locate, and suggest the need of much work in this direction. The
inaccuracies which I have found in the few which I have looked up, suggest
this. [Variant translations contributed to the appearance of inaccuracies.]
I will now deal with different places throughout the book which
seem to need attention. The edition which I have used in making this criticism
is the Eleventh edition, revised and enlarged, published by the Pacific Press
in 1889.
2. Page 24:--It is stated that the temple "was rebuilt about
five hundred years bfore the birth of Christ." On the insert page following,
the date of rebuilding is given as B. C. 516. Smith's Bible Dictionary
gives it "Cir 520 B. C."
Response: Negative. Text left unchanged. The word "about"
allows some leeway.
3. Page 26: The setting up of the "idolatrous standards of
the Romans" just outside the city walls is stated to be the signal referred to
by Christ for the flight of the disciples; but on page 31, the flight of the
disciples is made to be after "the retreat of Cestius."
Response: Negative. No change in text.
4. Page 28: The period between the doom of Jerusalem as
pronounced by Christ and the overthrow of the city is said to be "forty years."
As the city was overthrown A. D. 70, if this period is exact, it would make the
time for his pronouncing the doom A. D. 30, and consequently, His crucifixion
in the same year; but in other places in the book, the crucifixion is placed in
A. D. 31.
Response: Criticism accepted. Text changed in the interest
of precision.
1888 book reads: "For forty years after the doom of
Jerusalem had been pronounced by Christ Himself, the Lord delayed His judgments
upon the city and the nation."
1911 book reads: "For nearly forty years after the
doom of Jerusalem had been pronounced by Christ," et cetera. (Page 27).
5. Page 31: After speaking of the retreat of Cestius, it
says: "Terrible were the calamities that fell upon Jerusalem when the siege was
resumed by Titus."
The reader who is not informed concerning the history of this period would
probably conclude that Titus immediately succeeded
Page 6
Cestius in the command of the Roman forces, as no hint is given of
the campaign under Vespasian, the father of Titus.
Response: Negative. No change made.
6. Page 33: The efforts of Titus to save the temple are said
to have been futile, because "One greater than he had declared that not one
stone was to be left upon another." Does an event happen because it has been
foretold by prophecy, or does the prophecy foretell events which happen for
other reasons?
Response: Negative. Criticism ignored. No change made.
7. Page 43: Of the idolaters who united with the church it
is said that "they still clung to their idolatry, only changing the objects of
their worship to images of Jesus, and even of Mary and the saints." My
understanding is that these idolaters were induced to unite with the church by
an accommodation of the Christian doctrine to their beliefs and modes of
worship, and that therefore they were brought into the church on the basis of
the worship of images.
Response: Negative. No change made.
8. Page 50: It is declared that "the pope has arrogated the
very titles of Deity. He styles himself 'Lord God the Pope.' " The definite
reference for this ought surely to be given, if such instance can be found: if
no such instance can be found, it does not seem proper to make this assertion.
In all my reading I have not found one such instance, although I have found
instances where others have applied this term to the pope.
Response: Criticism accepted. The suggestion led to a
careful investigation by the staff at Elmshaven and an extended outreach. While
there were published works making this assertion, no statement was found in
authoritative Catholic sources. Wording changed for accuracy of
expression:
1888 book read: "It is one of the leading doctrines of
Romanism that the pope is the visible head of the universal church of Christ,
invested with supreme authority over bishops and pastors in all parts of the
world. More than this, the pope has arrogated the very titles of Deity. He
styles himself 'Lord God the Pope,' assumes infallibility, and demands that all
men pay him homage."
1911 book reads: "More than this, the pope has been given
the very titles of Deity. He has been styled 'Lord God the Pope,' and and has
been declared infallible. He demands the homage of all men."
An Appendix note was added giving Roman Catholic sources on the title of the
pope.
Page 7
9. Page 52: At least the vital portion of the decree of the
council which "finally established this system of idolatry" ought to be cited,
either here or in the Appendix. This is a serious charge, and ought to be
substantiated.
Response: Criticism accepted. Documentary support given.
1888 book read: "To afford converts from heathenism a
substitute for the worship of idols, and thus to promote their nominal
acceptance of Christianity, the adoration of images and relics was gradually
introduced into the Christian worship. The decree of a general council finally
established this system of idolatry."
A footnote reads: "Second Council of Nice, A. D. 787."
The 1911 edition uses the statement unchanged. Supporting
documentation is provided in an extensive Appendix note on pages 679 to 680,
thus carrying out more fully than did the 1888 book the call for documentation.
10. Page 52: It is said: "Satan tampered with the fourth
commandment also." In other places the change of this commandment is referred
directly to the pope or the papacy.
Response: Negative. This rather quibbling criticism was
ignored, for none could misunderstand the intent of the author, who elsewhere
in the book attributed the change to the papacy under the influence of Satan.
11. Page 52: Beginning at the bottom of the page this
statement is found: "While Christians continued to observe the Sunday as a
joyous festival, he led them . . . to make the Sabbath a fast."
On page 53, it says: "But while Christians were gradually
led to regard Sunday as possessing a degree of sacredness, they still held the
true Sabbath as the holy of the Lord."
It seems to me that in both cases the word "Christians" should be
qualified by some word limiting its application. As they now stand, these
expressions seem too broad.
The same suggestion applies to the use of the word "Christians: on
page 54, eighth line from the bottom.
Response: Page 52: Criticism accepted. Text changed in the
interests of precision.
1888 book read: "While Christians continued to observe Sunday as a
joyous festival," et cetera.
Page 8
1911 edition wording reads: "While Christians
generally continued to observe Sunday as a joyous festival," et cetera.
Response: Page 53: Affirmative. Text changed.
1888 book read: "But while Christians were gradually led to
regard Sunday as possessing a degree of sacredness," et cetera.
1911 edition wording reads: "But while many God-fearing
Christians were gradually led to regard Sunday," et cetera.
Response: Page 54: Negative.
1888 book read: "Christians were forced to choose, either to yield
their integrity and accept the papal ceremonies," et cetera.
Wording left unchanged.
12. Page 54: The argument in the last paragraph of this page would
seem to favor commencing the 1260 years with the decree of Justinian in 533, as
it says: "The bishop of Rome was declared to be the head over the entire
church." And immediately following it says: "And now began the 1260 years." In
various other places in the book, which will be noted later the 1260-year
period is definitely stated to begin in 538.
Response: Negative. Implication calling for a change was rejected. No
change was made.
13. Page 56: In the second paragraph I find this statement:
"About the close of the eighth century, papists put forth the claim that in
the first ages of the church the bishops of Rome possessed the same spiritual
power which they now assumed. To establish this claim, some means must be
employed to give it a show of authority; and this was readily suggested by the
father of lies. Ancient writings were forged by monks. Decrees of councils
before unheard of were discovered," et cetera.
The only thing in the history of the papacy to which this can possibly refer
would be the forging of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals; but these were not
brought forward until the middle of the ninth century; and Pope Nicholas I who
filled the pontifical chair from 858 to 867, was the first pope to make use of
these forged writings in order to establish the authority of the papacy. Of
course it does not say in this paragraph that these writings were forged in the
eighth century, but to one acquainted with the facts the matter does not seem
to be clearly handled.
Response: Criticism rejected. No change made.
Page 9
14. Page 57: These two statements are found: "Another step in the
papal assumption was taken, when in the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII
proclaimed the perfection of the Romish church."
"The proud pontiff next claimed the power to depose emperors," et cetera.
The natural inference from these statements would be that these two claims
were put forth at different times; but both of them are found in one document,
namely, "The Dictates of Hildebrand," a document, which presents in a summarized
form the leading claims and teachings of Gregory VII. It is of course, barely
possible that these claims were originally made at different times; but, as
they now appear in ecclesiastical history, they are found in the same document.
This document will be found in Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History,
book 3, cent. 11, part 2, chapter 2, paragraph 9, Note 1.
Response: Criticism accepted. A change was made in the text.
The word "also" was substituted for the word "next" to more precisely
indicate the time relationships. An Appendix note was added on the
"dictates of Hildebrand."
15. Page 59: Purgatory is defined as "A place of torment, in which
the souls of such as have not merited eternal damnation are to suffer punishment
for their sins." Purgatory is thus defined in Catholic Belief,
page 196:
"Purgatory is a state of suffering after this life, in which those souls
are for a time detained, who depart this life after their deadly sins
have been remitted as to the stain and guilt, and as to the
everlasting pain that was due them, but who have on account of those
sins still some debt of temporal punishment to pay; as also those souls
which leave this world guilty only of venial sins."
