The Return of the Latter Rain

The Solemn Responsibility Resting upon Those in Leadership Positions

At the end of the year the 12 volumes contained a total of 162 lessons, which were bound in book form and sold by colporteurs around the country with a large degree of success. As a result, the Review prepared a similar series of studies, again written by various authors, and sold under the name Bible Readings for the Home Circle.

In the first edition published in 1888, under the section “The Two Covenants,” twentyeight questions and answers eloquently expressed the views held by Uriah Smith, G. I. Butler, and others, including their definition of the old covenant and the idea of two dispensations.

At the 1888 General Conference, E. J. Waggoner and several others were asked to prepare new “Bible Readings.” Waggoner prepared a new “Reading” on the subject of the covenants and submitted it to the Review and Herald publishing board. Interestingly enough, his new “Reading” was accepted, and placed in the new 1889 edition, “circulating it by the tens of thousand everywhere.” The new edition still had twenty-eight questions and answers, but they were very different from the previous edition. Waggoner had removed the idea of the two dispensations and he made it clear that the old covenant was based upon the promises of the people “to make themselves righteous.” He also removed the concluding statement of the 1888 edition: “When we partake of the bread and wine, to what do we pledge ourselves?—To be true to our covenant relation with God.” Waggoner did not speak against entering into a covenant with God, only that it be the new covenant based on faith and not on man’s promises.

In the spring of 1889, E. J. Waggoner was asked to finish writing the Senior Sabbath School Quarterly on the book of Hebrews, which would run for three quarters—October 1889 through June 1890. His father, J. H. Waggoner, had not completed the task before his death in April 1889. Because some of the original lessons had been lost, and because E. J. Waggoner did not agree with his father on some of the ideas concerning the covenants, he rewrote five or six of the lessons, having been given the freedom to write his own views instead. The book of Hebrews, having much to do with the sanctuary and the covenants, afforded Waggoner an opportunity to write out more fully his views on the subject.

When Waggoner finished, the lessons were hastily sent to the different editorial committee members for critique. Unfortunately, Uriah Smith’s name had been accidentally left off the list of committee members. To atone for the mistake, C. H. Jones, manager of Pacific Press, sent a set of lessons to Smith with all the changes and additions. But Smith, seeing the name of J. H. Waggoner in the introduction to the lessons, passed them on for publication, not noticing C. H. Jones’ explanation of the changes and additions that E. J. Waggoner had made to the lessons for the first and second quarter of 1890. This oversight, perhaps providential, would cause Smith a great deal of trouble and add to the controversy that soon followed.

By January 11, 1890, the Sabbath School lessons had progressed to Hebrews chapter 8, where Paul writes of the new covenant in connection with Christ and His priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary. As church members around the country opened their new Sabbath School lessons, they found Waggoner’s teaching on the covenants. For many in Battle Creek, this was not a welcome sight. For Dan Jones, Sabbath school teacher at the Battle Creek Tabernacle and school board member overseeing the Ministerial Institute, this was cause for concern. Upon seeing the new lessons, which had “a good deal in them that I could not indorse on the subject of the covenant question,” Dan Jones “resigned as teacher in the Sabbath school, and stayed away from the [Ministerial] school a couple weeks.”

Others followed Dan Jones’example, some staying away from the Ministerial Institute where Waggoner was teaching, and others making objections during Sabbath School class. But this was only the beginning of trouble, for Waggoner announced on Friday, January 17, that he would “take up the covenant question the next Monday morning” during one of his classes at the Ministerial Institute. When Dan Jones caught wind of Waggoner’s plans, he set out immediately to try to stop them.

Underhanded Dealings

Dan Jones was so concerned over Waggoner’s views on the covenants that he would later write: “I have been worrying and fretting over this thing until it has hurt me worse than a half year’s work.” In order to understand why this was the case, we need to understand a few facts about the Adventist Church at that time. Church membership worldwide was just slightly over 28,000, of which nearly 26,000 lived in the United States. Only 207 ordained ministers, and 158 “licentiates,” or licensed ministers, labored for the 895 churches scattered across the country. Of these 365 laborers, the majority held responsibilities on the local Conference and/or General Conference level as well.

