[327]
Section Titles
Mrs. White's Character and Work
The “Mistakes” of Mrs. White
The Reform Dress
Was Mrs. White
Illiterate?
The Shut-Door Question
One of Mr. Canright's most bitter attacks is launched
against the life and work of Mrs. E.G. White, who, until the time of her death,
was a respected, beloved worker in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He devotes
an entire chapter to her, and frequently attacks her in other chapters.
Besides, there was published under his name, just about the time of his death,
a volume of 201 pages devoted entirely to an effort to discredit her work.
We do not hesitate to say that Seventh-day Adventists
recognize in Mrs. E. G. White's work a special manifestation of the gift of the
Spirit spoken of in the Bible as the “Spirit of prophecy.” (See
Revelation 19:10.) Nor is this a strange or new doctrine, since among the
spiritual gifts promised to the church, and ranking with apostles, evangelists,
teachers, etc., is the gift of prophecy, and its work has been recognized by
the church in all ages.
Thus Paul speaks of these gifts as follows: “Now ye
are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the
church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that
miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of
tongues.” 1 Corinthians 12:27, 28.
In speaking of the last stage of the church of Christ,
John the revelator describes it and the experience of its members thus:
“The dragon was wroth with the woman [the church], and went to make war
with the remnant of
[328]
her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have
the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Revelation 12:17.
The church of God, here spoken of as a remnant, and
against whom the dragon (Satan) will be especially angry in the last days, was
foreseen as a commandment-keeping company who would have the “testimony of
Jesus Christ.” If we inquire as to what is meant by the “testimony of
Jesus,” we find an answer to our query in Revelation 19:10, where the
angel (Gabriel) clearly explained to John that “the testimony of Jesus is
the Spirit of prophecy.” These two characteristics will therefore
distinguish the true remnant church of God in the latter end of the history of
the world. Its members will be commandment keepers, and the Spirit of prophecy
will be manifested among them.
To this also agree the words of Paul, recorded in 1
Corinthians 1:5-7: “That in everything ye are enriched by Him, in all
utterance, and in all knowledge; even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed
in you: so that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ.”
Let it be noted that as the church waits “for the
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” she is to come behind in no gift.
Therefore, all the gifts of the Spirit are to be found in her. And lest there
should be a question about the gift of prophecy, this is especially mentioned
by the inspired writer: “Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in
you.” Verse 6. And “the testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of
prophecy,” or the prophetic gift.
Seventh-day Adventists believe that this gift of the
Spirit was early manifested among them through the work and writings of Mrs.
White. They believe that just as in
[329]
past ages God raised up prophets and messengers to perform a
special work for the church, and to counsel and warn God's people in times of
special peril and need, so He raised up Mrs. White and bestowed upon her the
gift of prophecy; and that He has used her life and work to bless and unify the
church.
Someone perchance may be ready to say, “Then you
have another Bible.” We answer, No. That God sends special counsel,
admonition, and help through some specially chosen servant is no evidence that
the Bible is thus added to or taken from. Were there not prophets and
prophetesses in the apostolic church who gave counsel and instruction to the
church in their day, but whose writings did not become a part of the Bible?
Luke tells us of one “Philip the evangelist,”
and says of his family, “The same man had four daughters, virgins, which
did prophesy.” Acts 21:9. Here, then, in the early church, were four
prophetesses from one family. And while it is definitely stated that they
exercised their gift and “did prophesy,” yet no prophecy of theirs is
recorded in the Bible.
In 1 Chronicles 29:29, 30, we read of two other prophets
whom God raised up to do a work of local import, who wrote books, and whose
influence extended over Israel and over all the kingdoms of the countries round
about, and yet whose writings form no part of the Bible, which was handed down
to succeeding ages. “Now the acts of David the king, first and last,
behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of
Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, with all his reign and his
might, and the times that went
[330]
over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the
countries.”
Why should Nathan the prophet or Gad the seer have
written books under inspiration of God, and then the books be allowed to be
lost? We answer, Because God desired to give to the church in that day special
counsel and instruction, warnings and entreaties that applied especially to
that time and age, and that would not be “present truth,” to
succeeding ages.
The Bible contains the revealed will of God, and if
followed, is sufficient to furnish men thoroughly unto all good works. (See 2
Timothy 3:16, 17.) It contains all the instruction necessary to salvation. But
the difficulty is that men are so prone to wander away from the written word
and ignore its silent witness, that it has been necessary from time to time for
God to raise up an Elijah to call the people back to the worship of the true
God and the keeping of His commandments, and to destroy the heresies brought
into the church by the priests of Baal. (See 1 Kings 18:17-41.)