Response: Negative as to a change. An Appendix note was added quoting
Catholic sources and giving many reference to sources.
16. Page 59: The doctrine of indulgences is made to mean "full remission
of sins, past, present, and future." But in Catholic Belief,
page 194, we find this:
"It is a pity that many Protestants should be so ill-informed about the
doctrine of Indulgences as to suppose that it means forgiveness of a sin, or a
permission to commit a sin.
"By an indulgence is meant not the forgiveness of a sin, or a permission to
commit a sin, but the remission, through the merits of the whole or
part of the debt of temporal punishment due to a sin, the guilt and
everlasting punishment of which have, through the merits of Jesus
Christ, been already forgiven in the sacrament of Penance."
Page 10
There is no doubt that this teaching of the church has been perverted, and
practically made to mean in many instances the forgiveness of sin, or possibly
the permission to commit sin; but this is not the official teaching of the
Roman Catholic Church. Would it not be proper to make this distinction?
Response: Negative. No change was made. An Appendix note was added,
citing Catholic sources.
17. Page 59: It is said that "all Christians" were compelled to
believe in the "idolatrous sacrifice of the mass." The expression "all
Christians" seems rather a broad one here.
Response: Criticism accepted. Wording changed by deletion of the word
"all" making the sentence read "Christians were required, on pain of death, to
avow their faith in this horrible, Heaven-insulting heresy."
18. Page 60: The expression "Babylon the Great" is plainly applied
here to the Roman church; but on page 383, it is declared that Babylon of
Revelation "cannot refer to the Romish church." Are there two interpretations
of Babylon, one for Revelation 14, and one for Revelation 17?
Response: Criticism considered. No change here. See page 383 for
addition of the word "alone."
19. Page 60: The expression "The noontide of the papacy was the
world's moral midnight" ought to be changed back into Wiley's original form of
expression quoted.
Response: Criticism accepted. Wording changed to harmonize with
Wiley.
1888 book read: "The noontide of the papacy was the world's moral
midnight."
1911 edition wording reads: "The noon of the papacy was the midnight
of the world," and the reference given.
20. Page 61: In the expression "Everything heretical, whether persons
or writings, was destroyed." The statement seems overdrawn. Both heretics and
heretical writings survived that period.
Response: Criticism accepted. Wording changed.
1888 book read: "Everything heretical, whether persons or writings,
was destroyed."
1911 edition reads: "Everything heretical, whether persons or
writings, she sought to destory."
Page 11
21. Page 61: "Papal councils decreed that books and writings
containing such records (of Rome's cruelty) should be committed to the flames."
Reference ought to be made to one or more councils, and a brief quotation from
the decrees given.
Response: Negative. No change made.
22. Page 62: At the bottom of the page it reads: "But Rome had fixed
her eyes on Britain, and resolved to bring it under her supremacy." The facts
as given in history are these: While walking through the slave market in Rome
one day, Gregory the Great saw some youths who attracted his attention. On
inquiry he learned that they came from Britain. He was impressed with the
beauty of their form and appearance, and thought that such a people ought to
receive Christianity; and therefore sent Augustine, with about forty monks, to
preach the gospel to them. I do not find anything in the history which
indicates that Gregory knew of this country and determined to bring them under
his pontifical power before he saw those young men in the slave market.
Response: Negative. No change made.
23. Page 63: The quotation put in the mouth of "the Romish leader,"
is not the same as that found in the Historian's History of the World,
volume 18, pages 44, 45.
Response: Negative. No change made.
24. Page 64: The expression "Those humble peasants . . . had not by
themselves arrived at the truth in opposition to the dogmas and heresies of the
apostate church," does not clearly express the writer's idea. It should read:
"Had not, without the assistance of others," or "Had not themselves first
arrived at the truth." What follows shows that they were simply defending the
faith of their fathers.
Response: Negative. No change made.
25. Page 65: This statement is found: "Amid the prevailing error and
superstition, many, even of the true people of God, became so bewildered that
while they observed the Sabbath, they refrained from labor also on the Sunday."
With this compare the statement in Testimony, volume 9, page
232:
"The light given me by the Lord at the time when we were expecting just such
a crisis as you seem to be approaching was, that when the people were moved by
a power from beneath to enforce Sunday observance, Seventh-day Adventists were
to show their wisdom by refraining from their ordinary work on that day,
devoting it to missionary effort."
Page 12
Response: Negative. No change made.
26. Page 65: The statement reads: "The Waldenses were the first of
all the people of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures."
Ridpath, History of the World, Volume 2, page 42, says:
"For seven years Ulfilas labored assiduously at the great task (translating
the Bible) which he had undertaken. At the end of that time the whole Bible,
with the exception perhaps of the Book of Kings had been translated into the
vernacular . . . The achievement of Ulfilas requires a more especial attention
for the reason that the Gothic Bible thus produced was the first Bible ever
written in a Teutonic language."
It would seem to me that this translation made by Ulfilas gave to the Goths
the first translation of the Holy Scriptures.
Response: Criticism accepted. Wording changed.
1888 book read: "The Waldenses were the first of all the peoples of
Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures."
1911 edition reads: "The Waldenses were among the first of the
peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures." See
Appendix. An Appendix note was added giving details and references to
historical sources.
27. Page 76: Some portion of the bull from Innocent VIII, to which
reference is made, ought to be quoted, with proper reference.
Response: Criticism accepted. Appendix note added giving
references.
28. Page 77: Some of the provisions of this bull are given, however,
the language of another, but without any reference as authority for the
translation.
Response: Criticism accepted. Appendix note with references
added.
29. Page 79: In view of what has been stated concerning the
translation of the Bible by Bishop Ulfilas, is it proper to say that "except
among the Waldenses the Word of God had for ages been locked up in lanaguages
known only to the learned?
Response: Negative. No change in text made.
30. Page 82: A quotation of very severe import is credited to "one of
the early fathers of the Romish Church." This reference does not seem definite
enough to warrant the use of the quotation. The same seems
Page 13
true of the quotation from Luther, found on the same page.
Response: Negative on the first suggestion. Source probably unknown.
In the second instance, affirmative, with footnote credit given to the
reference for Luther's statement.
31. Page 84: At the top of the page the question of "purchasing
forgiveness with money" is suggested, and in the same paragraph there is a
quotation for which no reference is given.
Response: Criticism accepted. Appendix note added.
32. Page 85: A quotation is given from one of the tracts of Wycliffe,
for which no reference is given. This matter, found in Neander, volume 5, of
the five-volume edition, page 137, runs thus: (Paragraph quoted.)
In Neander this quotation is credited to Lewis's History of the Life
and Sufferings of J. Wiclif, page 32 (n. ed. 37).
Response: Criticism accepted. Original wording retained, footnote
reference added.
33. Page 85: Three bulls are mentioned, "all commanding immediate and
decisive measures to silence the teacher of heresy." Would it be possible to
mention these bulls, or give some reference to where they may be found?
Response: Criticism accepted. Appendix note giving reference added.
34. Page 86: The expression, "Two conflicting powers, each professedly
infallible, now claimed obedience," raises the question of the proper use
of the word "infallible." According to Roman Catholic doctrine, infallibility
does not apply to the pope as a temporal king, as a private person, as a writer
on general themes, or as a speaker; but merely refers to his utterances when
made ex-cathedra in defining the belief of the church. See Faith of
Our Fathers by Cardinal Gibbons, page 145, and following. From the
Catholic standpoint the doctrine of infallibility is not impaired by the fact
of there being two rival popes at the same time.
Response: Negative. No change made.
35. Page 88: The quotation from Wycliffe in the first line, "But live
and declare the evil deeds of the friars," reads in Green's History
of England, "but live and again declare the works of the friars."
Response: Criticism accepted. Sentence corrected to read: "I shall
not die, but live, and again declare the evil deeds of the friars."
Footnote reference given to D'Aubigne.
Page 14
36. Page 97: Two statements are put into the mouth of Gregory VII,
for which no reference is given. As these are very important pronouncements,
they ought to have proper authority back of them. The same is true of the
decree mentioned in the last line of the same page.
Response: Affirmative on the first suggestion:
1888 book read: "The pope declared that 'God was pleased that His
worship should be celebrated in an unknown tongue, and that a neglect of this
rule had given rise to many evils and heresies."