Since the first Adventist college at Battle Creek had not been established until 1875, most laborers had not received any formal ministerial training. Most had come from “various backgrounds—professions, businesses, the workbench, and the farm,” and had not had an opportunity for more education. Of those who had attended Adventist colleges, few had received any specific, or substantial ministerial training. For instance, “none of the contemporary Adventist schools offered anything in the way of systematic theological study. Up until 1888, for example, the only Bible study classes scheduled at Battle Creek College were a ninth- and tenth-grade class in Old and New Testament history, and a twoterm, twice-weekly lecture by Uriah Smith on church doctrines. Attendance was purely voluntary.”

In an attempt to revise Adventist education, W. W. Prescott, Educational Secretary and President of Battle Creek College, had devised the plan for the Ministerial Institutes to be “‘entirely separate from the College,’” for the specific purpose of giving further education to those ministers already in the field. The curriculum “featured Christian Evidences, Church History, Greek, Hebrew, Church Government, Logic, Civics, Biblical Studies, and Bible Doctrines.” After Prescott had confessed his opposition to Jones and Waggoner in December of 1888, he sought to give them more opportunities to present the message laid upon their hearts. But when “a surprising 157 ministerial students” showed up for the Ministerial Institute, representing nearly half the entire Adventist ministerial work force, Dan Jones could not help but be distressed. There was a great possibility that whatever Waggoner presented in his classes would have a noticeable effect upon Adventist thinking and its worldwide work.

Upon hearing of Waggoner’s plans to begin teaching on the subject of the covenants Monday morning, Janurary 20, Dan Jones decided to “go and have a talk with Bro. White and the Dr. [Waggoner] in reference to the matter.” He wished to “prevail on them to lay over that question, at least until Prof. Prescott and Eld. Olsen” returned to campus. Rather than talk with Waggoner first, Dan Jones went to W. C. White “and told him how [he] felt.” But White would not commit himself, telling Jones to go “talk with the Dr.” himself. Finally, late Friday evening, Janurary 17, Dan Jones went and talked with Waggoner for almost two hours, but Waggoner was “firm in his decision to go on with the work he had laid out” for the class. So far Jones’ efforts were in vain.

Not one to give up easily, Dan Jones went Sabbath morning to have a talk with Ellen White. According to him, after he “laid the matter before her” and told her how he “felt about it,” she expressed the “thought that the question ought to be investigated by the leading brethren … before it was brought in the school.” Dan Jones told Ellen White that he had attempted this very thing, but that Waggoner was “disinclined to make any change in his plan.” Ellen White suggested again, according to Jones, that the brethren get together with Waggoner first before the classes started on Monday.

Dan Jones now went back to Waggoner and shared “what Sister White had said.” But one might rightly wonder how much of the story he really shared, for according to him, Waggoner “was immovable.” Dan Jones then spoke to Waggoner about having an investigation to which Waggoner “seemed perfectly willing.” Waggoner said, “he wanted both sides of the question fully brought out.” At this, Dan Jones set about to schedule a meeting for Sunday evening with Uriah Smith, R. C. Porter and several others.

At seven o’clock Sunday evening, in the General Conference room, a meeting was held with Waggoner to investigate the covenant question. Dan Jones was elected chairman of the meeting, which turned out to be more of an interrogation session than an investigation. After “stating what the object of the meeting was” Jones asked how they should proceed. Smith “suggested that we take up the points of difference in the covenant question and consider them.” Because Dan Jones was the one who had called the meeting, it was decided that he should state the points of difference:

After thinking a moment, I said that if it was placed on me to state the points of difference, I could do no better than to take the Sabbath-school lessons, and refer to some points that were made in them which were questionable to my mind, and I thought they were questionable to the minds of others present. So I commenced with note 1 on page 11, the first sentence of which reads as follows: “Let the student note that the terms of the old covenant were really all on the part of the people.” I told them that I could not agree with that statement, and asked if all the others present agreed with it. Bro. Smith said that he did not; Bro Porter also dissented. I asked Bro Smith’s reasons for disagreeing. He read Deut. 26:17-19, and asked if that referred to the old covenant. No one answered; but Bro. White raised the question as to what it took to constitute a covenant, whether we should take Webster’s definition or not. … Bro. Smith again very quietly asked if the verses he had read referred to the old covenant. Another question was raised. … When that was over Bro. Smith again asked if the verses that he had read referred to the old covenant. Dr. Waggoner then said that he objected to that way of investigating the covenant question; said that he did not understand that he had come to this meeting to have the Sabbath-school lessons picked to pieces, but to investigate the covenant question, and he did not think it could be satisfactorily investigated in that way. He went on at some length; stated that he had understood that all agreed with his position on the covenant question. He considered that the REVIEW & HERALD Publishing Board were committed to his position as they had accepted a “Reading” which he had prepared on that subject, and put it in the [1889] “Bible-Readings” in place of the one that was in the first edition of that book, and have been circulating it by the tens of thousands everywhere. He also intimated very deicdedly [sic] that Eld. Smith had practically committed himself in favor of his position [by publishing the Sabbath-school lessons].

The biggest concern some of the brethren had was over Waggoner’s definition of the old covenant. However, Dan Jones “read a few more points in the lessons where [he] considered there was difference of opinion”:

Then I stated what the object of the investigation was for; that Dr. Waggoner had announced that he would take up the subject in the school the next week, and that it seemed to me wrong to take up a controverted subject, and teach it in a General Conference school … where there were members of the faculty and members of the managing board that did not agree with the doctrines taught. … I did not think [Waggoner] ought to bring anything into the school that they would not endorse, or bring in any new doctrine until he had consulted with them in reference to it. … If they all thought it was the right thing for him to go on and teach the covenant question in the school as he had in the Sabbathschool lessons, I would say nothing more about it; though I could not see the propriety of it. Bro Smith then said he would rather it would not be taught in the school. Br. Waggoner made the plea that he understood when he came here that he was to teach his own views, and that he would not have come on any other conditions; said that he did not want to come in the first place, and only consented to teach when he was pressed to do so.

At this point “Eld. McCoy and Prof. Miller both spoke rather favorably toward allowing the Dr. to go on and teach the covenant question in the school, as it had already come out in the Sabbath-school lessons.” W. C. White also “favored his doing so, and referred to some things that he had heard his mother say that he interpreted to mean that it was right for him to do so.” At this Dan Jones unabashedly stated that “it might be alright to do so; but I could not see the propriety of it, and that as far as I was concerned I wanted to put myself on record as opposed to its being done.”

The meeting dragged on till midnight, “when it was adjourned without coming to any decision.” According to Dan Jones, “everything passed off pleasantly. There was not a harsh or unkind word spoken, and I think not a hard feeling on the part of anyone.” Apparently Waggoner did not feel the same; the very next day he turned in his resignation for that class.

Waggoner’s resignation created a problem that Dan Jones had not thought about; who would teach that class period for all the students at the Ministerial School? Jones set out to try to make “satisfactory arrangement” with W. C. White and Waggoner to cover the class period. But, Jones stated, “I could not see my way clear to give up the principle that seemed to me to be so just and right, and give my consent for” Waggoner’s views to be presented in the school. It is no wonder, with Dan Jones’ attitude, that Waggoner was “inexorable,” and refused to teach the class. White suggested that Uriah Smith be asked to take the class since “the Dr. was doing too much anyway and needed more time for his editorial work and rest.” Smith agreed to take the class, and Dan Jones “arranged to make a smooth matter of it before the class … by stating that it had been thought best for Bro. Smith to come in … for the present, as Dr. Waggoner was overworked and needed rest.” A few minutes before Waggoner closed his first class period, Dan Jones arrived with Uriah Smith to give his announcement. Later he described what took place:

After [Waggoner] had closed, he said: “Sometimes the unexpected happens, and something very unexpected has happened to me. There have been objections made to my teaching the covenant question in this school, very much to my surprise, and I will not take it up for the present. Bro. [Dan] Jones will explain to you the change that has been made.” That upset my little speech completely that I had fixed up to make; so I could only say that it had been thought best to postpone the presentation of the covenant question for the present at least.

Waggoner had unwittingly exposed Dan Jones’ questionable dealings. For the time being, though, the covenant question was on hold. Some of the students were not at all pleased “at being deprived of the instruction of Bro. Waggoner.” The very next day, one student wrote to O. A. Olsen, General Conference president and school board member, expressing his thoughts that he “was hoping that we might have a candid investigation” of the covenant question. It would be several weeks before that request was granted. In the meantime opposition to both E. J. Waggoner and A. T. Jones grew increasingly bold.

The Discrediting of God’s Messengers

I think an Institute in Missouri would be a splendid thing; but I believe an Institute on a quiet plan will be just as valuable to you as to make a great parade over it and get in … Eld. A. T. Jones, and E. J. Waggoner. To tell you the truth, I do not have very much confidence in some of their ways of presenting things. They try to drive everything before them, and will not admit that their position can possibly be subject to the least criticism. They say, “It is truth; and all you need to do is to study it as long as I have, and you will see it;” and simply laugh at any ideas that may be presented by others that will disagree in the least with their own. But our more thoughtful men,—Bro. Smith, Bro. Littlejohn, Bro. Corliss, Bro. Gage, and others,—do not agree with them on many positions which they take on National Reform, and on some theological questions,— like the covenants, the law in Galatians, etc. But these things they make prominent wherever they go; and in fact, do not dwell upon any other subjects scarcely than those upon which there is a difference of opinion among our leading brethren. I do not think you want to bring that spirit into the Missouri Conference. If you could get Bro. Gates and Bro. Farnsworth, and have a ministerial institute for the study of the Bible and of plans of work, and then depend largely upon yourselves to dig out the principles of truth and plans adapted to your work in Missouri, it would be worth more to you than a high-falutin theory that never has worked and never will work anywhere.

This is how Dan Jones used his influence in an underhanded way to keep what he called “a high-falutin theory” from going any farther than it had. He was not the only one that was sharing his opinions openly. Uriah Smith, feeling that Waggoner’s temporary resignation was not enough to stop the progress of his false theories, wrote a disclaimer in the Review. He made it clear that he did not support the current Sabbath School lessons with Waggoner’s view of the covenants:

To the many inquirers who are writing us concerning the new theological departure in the Sabbath-school lessons, we would say that, according to the profession we make, the Bible and the Bible alone, is our only rule of faith and practice; and any view presented should be tested and decided by that Word. None need feel bound to accept any doctrine simply because it appears in the S. S. Lessons or REVIEW. The lessons are sent out under the auspices of the General S. S. Association: and it is not necessarily to be understood that the REVIEW, in any acting part in spreading them before the people, indorses all that they may contain; especially, in view of the fact that when it was decided by the REVIEW and HERALD Board to open a Sabbath-school department in the REVIEW, and publish the lessons therein, it was not known what the lessons would be. It would, of course, be greatly to be desired that all propositions advanced should be such as would commend themselves to the acceptance of all thoughtful Bible students as in accordance with both reason and Scripture; but if in any case they do not seem to be such, it is not only the privilege but the duty of those who detect their disagreement with the Scriptures, to reject them without scruple and without reserve.