Such is the work God has done through Mrs. White, and
for this cause she was raised up. Her appeal was ever to the Bible. Her entire
life was spent in a supreme effort to lead men to a clear understanding of the
Book of God. She never claimed verbal inspiration for her writings; but she
claimed that through the gift of the Spirit special light was shed upon the
written word, and this has been written out in her own words and given to the
church and the world for their edification.
We dare say that no candid person can read through one
of the many volumes from her pen without being constrained to admit that thus
many old familiar Bible
[331]
texts are made to shine forth with new brilliancy and that
many obscure passages have become clear and understandable. New rays of light
are thus received, not because they are found in Mrs. White's writings, but
because they now clearly shine forth from the Old Book. It is not a new or
additional Bible that the church needs today, but inspired counsel that can
help the befogged minds of the people of the world to grasp the glorious truths
of the Bible we have.
Does someone reason that this gift is no longer
necessary to the church? We inquire then, What mean the words of Peter when he
said: “It shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will
pour out My Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream
dreams: and on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days
of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy”? Acts 2:17, 18.
Here is a positive statement that the gift of prophecy
will be seen in the church “in the last days.” And why not?
Has God entirely removed Himself from His people? Is He not as able today as in
former times to give them needed counsel, reproof, and encouragement? Has the
channel of communication between heaven and earth become so obstructed that
nothing more can flow through? We think not, for in these last days of
abounding iniquity God will have, as He has had in former ages, “a
glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but …
holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:27), and He promises to enrich it
with “all utterance,” and “all knowledge,” through the full
bestowal of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Thus the church will “come
behind in
[332]
no gift,” as it waits “for the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ.” (See 1 Corinthians 1 :5-7.)
When Mr. Canright was preaching for the Seventh-day
Adventists, he was well aware that they made a distinction between the Bible
and the writings of Mrs. White. And while still among them he wrote a clear
testimony to that effect. Here it is:
“Right here let me say that we do not throw away
the Bible, and take Mrs. White's visions instead. No; if there is a class of
people under heaven who believe the Bible strongly, who love it devotedly, who
study it and go to it for everything, it is Seventh-day Adventists. Here is our
storehouse of doctrine and truth. We preach this everywhere and always. We have
no other authority. We go to this to test and prove the genuineness of Sister
White's labors and visions. If they did not harmonize with this in every
particular, we would reject them. It is wicked for men to cry, ‘The Bible,
the Bible, the Bible,’ and profess to follow that implicitly when they
reject one of the plainest doctrines of the Bible,—the doctrine of
spiritual gifts. Of course, I have no time here to take up an argument on
spiritual gifts, or enter into a lengthy statement of her [Mrs. White's]
labors, their nature, etc. We believe, however, that no doctrine of the Bible
is plainer than that of the perpetuity of spiritual gifts, and particularly
that these gifts are to be restored in the last days. Joel 2:28-32; Rev. 12:17;
19:10; 1 Thess. 5:1-21, etc.”—D. M. Canright in Review and
Herald, April 19, 1877.
In his later statement that “they [Seventh-day
Adventists] have another Bible, just the same as the Mormons have”
(Adventism Renounced, p. 136), Mr. Canright stands convicted by his
former testimony. It seems difficult to believe that he was not willfully
misrepresenting the facts as to the distinction well understood by the
[333]
Seventh-day Adventists between the Bible and Mrs. White's
writings.
Mrs. White has published to the world her own estimate
of the absolute and final authority of the Scriptures, and of the relationship
of her writings to the Bible. The following is from her pen:
“In His word, God has committed to men the
knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an
authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of
character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience. ‘Every
scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction which is in righteousness; that the man of God may
be complete, furnished completely unto every good work.’ 2 Tim. 3:16, 17,
R.V.
“Yet the fact that God has revealed His will to men
through His word, has not rendered needless the continued presence and the
guiding of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, the Spirit was promised by our
Saviour, to open the word to His servants, to illuminate and apply its
teachings. And since it was the Spirit of God that inspired the Bible, it is
impossible that the teaching of the Spirit should ever be contrary to that of
the word.
“The Spirit was not given—nor can it ever be
bestowed—to supersede the Bible; for the Scriptures explicitly state that
the word of God is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be
tested. Says the apostle John, ‘Believe not every spirit, but try the
spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into
the world.’ 1 John 4:1. And Isaiah declares, ‘To the law and to the
testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no
light in them.’ Isa. 8:20.”—The Great Controversy, p.
vii.
Mrs. White always emphatically declared that her
writings were not to be considered an addition to the Word of God, and that
anyone who claims this for them
[334]
puts them “in a false light.” Her Testimonies were
intended to bring men to “a clearer understanding” of the Scriptures.