1911 Edition corrected according to Wylie, to read: "The pope
declared that 'it was pleasing to the Omnipotent that His worship should be
celebrated in an unknown language, and that many evils and heresies had arisen
from not observing this rule.'" (Footnote reference to Wylie given.)
On the second suggestion regarding the wording which reads: "After a time it
was decreed that all who departed from the Romish worship should be burned."
The 1888 book carries no reference nor is reference given in the 1911
edition.
37. Page 103: It is declared that "all the gifts, offices, and
blessings of the church were offered for sale. The word "all" makes this a very
broad statement.
Response: Criticism accepted. The word "all" was deleted making
the 1911 edition read: "Of course money must be had; and to procure
this, the gifts, offices, and blessings of the church were offered for sale. An
Appendix note was added referring to "Indulgences."
38. Page 104: It is said that the Council of Constance "was called,
at the desire of Emperor Sigismund, by one of the three rival popes, John
XXIII," This matter seems to be presented in a somewhat different light by
Bower in his History of the Popes, under "John XXIII,
the two hundred and fourth bishop of Rome." In the three-volume edition of
Bower, this matter is found in volume 3, pages 175, 176.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
39. Page 106: In speaking of the treatment of Huss and his
imprisonment, it says: "The pope, however, profiting little by his perfidy, was
soon after committed to the same prison."
From this statement, in connection with the preceding paragraph, it would
appear that the pope was cast into the same prison in which Huss was first
incarcerated. Bower, however, presents the matter in a different way, as will
be seen by reading his account of the imprisonment of John XXIII in the same
edition, on page 188.
Page 15
Response: Criticism accepted, but changing the text to agree with
Bonnechose.
1888 book read: "The reformer was in a short time arrested, by order
of the pope and cardinals, and thrust into a loathsome dungeon. The pope,
however, profiting little by his perfidy, was soon after committed to the same
prison."
1911 Edition was changed to read, and in so doing following
Bonnechose, volume 1, page 247: "The Reformer was in a short time arrested, by
order of the pope and cardinals, and thrust into a loathsome dungeon. Later he
was transferred to a strong castle across the Rhine, and there kept a prisoner.
The pope, profiting little by his perfidy, was soon after committed to the same
prison."
40. Page 107: The words in italics [in the 1888 book], and quoted,
being of so much importance and involving so serious a charge against the
papacy, ought to have a proper reference for them.
Response: Criticism accepted. Wording corrected to that of L'Enfant
in History of the Council of Constance, volume 1, page
516.
1888 book read: "They brought forward arguments of great length to
prove that he was 'perfectly at liberty not to keep faith with a
heretic,' and that the council, being above the emperor, 'could free him
from his word.' Thus they prevailed."
1911 edition wording reads: "They brought forward arguments of great
length to prove that 'faith ought not to be kept with heretics, nor persons
suspected of heresy, though they are furnished with safe-conducts from the
emperor and kings.'" Footnote reference given Lenfant, History of the
Council of Constance, volume 1, page 516.
41. Page 116: To supply what was needed for a crusade, it is stated
that "In all the papal countries of Europe, men, money, and munitions of war
were raised." The word "all" makes this statement a very broad one.
Response: Negative. No change in text made.
42. Page 122: The statement concerning Luther's discovery of the
Bible would be more definite if it should read: "While one day examining the
books of the library of the University of Erfurth."
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
43. Page 128: The expression "A salvation that could be bought with
money," raises the same question as to the meaning of indulgences. There is
little if any doubt, that Tetzel represented his indulgences as being the same
as forgiveness of sin; but would it not be fair to the Roman
Page 16
Catholic Church to say that this was not their official teaching?
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
44. Page 129: The quotation from Tetzel at the top of the page, if
authoritative, ought to have suitable reference.
Response: Criticism accepted. Footnote reference to D'Aubigne given.
45. Page 160: The answer of Luther as here quoted varies somewhat
from the language given by D'Aubigne, book 7, chapter 8, which runs thus:
(Paragraph quoted).
Response: Criticism accepted.
1888 book read: "The reformer answered: 'Since your most serene
majesty and the princes require a simple, clear, and direct answer, I will give
one, and it is this:'" et cetera. The quotation closes with the words, "Here I
take my stand; I cannot do otherwise. God be my help! Amen.'"
1911 edition changed to present the quotation from D'Aubigne. It was
a matter of quoting from one translation or another, and the one used closes
with the familiar words, "Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me.
Amen."
The one used, was not the one suggested by Prescott, but the one approved
by D'Aubigne and followed consistently in the 1911 edition. It closes with the
familiar words, "Here I stand, I can do no other; may God help me. Amen."
46. Pages 202 and 203: The Protest at the Diet of Spires, as here
quoted, does not agree with the same Protest as found in D'Aubigne, book 13,
chapter 6.
Response: Criticism accepted. The translation approved by D'Aubigne,
was employed which called for some change in wording. The reference was given.
47. Page 209: At the top of the page is this statement: "One of the
principles most firmly maintained by Luther was that there should be no resort
to secular power in support of the Reformation, and no appeal to arms for its
defense."
This is true, but it is also true that, as the Reformation progressed in
later years, Luther argued in favor of the use of the secular power to suppress
heretical and fanatical teaching.
Response: Negative. No change made.
Page 17
48. Page 234: The statement at the bottom of the page concerning the
nature of Jesuitism is very broad and very strong. According to this statement,
Satan himself could not possibly be any worse. The same is true of the further
description on page 235.
Response: Criticism accepted as to precision of statement, but
argument well supported by an extended Appendix note, quoting and giving
references.
1888 book read: "Cut off from every earthly tie and human interest,
dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience wholly silenced,
they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no duty but to extend
its power."
1911 edition wording reads: "Cut off from earthly ties and human
interests, dead to the claims of natural affection, reason and conscience
wholly silenced, they knew no rule, no tie, but that of their order, and no
duty but to extend its power." See Appendix.
49. Page 235: The bull mentioned which reestablished the Inquisition
ought to be definitely located.
Response: Criticism accepted. Appendix note with references added.
50. Page 261: The quotation concerning the assumptions of the pope
are evidently taken from Facts for the Times. (An S. D. A. publication).
After a long search, I have found the quotation to the effect that the pope
"can dispense above the law," et cetera; but it is what is called an authoritative
gloss upon the canon law, and not a direct utterance of the pope. The second
quotation, "He can pronounce sentences and judgments," et cetera, I have been
unable to locate. I do not think it wise to use these quotations, unless we
can give very definite reference for them, as I fully expect that we shall
be called to strict account for all these statements at some time in the future.
Response: Affirmative. The discussion is not of the papacy, but the
quotation was used as illustrating a point that God's law was not binding. See
paragraph which precedes the paragraph in question, for proper setting. The
quotation questioned was not used, but the principles involved were stated
without supporting quotation involving the papacy was used.
1888 book read: "This monstrous doctrine is essentially the same as
the Romish claim that 'the pope can dispense above the law, and of wrong make
right, by correcting and changing laws;' that 'he can pronounce sentences and
judgments in contradiction. . . to the law of God and man.' Both reveal the
inspiration of the same master-spirit,--of him who, even among the sinless
inhabitants of Heaven, began his work of seeking to break down the righteous
restraints of the law of God."
1911 edition wording reads: "These monstrous doctrines are
essentially the same as the later teaching of popular educators and
theologians,
Page 18
--that there is no unchangeable divine law as the standard of right, but
that the standard of morality is indicated by society itself, and has
constantly been subject to change. All these ideas are inspired by the same
master-spirit,--by him who, even among the sinless inhabitants of heaven, began
his work of seeking to break down the righteous restraints of the law of God."
51. Page 266: In the first paragraph, "the holy city," mentioned in
Revelation 11:2, is interpreted to mean [the true church,] but on page 427, the
holy city is made to be the bride, and the virgins to represent the church.
Note the full argument on page 427.
Response: Criticism considered. Issue at this point eliminated by the
deletion of bracketed phrase, "the true church."
1888 book read: "Said the angel of the Lord: 'The holy city [the true
church] shall they tread under foot forty and two months.'"
1911 edition wording reads: "Said the angel of the Lord: 'The holy
city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.'"
52. Page 266: The 1260 years of papal supremacy are made to commence
"with the establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538," and to terminate in 1798.