Uriah Smith called on all to take the “Bible and the Bible alone” as their rule of faith. He stated this ever so sincerely, feeling that the Bible supported his positions, and refuted the “new theological departure” of Waggoner’s Sabbath School lessons. Ellen White would soon answer such premises, but it would not be until after Waggoner was given a chance to present the covenants during the latter part of February. The decision to let him present the subject was left hanging until O. A. Olsen and W. W. Prescott returned to Battle Creek. In the meantime, Waggoner continued to teach several classes at the Ministerial Institute. His underlying theme remained the same, justification by faith and the righteousness of Christ. Unfortunately, this did nothing to stop the controversy already brewing.

Responsibility Resting on the Leadership

The responsibility for the poor condition of the churches rested upon the ministers who were to break the bread of life to their congregations. The whole purpose of the Ministerial Institute was to better equip the ministers to fulfill their God-given responsibilities. With nearly half the Church’s laborers gathered in Battle Creek, Ellen White realized the great possibilities if everyone went forth from the Institute truly converted and with the message of Christ’s righteousness. She also realized that Satan was seeking to prevent such a thing from happening: “I am convinced that Satan saw that there was very much at stake here, and he did not want to lose his hold on our ministering brethren. And if the full victory comes, there will go forth from this meeting many ministers with an experience of the highest value.” Ellen White was also led to realize the dire results if victory did not come, if the brethren refused to walk in the light shining upon their pathway.

In her morning talks, Ellen White spoke decidedly against the prevailing spirit, even comparing her “testimony” with that of “Moses in his farewell address: ‘I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and thy seed may live [Deut. 30:19].’” Truly the decisions being made at the heart of the work would affect many generations to come. Her diary gives an account of what was taking place: “I entreated them to search the Scriptures for themselves. … In the days of Christ the scribes and Pharisees searched the Old Testament Scriptures. But they interpreted what they read to sustain their traditions. … Divided on most points, they were united on one point,—opposition to Christ. And today it seems that men have united to make of no effect the message that the Lord has sent. … They change the meaning of God’s Word to suit their own opinions. … God has a controversy with those who wrest the Scriptures, making them conform to their preconceived ideas.” It was in this context that she warned the “brethren standing in positions of responsibility not to grieve the Spirit of God away from their hearts. … Do not turn away from the messages that God sends, as you did at Minneapolis.” With an aching heart she could ask: “Why do they not arise and shine, because their light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon them?”

On February 3, Ellen White stood before the brethren and pleaded with them to accept the light that was being presented to them. She knew that there had “been efforts—a contrary influence—to throw back the light, the light which God has been forcing in here upon us in regard to the righteousness of Christ.” She could unabashedly state: “If God has ever spoken by me, it is the truth, brethren. It is the truth that every soul of you will receive, or your soul will be left in darkness as barren as the hills of Gilboa.” God was giving them precious opportunities:

Now, I want to say, brethren, there is a door open, and no man can close it to you—no matter whether it is those in the highest position or the lowest position—they cannot close it. But you can. You can close the door of your heart that the light which God has sent you for the last year-and-a-half—or nearly that—shall not have its influence and its effect upon your life, nor be brought into your religious experience. This is what God sends His messengers for.

She reminded the brethren that after John the Baptist had come with a message that agitated and stirred the hearts of his listeners, Christ came in “with a healing balm, a message which, with the heart broken up, the seed [could] fall into prepared soil.” Yet “John’s disciples became jealous of Christ.” In the same manner, she continued, “God has workmen. They carry the work so far and they can carry it no further. … Now God calls upon another workman to come right in and advance that work. The one that was working becomes circumscribed. He cannot see that the very line of work that he is working in is not to be pursued to the very close of time. There has to be more light and power infused into the work than we have had.”

A Promise Kept

This work is to be carried upward and forward, and the building is to go up. Thus God has worked with His workmen; He buried the workmen, but the work progresses still.

When I sat with the hand of my dying husband in my own, I knew that God was at work. While I sat there on the bed by his side, he in such feverness, it was there, like a clear chain of light presented before me: The workmen are buried, but the work shall go on. I have workmen that shall take hold of this work. Fear not; be not discouraged; it shall go forward.