On one occasion she wrote:
“‘Brother R. would confuse the mind by seeking
to make it appear that the light God has given through the Testimonies is an
addition to the word of God; but in this he presents the matter in a false
light. God has seen fit in this manner to bring the minds of His people to His
word, to give them a clearer understanding of it.’ ‘The word of God
is sufficient to enlighten the most beclouded mind, and may be understood by
those who have any desire to understand it. But notwithstanding all this, some
who profess to make the word of God their study, are found living in direct
opposition to its plainest teachings. Then, to leave men and women without
excuse, God gives plain and pointed Testimonies, bringing them back to the word
that they have neglected to follow.’ ‘The word of God abounds in
general principles for the formation of correct habits of living, and the
Testimonies, general and personal, have been calculated to call their attention
more especially to these principles.’”—Testimonies for the
Church, vol. 5, pp. 663, 664.
In his book Mr. Canright makes damaging statements
regarding the character and personality of Mrs. White. Before quoting some of
these, let us note a former statement regarding her character and work, written
by him before he left the Seventh-day Adventists. The following was written by
Mr. Canright in 1877, while he was still an Adventist:
“As to the Christian character of Sister White, I
beg leave to say that I think I know something about it. I have been acquainted
with Sister White for eighteen years, more than half the history of our people.
I have been in their family time and again sometimes weeks at a time. They have
been
[335]
in our house and family many times. I have traveled with
them almost everywhere; have been with them in private and in public, in
meeting and out of meeting, and have had the very best chances to know
something of the life, character, and spirit of Brother and Sister White. As a
minister, I have had to deal with all kinds of persons, and all kinds of
character, till I think I can judge something of what a person is, at least
after years of intimate acquaintance.
“I know Sister White to be an unassuming, modest,
kindhearted, noble woman. These traits in her character are not simply put on
and cultivated, but they spring gracefully and easily from her natural
disposition. She is not self-conceited, self-righteous, and self-important, as
fanatics always are. I have frequently come in contact with fanatical persons,
and I have always found them to be full of pretentions, full of pride, ready to
give their opinion, boastful of their holiness, etc. But I have ever found
Sister White the reverse of all this. Any one, the poorest and the humblest,
can go to her freely for advice and comfort without being repulsed. She is ever
looking after the needy, the destitute, and the suffering, providing for them,
and pleading their cause. I have never formed an acquaintance with any persons
who so constantly have the fear of God before them. Nothing is undertaken
without earnest prayer to God. She studies God's word carefully and constantly.
I have heard Sister White speak hundreds of times, have read all her
Testimonies through and through, most of them many times, and I have never been
able to find one immoral sentence in the whole of them, or anything that is not
strictly pure and Christian; nothing that leads away from the Bible, or from
Christ; but there I find the most earnest appeals to obey God, to love Jesus,
to believe the Scriptures, and to search them constantly. I have received great
spiritual benefit times without number, from the Testimonies. Indeed, I never
read them without feeling reproved for my lack of faith in God, lack of
devotion, and lack of earnestness in saving souls. If I have any judgment, any
spiritual discernment, I pronounce the Testimonies to be of the same Spirit and
of the same tenor as the Scriptures.
[336]
“For thirty years these Testimonies have been
believed and read among our people. How has it affected them? Has it led them
away from the law of God? Has it lead them to give up faith in Christ? Has it
led them to throw aside the Bible? Has it led them to be a corrupt, immoral
people? I know that they will compare favorably with any other Christian
denomination. One thing I have remarked, and that is, that the most bitter
opponents of the visions of Sister White admit that she is a Christian. How
they can make this admission is more than I know. They try to fix it up by
saying that she is deceived. They are not able to put their finger upon a
single stain in all her life, nor an immoral sentence in all her writings. They
have to admit that much of her writings are excellent, and that whoever would
live out all she says would be a good Christian, sure of heaven. This is
passing strange if she is a tool of the devil, inspired by Satan, or if her
writings are immoral or the vagaries of her own mind.”—Review and
Herald, April 26, 1877.
This earnest tribute to the character of Mrs. White,
based on an intimate acquaintance of eighteen years, was written by Mr.
Canright in 1877. In 1885 he again bore testimony to his confidence in the
integrity of Mrs. White's work:
“The tendency and influence of the Testimonies is
not, like the teachings of Spiritualist mediums, to lead away from the Bible,
away from God, and away from faith in Christ; nor, like Mormonism, to lead to
sensuality, dishonesty, and crime; but they lead to faith in the Holy
Scriptures, devotion to God, and a life of humility and holiness. Can a corrupt
tree bear good fruit? Jesus said not. What is a tree known by?—Its fruit.