It does not seem to be in harmony with history to say that the papacy was
established at this time, and the whole question of the proper application of
1260 years needs reconsideration and a new interpretation made.
Response: Criticism considered and with no departure from the
beginning and ending dates of the 1260 years, the phrase, "with the
establishment of the papacy," was deleted.
1888 book read: "The 1260 years of papal supremacy began with the
establishment of the papacy in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate in
1798."
1911 edition wording reads: "The 1260 years of papal supremacy began
in A. D. 538, and would therefore terminate in 1798." See Appendix note.
53. Page 267: The statement that "through the influence of the
Reformation, the persecution was brought to an end prior to 1798," seems a very
loose one, in view of the fact that the Reformation occured nearly four
centuries before the date mentioned here.
Response: Negative, no change made.
54. Page 268: In the last paragraph, it is assumed that the 1260
years ended in 1798.
Response: Negative. No change in text.
Page 19
55. Page 269: Reference is again made to the year 1798, on the basis
of its being the date for the end of the 1260 years. On the same page the
French Revolution is called "the Revolution of 1793;" but at the top of page
282, it is said:
"At the opening of the Revolution, by a concession of the kind, the people
were granted a representation exceeding that of the nobles and the clergy
combined."
This concession was made at the convocation of the States-General in 1789,
which would, according to this statement, then be the opening of the
Revolution. This is historically correct. But the Revolution could then not
properly be spoken of as "the Revolution of 1793."
Response: Negative. No change.
56. Page 271: When we think of the persecutions carried on by the
papacy under the inquisition in Spain and in other countries, it seems a little
strong to say that: "In no land (other than France) had the spirit of
enmity against Christ been more strikingly displayed."
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
57. Page 272: In the middle of the page, the statement is made that:
"The great bell of the palace, tolling at the dead of night, was a signal for
the slaughter."
All the histories dealing with the French Revolution which I have been able
to consult, state that it was the original plan to toll the bell of the palace
as the signal, but owing to special circumstances, the signal was given by
ringing the bell of the church of St. Germain l'Auxerrois.
Response: Negative. It was found that historians differed on this point.
See A. L. White in The Ellen G. White Writings, p. 32,
for documentation. It was not Ellen White's mission to correct historians.
A bell rang signaling the massacre. The wording was adjusted to avoid the
point of which one.
1888 book read: "The great bell of the palace, tolling at dead of
night, was a signal for the slaughter."
1911 edition was changed to read: "A bell, tolling at dead of night,
was a signal for the slaughter."
57a. Page 272: On the same page the number that perished throughout
France is stated to be "seventy thousand." The estimates vary from fifty to one
hundred thousand. Would it not be better to say "about seventy thousand?"
Response: Negative. No change made.
Page 20
57b. Page 272: On the same page, a quotation is given concerning Pope
Gregory's reception of the news of the massacre. In view of the fact that Roman
Catholics dispute this whole ground, ought there not to be some authoritative
reference for this paragraph concerning the reception of the news in Rome?
Response: Criticism accepted. Footnote reference supplied.
58: Page 273: It is stated that "Bibles were collected and publicly
burned with every possible manifestation of scorn;" and on pages 286 and 287,
reference is made to a decree passed in 1793, prohibiting the Bible, and the
rescinding of the same decree three years and a half later. Both of these
statements appear to have been taken directly from Thoughts on Revelation;
and the statement concerning the decree suppressing the Bible, as found
in Thoughts on Revelation, is taken verbatim, but without credit,
from an article by George Storrs, one of the early Adventist writers.
Two or three of us have made a very careful search of all the histories of
the French Revolution to be found in the Congressional Library, in an effort to
find some authority for this statement concerning this decree suppressing the
Bible; but thus far we have been utterly unable to find any reference to any
such action. Of course, if this cannot be established, it will affect quite a
number of paragraphs based upon this statement.
Response: The challenge of the criticism was accepted. Considerable
careful research in the libraries in both Europe and America did yield
supporting evidence for the The Great
Controversy statement in its broader terms, but did not yield a
specific action of the French Assembly in 1793, edicts abolishing the Bible,
and then three and a half years later restoring it to favor. Painstaking
research failed to disclose such specific legislation, but edicts were found
that did so in effect. C. C. Crisler, Ellen White's leading secretary working
on the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy, found that one of the
British lords, in a debate in Parliament, as it opened in January, 1794,
declared after reading at length from French documents, that "the Old and New
Testament were publicly burnt, as prohibited books."
1888 book read: "The atheistical power that ruled in France during
the Revolution and the reign of terror, did wage such a war upon the Bible as
the world had never witnessed. The Word of God was prohibited by the national
assembly. Bibles were collected and publicly burned with every possible
manifestation of scorn. The law of God was trampled under foot. The
institutions of the Bible were abolished."
1911 edition reads: "The atheistical power that ruled in France
during the Revolution and the Reign of Terror, did wage such a war against God
and His holy word as the world had never witnessed. The worship of the Deity
was abolished by the National Assembly.
Page 21
Bibles were collected and publicly burned with every possible manifestation
of scorn. The law of God was trampled under foot."
Pages 286, 287:
1888 book read: "It was in 1793 that the decree which prohibited the
Bible passed the French Assembly. Three years and a half later a resolution
rescinding the decree, and granting toleration to the Scriptures, was adopted
by the same body."
1911 edition reads: "It was in 1793 that the decrees which abolished
the Christian religion and set aside the Bible, passed the French Assembly.
Three years and a half later a resolution rescinding these decrees, thus
granting toleration to the Scriptures, was adopted by the same body."
59. Page 276: A quotation is made, beginning, "the popular society
of the museum entered the hall," et cetera, which is also found in Thoughts
on Daniel (Notes on Daniel 11:38), where it is credited to
Scott's Life of Napoleon, without any page being given. It seems
to me that the expression, "the popular society of the museum" must be a mistranslation
of the French name of some society of that period.
Response: Criticism accepted. Some change made in writing:
1888 book read: "This was followed, not long afterward, by the public
burning of the Bible. And 'the popular society of the museum entered the hall
of the municipality, exclaiming, Vive la Raison! and carrying on the top
of a pole the half-burned remains of several books.'"
1911 edition reads: "This was followed, not long afterward, by the
public burning of the Bible. On one occasion 'the Popular Society of the
Museum' entered the hall of the municipality, exclaiming 'Vive la
Raison!' and carrying on the top of a pole the half-burned remains of
several books."
59a. Page 276: And the expression "the breviaries of the Old and New
Testaments," should read, "the breviaries and the Old and New Testaments."
Response: Affirmative. The text in the 1911 edition reads:
"among others breviaries, missals, and the Old and New Testaments, which
'expiated in a great fire.'"
Page 22
60. Page 277: The words put into the mouth of the pope as spoken to
the regent of France ought surely to be authoritatively located. And the same
is true as to the words of "a papist dignitary."
Response: Criticism accepted. Footnote references given and wording
of quotation changed to harmonize with accepted D' Aubigne wording.
1888 book read: "Rome was not slow to inflame their jealous fears.
Said the pope to the regent of France in 1523: 'This mania [Protestantism] will
not only destroy religion, but all principalities, nobilities, laws, orders,
and ranks besides.' A few years later a papist dignitary warned the king, 'If
you wish to preserve your sovereign rights intact; if you wish to keep the
nations submitted to you in tranquility, manfully defend the Catholic faith,
and subdue all its enemies by your arms.'"
1911 edition reads: "Rome was not slow to inflame their jealous
fears. Said the pope to the regent of France in 1525: 'This mania
[Protestantism] will not only confound and destroy religion, but all
principalities, nobility, laws, orders, and ranks besides.' A few years later a
papal nuncio warned the king: 'Sire, be not deceived. The Protestants will
upset all civil as well as religious order. . . . The throne is in as much
danger as the altar. . . . The introduction of a new religion must necessarily
introduce a new government.'"
61. Page 282: There appears on this page this statement: "The war
against the Bible inaugurated an era which stands in the world's history as
'The Reign of Terror.'"
The whole outbreak of the French Revolution is interpreted in this chapter
as being a war against the Bible; but the histories of that period represent
this outbreak as being a protest against the arbitrary authority of both state
and church. In harmony with this idea is the fact that the king was beheaded
previous to the inauguration of the Reign of Terror, and before the worship of
the Goddess of Reason was established.
Response: Negative. No change made.
62.Page 284: It is stated that "in the short space of ten years,
millions of human beings perished." When used in this way, "millions" would be
taken to mean several millions, and it is a question whether so broad an
expression is warranted.
Response: Criticism accepted, and the word "multitudes" was
substituted for "millions."
63. Page 285: At the bottom of the page reference is made to the
decree prohibiting the Bible, to which attention has already been called.
Page 23
Response: Criticism accepted, and wording changed to harmonize with
the precision of demonstrable facts and authentic records.
1888 book read: "When France publicly prohibited the Bible, wicked
men and spirits of darkness exulted in their attainment of the object so long
desired," et cetera.
1911 edition reads: On page 286: "When France publicly
rejected God and set aside the Bible, wicked men and spirits of darkness
exulted in their attainment of the object so long desired,--" et cetera.
C. C. Crisler's General Observation on the Chapter, "The Bible and the
French Revolution:"2 (Discussed in
points 56 to 63.)
In all this historical work, we are eager to have the MSS that may be
submitted, given the most searching tests. We need never be afraid of
historical truth. However, we would do well to avoid accepting the conclusions
of some of the more modern historians who are attempting to rewrite history so
as to shape it up in harmony with their philosophical viewpoint. We find it
necessary to exercise constant vigilance in this respect; and this leads us to
set considerable store by the original sources, or fountain heads of history. .
. .
The more closely we examine the use of historical extracts in Controversy,
and the historical extracts themselves, the more profoundly are we impressed
with the fact that Sister White had special guidance in tracing the story
from the time of the Destruction of Jerusalem, down through the centuries
until the End. No mortal man could have done the work that she has done in
shaping up some of these chapters, including, we believe, the chapter on the
French Revolution, which is a very remarkable chapter, in more ways than one.
And the more we go into these matters, the more profound is our conviction
that the Lord has helped not only Sister White in the presentation of truth,
but that He has overruled in the work of other writers, to the praise of His
name and the advancement of present truth. Our brethren in years past have used
many quotations, and as a general rule, the Lord surely must have helped them
to avoid making use of many extracts that would have led them astray.
Page 24
Of course there is still a great deal of room for improvement, even in a
book like Elder U. Smith's Daniel and Revelation. But
not so much needs to be done, as might have had to be done if the Lord had
not given special help to these various writers.--C. C. Crisler to Guy Dail,
January 3, 1911.
64. Page 288: The statement that Adoniram Judson was sent as a
missionary to Burma under the auspices of the American Board of Foreign
Missions, does not seem warranted, as I understand the facts. Judson sailed
under the auspices of the American Board, but on the voyage changed his views
on baptism, and became a representative of the Baptists. His going to Burma was
not a direct design on the part of anyone. On account of trouble which he got
into in India, he was obliged to leave the country suddenly, and, going to the
harbor, sought to find some ship sailing to any other country. Finding one
going to Burma, he took passage. It would not seem that he was sent to Burma by
anyone, but that he merely went there to get away from India.
Response: Criticism accepted, and the two sentences ealing with Carey
and Judson were deleted to avoid what seemed to be a technical error and then a
one-page Appendix note was prepared reviewing the point of a surge in mission
advance. Ellen White had introduced in her 1888 book only a quick survey naming
two men illustrating the point made. The Appendix note gave opportunity to
elaborate.
1888 book, on pages 287 and 288, read: "The devoted Carey, who in
1793 became the first English missionary to India, kindled anew the flame of
missionary effort in England. In America, twenty years later, the zeal of a
society of students, among whom was Adoniram Judson, resulted in the formation
of the American Board of Foreign Missions, under whose auspices Judson went as
a missionary from the United States to Burmah. From this time the work of
foreign missions attained an unprecedented growth."
The 1911 edition reads: "From this time the work of foreign missions
attained an unprecedented growth. (See Appendix.) "
65. Page 292: Of the Pilgrim fathers it is stated: "The freedom which
they sacrificed so much to secure for themselves, they were not equally ready
to grant to others."
But on page 441, it says: "The Christian exiles who first fled to America,
sought an asylum from royal oppression and priestly intolerance, and they
determined to establish a government upon the broad foundation of civil and
religious liberty.
Response: Criticism considered, and no change was made on page 292. A
word was added on page 441, modifying the statement.
1888 book, (page 441) read: "The Christian exiles who first fled
Page 25
to America, sought an asylum from royal oppression and priestly
intolerance, and they determined to establish a government upon the broad
foundation of civil and religious liberty."
1911 edition reads, with the addition of the word "Among:" "Among the
Christian exiles who first fled to America, and sought an asylum from royal
oppression and priestly intolerance, were many who determined to establish a
government upon the broad foundation of civil and religious liberty."
66. Page 306: It is here again stated that the 1260 years terminated
in 1798. And the express "In those days," found in the text, "In those days,
after the tribulation," is made to refer to the 1260 days. On this basis the
statement is made: "Between these two dates [1773-1798] according to the words
of Christ, the sun was to be darkened."
This interpretation involves the necessity of explaining why all the other
signs mentioned in Matthew 24 come outside this period, and this is a difficult
matter to establish satisfactorily. It seems to me a much more consistent
interpretation of this passage to regard the expression "In those days, after
that tribulation," to refer to the indefinite period beginning with the close
of the period of tribulation and extending to the time of the second advent,
thus taking in all those events mentioned in Matthew 24: 29, 30.
Response: Criticism considered and the phrase: "following this
persecution" was substituted for "Between these two dates."
1888 book read: "Between these two dates, according to the words of
Christ, the sun was to be darkened. On the 19th of May, 1780, this prophecy was
fulfilled."
1911 edition wording reads: "Following this persecution, according to
the words of Christ, the sun was to be darkened. On the 19th of May, 1780, this
prophecy was fulfilled."
67. Page 304: A quotation is here credited to "Herschel the astronomer."
I have spent some time in running down this quotation, and find no basis upon
which it can be stated that these words were uttered by Herschel, the astronomer.
On the contrary, there is good ground for inferring that he never did make
such an expression. This statement is here quoted as found in a book entitled
Our First Century, by R. M. Devens, being used as a sort
of "text" at the beginning of his article on the "Dark Day," where it is attributed
simply to "Herschel." No one seems to know who this "Herschel" is, although
it has been suggested that it was Dr. Herschel, a converted Jew, who believed
in the near coming of Christ, and preached on this subject in this country
in 1845.
Response: Criticism accepted, and the point of issue was cared for by
the
Page 26
deletion of reference to Herschel the astronomer, and the substitution of
another quotation describing the dark day.
68. Page 325: In connecting the prophecy of Daniel 9 with that of
Daniel 8, it is said: "There was only one point in the vision of chapter eight
which had been left unexplained, namely, that relating to time."
It seems to me, however, that there are several points in the vision of
Daniel 8 which were not explained by the angel, as recorded in that chapter;
namely the daily, the transgression of the desolation, the sanctuary and the
time period.
Response: Criticism accepted, and wording changed to read, "one
important point."
1888 book read: "There was only one point in the vision of chapter
eight which had been left unexplained, namely, that relating to time,--the
period of the 2300 days."
1911 edition: "There was one important point in the vision of
chapter eight which had been left unexplained, namely, that relating to
time,--the period of the 2300 days."
69. Page 326: Of the decree releasing the Jews from Babylon, it is
said: "In its completest form it was issued by Artaxerxes," et cetera. Does not
Ezra 6:14 regard the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes as really one
decree, all of which went to make up the full decree?
Response : Negative, no change made.
70. Page 327: In dealing with the decree of Artaxerxes, it is stated
that it went into effect in the autumn of B.C. 457."
On the basis of this interpretation the 483 years are made to extend to the
autumn of A.D. 27, when, it is stated on the same page, that: "Christ was
baptized by John."
Further interpreting "the midst of the week" to mean the middle of the week,
it is stated, on the same page, that: "In A. D. 31, three and a half years
after His baptism, our Lord was crucified."
The same method of beginning the 2300 days in the autumn of B. C. 457 is
used in the argument on pages 398, 400, and 410; and the time of the baptism is
definitely fixed as the autumn of A. D. 27, and the crucifixion as the spring
of A.D. 31. No proof is given, except the claim that the 2300 years commenced
in the autumn of B.C. 457. But the Scripture statement is very plain; it says:
"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to
restore and build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and
three score and two weeks," et cetera.
It is very difficult for me to see how the expression "From the going forth
of the commandment," can be made to mean from the time that Ezra commenced to
build the city, at least six months after the
Page 27
commandment went forth.