Here is a tree which has been standing among us for forty years, and bearing
fruit. What has been the nature of that fruit? What have been its effects upon
those who have partaken the most of it?
“It seems to me now that no one who has ever felt
the power of the Spirit of God upon his own heart can candidly
[337]
read through the four volumes of ‘Spirit of
Prophecy’ without being deeply convicted that the writer must live very
near to God, and be thoroughly imbued with the same Spirit that inspired the
Bible, and animated the apostles and prophets. Such lofty thoughts of God, of
heaven, and of spiritual things cannot come from a carnal heart, nor from a
mind deceived and led by Satan….
“You certainly know that our people hold all the
cardinal doctrines of salvation,—faith in God, the Bible, Jesus Christ,
repentance, a holy life, etc. Isn't this safe? You know that Sister White and
all our ministers not only so teach, but exert all their influence to have our
people live lives of devotion, of honesty, of purity, of love, of plainness, of
sacrifice, and of every Christian virtue. You know that every sin is condemned
among our people, and the most solemn warnings are constantly given against
even the appearance of evil. You know that in almost every church of our people
there are at least some who are living blameless Christian lives. You know that
there is not one immoral doctrine taught or practiced by our people. Bad men
and poor examples there are, to be sure; but they are such in spite of all our
efforts to make them better. You know that if any man will strictly live up to
the teachings of the Testimonies and our people, he will certainly be
saved.”—Ibid., Feb. 10, 1885.
These testimonials regarding Mrs. White and her writings
express the sum of his convictions resulting from twenty-six out of the
twenty-eight years of his labors among the Seventh-day Adventists. What shall
we say regarding the consistency of entirely opposite statements, when we are
asked to accept his derogatory caricature of this same individual, written just
a few years later? At that time he declared:
“I long studied Mrs. White to determine for myself
her real character till her case is clear to my mind.”—Seventh-day
Adventism Renounced, p. 137.
[338]
Let us note a few of his most flagrant contradictions on
this point. From his volume under review we quote the following statements
published in 1889.
Mr. Canright the Baptist speaking:
“She has a harsh, uncharitable spirit…. Her
severity and harshness have driven many to despair.”—Ibid., p.
160.
In 1877 Mr. Canright the Adventist said:
“I know Sister White to be an unassuming, modest,
kindhearted, noble woman. These traits in her character are not simply put on
and cultivated, but they spring gracefully and easily from her natural
disposition.”
In 1889 he said she “is simply a religious
enthusiast, and a fanatic,” and “is always telling what great things
she has done.” “Hear her laud herself.”
In 1877 he testified of her:
“She is not self-conceited, self-righteous, and
self-important, as fanatics always are…. I have ever found Sister White
the reverse of all this.”
Of her writings he said, in 1889:
“These inspired ‘Testimonies’ now embrace
ten bound volumes. Thus they have another Bible, just the same as the Mormons
have.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, p. 136.
In 1877 he said of these same writings that there is
“nothing that leads away from the Bible, or from Christ”; and in
1885, just four years before he wrote his renunciation of Adventism, he added:
“The tendency and influence of her Testimonies is not, like the teachings
of Spiritualist mediums, to lead away from the Bible, away from God, and away
from faith in Christ; nor like Mormonism.”
Now we submit to our readers that Mr. Canright could not
have been sincere in both instances when these
[339]
conflicting statements were made about the character and
work of the same person. If he was sincere in his published utterances
regarding Mrs. White in 1877, when he claims to have had eighteen years'
acquaintance with her, and in 1885, at which time his acquaintance had
lengthened to twenty-six years, then he could not have been sincere in 1889
when he clearly contradicted all that he had previously written of her. On the
other hand, if he was sincere in his later statements, it surely proves
insincerity on his part in what he had formerly said.
Mr. Canright, after renouncing Adventism, also said of
Mrs. White:
“Mrs. White received no school education, except a
few weeks when a child. She, like Joanna Southcott, Ann Lee, and Joseph Smith,
was wholly illiterate, not knowing the simplest rules of
grammar.”—Ibid., p. 35.
What he failed to tell in connection with his portrayal
of Mrs. White's gross ignorance, is how such a person managed to produce
“ten bound volumes” which he calls the Seventh-day Adventist Bible.
Usually persons in such a terrible state of mind and body, and with only a few
weeks' schooling, do not become great authors.