Furthermore, in my investigation of this subject, I find much good argument
for placing the baptism in 27, either the spring or the summer of 27; and for
placing the crucifixion either in A.D. 29 or 30; but I find no authority for
making it as late as 31, except the marginal chronology of the Authorized
Version of the Bible, which is Usher's chronology. This chronology has been
accepted by our writers to establish the baptism in A.D. 27, but has been
rejected so far as it relates to the crucifixion, which is placed by it in A.D.
33.
It seems to me abundantly evident from the Scripture and history that the
2300 days commenced in the spring of B.C. 457; that the baptism was not later
than the early part of A.D. 27; that the crucifixion was not later than the
early part of A.D. 30; and that the 2300 days must end in the spring of 1844.
This interpretation appears to me to be in harmony both with Scripture and
history.
And this was the original interpretation of William Miller, as stated on
page 328: "Miller and his associates at first believed that the 2300 days would
terminate in the spring of 1844 whereas the prophecy points to the autumn of
that year."
I am unable to see that the prophecy does point to the autumn of that year.
The diagram inserted between pages 328 and 329 places the crucifixion in A.D.
31, the setting up of the papacy in 538, the ending of the 1260 years in 1798,
and the ending of the 2300 years in the autumn of 1844."
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
Observation: W. C. White in describing Ellen White's work and its
relation to the visions declared: "The framework of the great temple of truth
sustained by her writings was presented to her clearly in vision. In some
features of this work, information was given in detail. Regarding some features
of the revelation, such as the features of prophetic chronology, as regards the
ministration in the sanctuary and the changes that took place in 1844, the
matter was presented to her many times and in detail many times, and this
enabled her to speak clearly and very positively regarding the foundation
pillars of our faith."--W. C. White to L. E. Froom, January 8, 1928 (Published
in 3SM 462).
71. Page 334: A quotation given in the first paragraph is credited to
Henry Dana Ward. I have looked up the original article from which this
quotation is taken, as found in the NEW YORK JOURNAL OF COMMERCE, of November
14, 1833, and find a long article to which no name is appended, and it appears
that Henry Dana Ward was not one of the editors of the paper. If he wrote this
article, there is no proof of it in the paper itself.
Response: Criticism accepted, and text changed to delete the name.
The quotation retained.
Page 28
1888 book read: "On the day following its appearance, [the falling of
the stars] Henry Dana Ward wrote thus of the wonderful phenomenon: 'No
philosopher or scholar has told or recorded an event, I suppose, like that of
yesterday morning.'" Et cetera.
1911 edition reads: "In the New York Journal of Commerce
of November 14, 1833, appeared a long article regarding this wonderful
phenomenon, containing this statement: 'No philosopher or scholar,'" et cetera.
72. Page 334: The statement is made that Josiah Litch, in
interpreting the prophecy of Revelation 9, specified "not only the year but the
very day on which" the Ottoman empire would fall. It appears from one of
Litch's pamphlets which is preserved in the General Conference Library that he
did not name the definite day until after the event, but simply claimed that
the prophecy would be fulfilled "in August, 1840."
Response: Criticism considered, and a review of sources led to a
change in the text.
1888 book read: "In the year 1840, another remarkable fulfillment of
prophecy excited widespread interest. Two years before, Josiah Litch, one of
the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an exposition of
Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman empire, and specifying not
only the year but the very day on which this would take place. According to the
exposition, which was purely a matter of calculation on the prophetic periods
of Scripture, the Turkish government would surrender its independence on the
eleventh day of August, 1840. The prediction was widely published, and
thousands watched the course of events with eager interest."
1911 edition changed to read: "In the year 1840, another remarkable
fulfillment of prophecy excited wide-spread interest. Two years before, Josiah
Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an
exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman empire.
According to his calculations, this power was to be overthrown 'in A. D. 1840,
sometime in the month of August;' and only a few days previous to its
accomplishment he wrote: 'Allowing the first period, 150 years, to have been
exactly fulfilled before Deacozes ascended the throne by permission of the
Turks, and that the 391 years, fifteen days, commenced at the close of the
first period, it will end on the 11th of August, 1840, when the Ottoman power
in Constantinople may be expected to be broken. And this, I believe, will be
found to be the case.'"
73. Page 334: At the bottom of the page, referring to the 11th day of
August, 1840, it states: "At the very time specified, Turkey, through her
ambassadors, accepted the protection of the allied powers of
Page 29
Europe, and thus placed herself under the control of Christian nations. The
event exactly fulfilled the prediction."
The history of this period shows that on that date the demand of the allied
powers was placed in the hands of the Pasha of Egypt, this being some time
after these powers had assumed the control of Turkey. The explanation as here
given does not harmonize with that which is found in other books which we have
published.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
74. Page 340: The general statement that "the papal church withholds
the Bible from the people," seems to need modifying, in view of the fact that
the Roman Catholic Church now prints its own translation of the Bible, and a
recent pope has recommended the reading of it to the people.
Response: Criticism considered an Appendix note giving references to
attitudes in different countries was added.
75. Page 356: The 1260 years are made to end in 1798.
Response: Negative. No change made.
76. Page 368: The statement: "The testimony of the prophecies which
seemed to point to the coming of Christ in the spring of 1844 took deep hold of
the minds of the people," seems strictly in harmony with the Scripture
statement, rather than the claim that the 2300 days extended to the fall of
1844.
Response: Negative. No change made.
77. Page 376: Barnes' commentary is spoken of as one "so widely
used." But at the present time all these old commentaries have been discredited
and thrown aside by the more liberal theologians.
Response: Criticism accepted and text changed by deletion of the word
"so."
1888 book read: "At a meeting of the presbytery of Philadelphia, Mr.
Barnes, author of the commentary so widely used," et cetera.
1911 edition reads: "At a meeting of the presbytery of Philadelphia,
Mr. Barnes, author of a commentary widely used."
78. Page 380: The "worldliness, backsliding, and spiritual death
which existed in the churches in 1844" is made very prominent; but the
condition of the chruches at the present time seems much worse than then. In
view of these more recent developments, should the matter not be
Page 30
handled a little differently?
Response: Negative. No change in text.
79. Page 381: It is stated that the term Babylon "is employed in
Scripture to designate the various forms of false or apostate religion."
This raises the question of whether the Babylon of Revelation 14 is
different from the Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. In this connection read
pages 382, 383.
Response: Criticism considered, and no change was made on page 381.
On page 383, the wording was changed to harmonize with the many statements
in the book regarding Rome and the Catholic Church, and also to comport with
the theme of the chapter as a whole. This was done by adding the word "alone."
1888 book read: "The message of Revelation 14 announcing the fall of
Babylon, must apply to religious bodies that were once pure and have become
corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the Judgment, it must be
given in the last days, therefore it cannot refer to the Romish Church, for
that church has been in a fallen condition for many centuries."
1911 edition wording reads: The message of Revelation 14, announcing
the fall of Babylon, must apply to religious bodies that were once pure
and have become corrupt. Since this message follows the warning of the
judgment, it must be given in the last days; therefore it cannot refer to the
Roman Church alone, for that church has been in a fallen condition for many
centuries."
80. Page 410: In the edition which I use it states that the command
of Artaxerxes went into effect in the autumn of A.D. 457." Of course this
should be "B.C. 457." (WWP had the first printing.)
Response: Neutral. Correction made in the second printing in the
1890s.
81. Pages 412, 413: The argument on pages 412 and 413, concerning the
covenants and the sanctuary seems to follow the lines laid down by Elder Smith
in his argument, in which he makes the Old covenant to run from Sinai to
Christ, and the worldly sanctuary to stand with it. He claims that the new
covenant and the heavenly sanctuary superseded them.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
82. Page 413: An argument is based upon the word "also" in Hebrews
9:1.
Page 31
This is the argument made by Elder Smith in "Looking unto Jesus,"
pages 109, 110. But the Revised Version destroys the force of this
argument by rendering the verse thus: "Now even the first covenant had
ordinances of divine service," et cetera.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
83. Page 415: I am unable to find any direct statement in the epistle
to the Hebrews which would warrant the claim that: "Paul declares that that
pattern was the true sanctuary which is in heaven. This seems to me to be
rather an inference than a direct statement.
Response: Affirmative, with a change of wording in the
text,--substituting "teaches" for "declares."
1888 book read: "Moses made the earthly sanctuary after a pattern
which was shown him. Paul declares that that pattern was the true sanctuary
which is in Heaven."
1911 edition wording reads: "Paul teaches that that pattern
was the true sanctuary which is in Heaven."
84. Page 438: At the bottom of the page it is stated that "the
dragon, primarily, represents Satan." But at the top of page 439 it declares
that the papacy "succeeded to the power and seat and authority once possessed
by the ancient Roman Empire." This would seem to suggest, at least, as Elder
Smith directly states, that it was the Roman Empire, and not Satan, which gave
to the beast "his power, and his seat, and great authority." A little change in
the wording here would make the interpretation more harmonious.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
85. Page 439: The 1260 days are again stated to begin with the
establishment of the papacy in 538 and continue to 1798.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
86. Page 440: Beginning with page 440 there are references at the
bottom of some of the pages to various publications as to authority for the
quotations. This would seem to indicate that there was no objection to
introducing such references, and it would seem proper to do so in the other
parts of the book as well.
Response: Prescott was only one of a number who called for references
in connection with the materials quoted, and from the first in planning for the
1911 edition this became the policy to follow. Looking up these quotations,
verifying them, and finding substitutions, with Mrs. White's approval, was the
major part of the task in dealing with the text.
Page 32
87. Page 447: It states that the papacy's first resort to the power
of the state "was to compel the observance of Sunday as 'the Lord's day.'" Very
soon after A. D. 538 Pope Vibilius appealed to Narses, the representative of
Justinian, to use force in putting down the heretics; but no reference is made
in that connection to the observance of Sunday. In connection with the
statement made on page 447, it seems that some reference should be made to the
first instance of such use of the power of the state.
Response: Negative. No change in the text made.
88. Page 453: Referring to the Sabbath and other special truths it
says: "These truths, as presented in Revelation 14, in connection with the
'everlasting gospel,' will distinguish the church of Christ at the time of His
appearing."
This would suggest that these truths were something separate from the
everlasting gospel; but it seems to me that they are the essential part of that
gospel.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
89. Page 457: It is here declared that: "The computation of the
prophetic periods on which that message was based, placing the close of the
2300 days in the autumn of 1844, stands without impeachment."
If this should state "in the spring of 1844," it would seem better to me.
Response: Negative. No change in text.
90. Page 524: The denial of the divinity of Christ is spoken of as a
dangerous error, and it is apparently made synonomyous with the denial of the
pre-existence of Christ. In the present theological controversy it is the deity
of Christ which is denied, while His divinity--using the term in a modern
sense--is acknowledged. It would seem necessary to change this language on page
325, in order to make it in harmony with the present situation.
Response: Criticism accepted, and text changed by using the word
"deity" in place of "divinity."
1888 book read: "Another dangerous error, is the doctrine that denies
the divinity of Christ, claiming that He had no existence before His advent to
this world."
1911 edition reads: "Another dangerous error is the doctrine that
denies the deity of Christ, claiming that He had no existence before His advent
to this world."
Page 33
91. Page 549: In the quotation from Martin Luther, to which no
reference is appended, the word "prodigies" is used, where it seems to me the
word "progeny" would be more appropriate. At all events it does not seem that
the word "prodigies" is the right word.
Response: Criticism accepted and the text changed, quoting from an
author which could be credited:
1888 book read: "Martin Luther classed it with 'the numberless
prodigies of the Romish dunghill of decretals.'"
1911 edition reads: "Martin Luther classed it with the 'monstrous
fables that form part of the Roman dunghill of decretals.'" Footnote reference
given.
92. Page 557: At the bottom of the page it is stated that: "Believers
in spiritual manifestations try to make it appear that there is nothing
miraculous in the circumstances of our Saviour's life."
According to present-day teaching, the advanced theologians, who are not
classed as Spiritualists, deny the miracles of Christ altogether.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
93. Page 563: At the bottom is the quotation, "Never erred, and never
can err," to which reference is made on page 57 as one of the propositions put
forth by Gregory VII. The original proposition as put forth in Latin, when
properly translated reads:
"The Roman Church never has erred, nor, according to the testimony of
Scripture, will it ever err."
This is somewhat different from the statement that it "never can err."
Response: Criticism accepted, and text changed to agree with the
wording in Mosheim.
1888 book read: "As Rome asserts that she 'never erred, and never
can err,' how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in
past ages?"
1911 edition changed to read: "As Rome asserts that the church
'never erred; nor will it, according to the Scriptures, ever
err,' how can she renounce the principles which governed her course in past
ages?" (Footnote reference given.)
94. Page 565. A quotation is made from the oath of allegiance to the
pope, which does not agree with the words of this oath as found in the original
Latin, and given in Delineation of Roman Catholicism,
by Reverend Charles Elliott, D. D., pages 3 and 4. His translation of this
sentence runs thus: "Heretics, schismatics, and rebels, to our said Lord,
or His foresaid successors, I will, to my power, persecute and oppose."
Page 34
Response: Criticism considered and wording maintained except the
phrase "the pope" is put in curves in the 1911 edition, and reference to source
given.
95. Pages 567 and 569: Some of the statements on pages 567 (middle of
the page) and 569 seem very severe, in view of the caution which has been given
us to say nothing harsh about the papacy, as we shall later be called to meet
these same statements.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
96. Page 575: The references to "an ecclesiastical council," and also
to "a synod held in Rome," seem very indefinite. Should not the time when these
meetings were held be stated definitely?
Response: Criticism accepted. Footnote reference given.
97. Page 577: Reference is made to "an edict from the king of
Scotland." But neither the time when the edict was made nor the name of the
king is given.
Response: Criticism accepted and footnote reference given.
97a. Page 577: On the same page reference is made to "a papal council
held in the sixteenth century." But the definite date is not given, and there
is no reference for the quotation.
Response: Criticism accepted, and footnote reference given.
97b. Page 577: On the same page reference is made to "an edict. . .
forbidding the observance of the Sabbath." But it is not stated what edict is
referred to.
Response: Criticism accepted and footnote reference given.
98. Page 579: The expression "the abolition of the papacy in 1798,"
seems likely to be misunderstood, in view of the fact that the papacy still
exists.
Response: Criticism accepted, and in the interest of precision of
wording, the word "downfall" was substituted for "abolition."
1888 book read: "The infliction of the deadly wound points to the
abolition of the papacy in 1798."
1911 edition wording reads: "The infliction of the deadly wound
points to the downfall of the papacy in 1798."
Page 35
99. Page 580: Reference is made to the claim that the pope: "Can
pronounce sentences and judgments in contradiction to the right of nations, to
the law of God and man."
And as authority for this quotation, a reference is made to "The
Decretalia.'"!"' If a brief sentence should be quoted, and the authority should
be stated to be "the Encyclopedia Britannica," it would be just as valuable and
just as definite a reference as this one, inasmuch as the "Decretalia" cover
centuries of time and many volumes.
Furthermore, I have been utterly unable thus far to locate this quotation.
It is evidently taken from The Facts for the Times, where
it is also credited to the "Decretalia."
Response: Criticism accepted; and a substitute paragraph, making the
point, and one that could be supported with available references took its
place.
1888 book read: "Protestants little know what they are doing when
they propose to accept the aid of Rome in the work of Sunday exaltation. While
they are bent upon the accomplishment of their purpose, Rome is aiming to
re-establish re-establish her power, to recover her lost supremacy. Let hi
story history testify of her artful and persistent efforts to insinuate herself
into the affairs of nations; and having gained a foothold, to further her own
aims, even at the ruin of princes and people. Romanism openly puts forth the
claim that the pope 'can pronounce sentences and judgments in contradiction to
the ri~)ht 'can pronounce sentences and judgments in contradiction to the
right of nations, to the law of God and man.'"
1911 edition carries a substitute paragraph reading: "History
testifies of her artful and persistent efforts to insinuate herself into the
affairs of nations; and having gained a foothold, to further her own aims, even
at the ruin of princes and people. In the year 1204, Pope Innocent III
extracted from Peter II.,king II, king of Arragon, the following extraordinary
oath: 'I, 'I, Peter, king of Arragonians, profess and promise to be ever
faithful and obedient to my lord, Pope Innocent, to his Catholic successors,
and the Roman Church, and faithfully to preserve my kingdom in his obedience,
defending the Catholic faith, and persecuting heretical pravity.' This is in
harmony with the claims regarding the power of the Roman pontiff, that ~t 'it
is lawful for him to depose emperors,' and that 'he 'he can absolve subjects
from their allegiance to unrighteous rulers.'" (Footnote reference to
quotations are given.) (Substitution of quotations was approved by Ellen G.