After Mr. Canright published his book, this same woman
continued to write and publish until the number of volumes produced by her
increased to thirty-six, besides hundreds of articles published in
religious journals, and many tracts and pamphlets. Her published volumes
include some enlarged revisions of earlier publications, and when laid flat and
stacked one on top of another, make a column higher than a man's head.
Many of her writings are highly regarded by Christians
of all denominations. Her little volume Steps to
[340]
Christ ranks among the best sellers of religious
books published in modern times, and has been translated into more than a score
of languages. Her large Conflict of the Ages Series—Patriarchs and
Prophets, Prophets and Kings, The Desire of Ages, Acts of the Apostles, and
The Great Controversy—are studied by many ministers of other
churches, and pronounced by them to be among the most helpful commentaries. Her
work Thoughts From the Mount of Blessing, has brought blessings to
thousands. Her volume Gospel Workers insists upon a standard of purity
and holiness for the ministry unsurpassed by any other publication, and the
volumes of counsels to the church, of which Mr. Canright speaks, have brought
light and courage, as well as instruction and reproof, to their many
readers.
Mrs. White's books on the principles of Christian
education, written for the guidance of teachers in the denominational colleges
and schools, have been commended by educators of the world. The head of one
training college for teachers, in one of the world's greatest cities, gave many
copies of the book Education to his graduates, recommending it as the
best book he knew on educational principles. In one country the staff of the
university brought out the book Education in part, translating it from
the English, and the university issued it for the benefit of educators.
Strange, this! An ignorant, sickly woman, with a bad
temper, starts on a mission of deception, gets a following of people as
illiterate as herself, and then, behold, she becomes a well-known author,
producing some of the most prized religious books; goes on long lecture tours
through many countries of the world, where thousands hang on her
[341]
gracious words and are led to Christ through her labors! And
stranger still, these ignorant followers of hers start colleges in all
continents, conduct a Grade A medical school, operate sanitariums and large
publishing houses in many lands, become noted for their piety, and extend their
missions to nearly all countries of the earth. One would hardly have expected
such excellent results from such an inauspicious beginning.
Shortly before Mr. Canright's change of church
affiliation from the Seventh-day Adventist to the Baptist, he gave the
following unsolicited testimonial for one of these books:
“I have read many books, but never one which has
interested me so intensely and impressed me so profoundly as Volume IV of
‘The Great Controversy,’ by Sister White…. The historical part
is good, but that which was of the most intense interest to me, was the last
part, beginning with ‘The Origin of Evil.’ The ideas concerning the
nature and attributes of God, the character of Christ, and the rebellion of
Lucifer in heaven, carry with them their own proof of inspiration. They
moved the depths of my soul as nothing else ever did. I feel that I have a new
and higher conception of the goodness and forbearance of God, the awful
wickedness of Satan, and the tender love of Christ. I wish everybody could read
it, whether of our people or not. Get it, brethren, and read it
carefully.”—Review and Herald, Jan. 6, 1885, p. 9.
We believe that to the unbiased reader it will already
be apparent that in his eagerness to deal Seventh-day Adventists a fatal blow,
Mr. Canright has caricatured the picture of Mrs. White. The things he says of
her now, and the facts of her lifework and influence as recognized by himself
in earlier years, cannot be harmonized.
[342]
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
[343]
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.
[344]
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
[345]
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).
[346]
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
proslavery 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 proslavery
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.
[347]
“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
[348]
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 II, 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 viewpoint
[349]
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! Saith 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 ye break every
yoke?’ When our nation observes the fast which God has chosen [i.e.,
liberating the slaves], then will He accept their prayers as far as the war is
concerned; but now they enter not into His ear.”—Page 258.
[350]
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, ye brave soldiers? ye liberated
slaves? ye 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
[351]
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.
“One of the worst blunders Mrs. White ever
made,” says Mr. Canright, “was the move she made on
dress.”—Ibid., p. 149.
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
[352]
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.
[353]
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,”
[354]
and the other the reform dress as it was later developed.
That the reader may be assured that it was this ultrashort “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
pertaineth 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.
421.
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….
[355]
“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
[356]
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 10½ 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:
[357]
“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 traveled 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 frce that Mr. Canray 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
[358]
advantages of the reform dress, he says, immediately after
the paragraph just quoted:
“Nearly all decided in favor 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 digusted, 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 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
[359]
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 marvelled, saying, How knoweth 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
[360]
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 G. 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 favor 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.,
[361]
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.
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.
* 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.”
[362]
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 world-wide 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
Saviour. 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
[363]
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
[364]
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
[365]
me of saying my Lord delayeth 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 close 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,—1844-1851,—we find three
statements so worded that two different and conflicting interpretations
[366]
pretations 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 some 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
[367]
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.