White.)
100. Page 587: Not all the "popular teachers" who substitute Sunday
for the Sabbath: "Declare that the law of God is no longer binding." Some of
them attempt to base Sunday-observance Sunday-observance upon the fourth
commandment.
Response: Negative. No change made in the text.
101. Page 681: (General Notes) In Note 3 the argument is made at
length
Page 36
concerning the 2300 days, and the conclusion is drawn at the bottom of the
page that these days--"must extend to the autumn of 1844 A. D."
Response: None. The General Notes in the 1888 book were not written
by Ellen G. White and in place of the note on prophetic dates, filling a little
more than a page, a shorter Appendix note was used in the 1911 edition on page
687. It does not carry the chronological reckoning through to 1844, but does
open with words affirming the 457 beginning of the 2300 day prophecy.
1888 edition Appendix note: "Page 329. Prophetic Dates.--
The historical and chronological facts connected with the prophetic periods
of Daniel 8 and 9, including many references pointed unmistakably to the year
457 B. C. as the proper time from which to begin reckoning these periods, have
been clearly outlined by many students of prophecy. See and then follow ten
lines of references.
102. Page 685: (General Notes) The statement is made in the first
paragraph that: "One class who relinquished the view that 'the door of mercy
was shut,' were led to do this because they discovered that other
messages were to be proclaimed," et cetera.
Is there not danger that this statement may be used to show that the early
believers in this message did teach that there was no longer salvation for
sinners after 1844?
Response: Criticism considered. The 1911 edition carries no note to
the reference to the "shut door" explained in the text on pages 429 and 430.
103. Page 686: (General Notes) In Note 10, attention is called to the
rapid growth of the influence of the papacy in Europe; but since this note was
written, quite a change has taken place in this respect, and the papacy has
lost much ground, notably in France.
In this same note, on page 687, statements are made on the authority of the
Converted Catholic concerning former members of the President's
cabinet, which seem out of date at the present time. The same is true on statements
on pages 688 and 689.
Response: Criticism observed, but as the decision was to eliminate
most of the General Notes, none of the material referred to was included in the
1911 edition.
104. Page 690: (General Notes) In Note 13, it is stated that the
terms "mark" and "sign" "are used in the Scriptures as synonymous with seal, as
in Romans 4:11."
I am unable to see that "sign" and "seal" are used synonymously
Page 37
in Romans 4:11. It is true that the sign of circumcision is called a seal of
righteousness, but that does not make the two words synonymous.
Response: Criticism observed. The decision to eliminate the General
Notes, removes these from consideration in the 1911 edition.
105. General Observation: Throughout the book in dealing with Roman
Catholics the word "Romish" is used very frequently. Roman Catholics reagard
this term as an insult. It is true that various Protestant writers of good
standing use the word Romish; but it is a question whether we ought to follow
their example.
Response: Criticism accepted and in the E. G. White text of the 1911
edition, other terms were used. No change made in the use of the word "Romish"
in quoted materials.
106. General Criticism: As an indication of the number of instances
in which quotations are used in this book without any reference, I submit
herewith, in a separate sheet, a long list of pages where such quotations are
found.
Response: The decision reached early to include references to
materials quoted, cared for this observation.
W. W. Prescott closing remarks:
"Allow me to say in closing, that it has been quite a shock to me to find in
this book so many loose and inaccurate statements; and what I have submitted
for our consideration will indicate how much of an undertaking it will be to
revise this book so that it will be in harmony with historical facts, and with
the interpretation of the prophecy concerning the 1260 days which we are now
adopting.
"If I can be of any assistance in locating any of the
quotations, I will be willing to do what I can in this matter.
Yours
faithfully,"
Compiler's Remarks:
More, of course, was involved than dealing with the items
suggested above. Work on the 1911 edition of The Great Controversy
stretched from late January, 1910, to May, 1911. Time references were dealt
with, checking the quotations was a large task. C. C. Crisler, at the Elmshaven
office followed through on this with the help of D. E. Robinson in the office,
and teachers, librarians, and ministers in the East, and in England, and the
continent, with a great deal of work done in the excellent libraries in
northern California. Most of the quotations used by Ellen White in the 1888
book were found, but some could not be traced,
Page 38
and with Ellen White's approval, quotations making the same
point were substituted. There were refinements beyond the suggestions made by
W. W. Prescott which were made in the interests of precision of expression.
Appendix notes, devoted mostly to giving references supporting various critical
or sensitive areas of the book were developed and added. The Index was
enlarged, and new illustrations were introduced. When the book came from the
press, Ellen White was well pleased with it, and was often found readings its
pages.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The historical work connected with the resetting of The Great Controversy
is nearly finished. We are finding nearly all the quoted matter, and proper
references are being given in the margins at the foot of the pages. The quotations
are all being verified. When we learn from you what translation of
D'Aubigne should be followed in the quotations taken from his History
of the Reformation, we will act accordingly. . . .
The Great Controversy will bear the severest tests. When it was
prepared years ago, thorough work was done. This is more and more evident, the
more the book is examined.
It would have been better, of course, if the historical references had been
given in the first editions: but this is a minor matter that can easily be
adjusted at the present time, when new plates are being made. We are copying
our historical extracts to file away with our various publishing houses who are
publishing The Great Controversy, so that if anyone should ever question
statements that you have made in The Great Controversy, our brethren at
these publishing houses will have matter to place before others, demonstrating
that the positions you have taken in The Great Controversy and the
historical statements you have made, are in harmony with the best historical
records.
The Great Controversy has already had a great sale; and our bookmen
who have much to do with pushing its sale into new fields, feel as if the new
edition, giving proper credits to the historical extracts that are quoted in
the book, will be all the better and stronger, and will meet with the full
approval of all concerned. They rejoice to learn that the historical statements
you have made in the book are in harmony with the best histories, and can be
fully vindicated.--C. C. Crisler to E. G. White, August 1, 1910.
Page 39
W. W. Prescott in his April 26, 1910, letter to W. C. White in which he
offered suggestions regarding The Great
Controversy, observed in both his first and last suggestions the
absence of references, to materials quoted. He says:
There is one general feature of the book to which I will call
attention without attempting to refer definitely to each case, as this would
require much space, and involve much repetition. Throughout the book there are
very many quotations, both from other writers and from verbal conversations
which ought to be accurate, and which I think ought to have in nearly all cases
suitable references. It is very difficult now, however, to locate these
quotations, as oftentimes there is no hint which would enable one to look them
up. I shall call attention to some which I have been able to locate, and
suggest the need of much work in this direction.
Ten years later, in 1920, the Review and Herald published a 300-page college
textbook prepared by W. W. Prescott, titled The Doctrine of Christ.
Each lesson is supported by materials drawn in from other authors. Notes taken
from the Spirit of Prophecy writings are fully credited. Notes from other authors
are in quotation marks, but carry no source references. In his "Introductory
Note" Prescott explains:
All quotations in the notes taken from the Spirit of Prophecy are
duly credited to book and page. The other quotations have been selected from
many sources, but as they are not cited as authority, but are used merely for
the expression of the thought, no credit has been given.
There are over 500 notes without credit, but in quotation marks. There is no
way of identifying the sources or the authors of the materials thus brought
into the Prescott book.
1)
While president of Battle Creek College in the 1890s, Prescott had espoused
the views in regard to inspiration of Professor Francois Gaussen, a Swiss theologian.
Of this, W. C. White commented: "The acceptance of that view by the students
in the Battle Creek College and many others, including Elder Haskell, has resulted
in bringing into our work questions and perplexities without end, and always
increasing. Sister White never accepted the Gaussen theory regarding verbal
inspiration, either as applied to her own work or as applied to the Bible. W.
C. White to L. E. Froom, January 8, 1928, published in the Appendix of Selected
Messages, book 3, 454, 455.
While Prescott at the 1919 conference denied holding verbal inspiration
views, we do not know precisely what his views were at that time.
2)
Note: Written after a very thorough investigation of sources relating to the
subject in several libraries and soliciting the assistance of scholars in
Europe and America, and having personally dug into literally mountains of
historical records. This task extended over a period of five months, but of
course not with his full time given to it during that period.--Arthur L.
White.
Arthur L. White
Ellen G. White Estate
Washington, D. C.
February
3, 1981