It was there I understood that I was to take the work and a burden stronger than I had ever borne before. It was there that I promised the Lord that I would stand at my post of duty, and I have tried to do it. I do, as far as possible, the work that God has given me to do, with the understanding that God was to bring an element in this work that we have not had yet.

There was no question in Ellen White’s mind that God had fulfilled His promise. He had not only miraculously healed her less than a year after her husband’s death as she lay “a candidate for the grave,” but God had also given Waggoner his divine calling only a few days later while Ellen White spoke at the Healdsburg campmeeting during the fall of 1882. Not long after, God again fulfilled His promise by calling A. T. Jones to join in the expanding work. Now in the year 1890, according to Ellen White, their message had brought “an element in this work that we have not had yet.”

Immediately after speaking of her husband’s death, Ellen White reminded her listeners how those in responsible positions were treating the new light of that message which God had promised to send. What were the results of the meetings that had been held the previous summer when she stood side-by-side with God’s chosen messengers?

Our young men look at the older men that stand still as a stick and will not move to accept any new light that is brought in; they [younger men] will laugh and ridicule what these men say [Jones and Waggoner] and what they do as of no consequence. Who carries the burden of that laugh, and of that contempt, I ask you? It is the very ones that have interposed themselves between the light that God has given, that it shall not go to the people who should have it. …

Now, brethren, I say, clear the King’s highway, for your soul’s sake. If you have interposed between the people and the light, get out of the way, or God will move you out of the way. …

Now it is just exactly as in the days of the Jews. When a message came in, why all the power of the leaders was put against it, that it should not have access to the people. … If God sends us light, let it come to us, and let no man close the door, or try to close it. Don’t close it yourselves. Open the door of your heart and let the brilliant rays of light shine into your heart and into your mind. I pray you, let the Sun of Righteousness in. …

How long is the grace of God to come to this people in vain? I plead with you, for Christ’s sake, clear the King’s highway, and trifle not with the Spirit of God.

We have traveled all through to the different places of the meetings that I might stand side by side with the messengers of God that I knew were His messengers, that I knew had a message for His people. I gave my message with them right in harmony with the very message they were bearing. What did we see? We saw a power attending the message. …

I try to present it to you, that you may see the evidence that I saw, but it seems that the words go as into empty air. How long is it to be thus? How long will the people at the heart of the work hold themselves against God?

Ellen White could not have made it clearer. The young men who laughed and ridiculed the message presented by Jones and Waggoner were doing so as a result of the example set by the older men in leadership positions. Consequently it was the older men who would carry the “burden” of that laugh. Yes, the older men as individuals were committing sin, but the effects of their sins were farreaching in their influence. Ellen White was warning them against following in the steps of the Jewish leaders; the results would be fearful.

When Ellen White published her morning talk a few weeks later in the Review, she added several paragraphs reaffirming her support for Jones and Waggoner, and the very message, “as it has been presented.” She admonished those standing in the way:

How long will it be before you will believe the testimonies of God’s Spirit? When is the truth for this time to find access to your hearts? Will you wait till Christ comes? How long will God permit the way to be hedged up? Clear the King’s highway, I beseech you, and make his paths straight.

I have traveled from place to place, attending meetings where the message of the righteousness of Christ was preached. I considered it a privilege to stand by the side of my brethren, and give my testimony with the message for the time; and I saw that power attended the message wherever it was spoken. You could not make the people believe in South Lancaster that it was not a message of light that came to them. The people confessed their sins, and appropriated the righteousness of Christ. God has set his hand to do this work. We labored in Chicago; it was a week before there was a break in the meetings. But like a wave of glory, the blessing of God swept over us as we pointed men to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. The Lord revealed his glory, and we felt the deep movings of his Spirit. Everywhere the message led to the confession of sin, and to the putting away of iniquity. …

Suppose that you blot out the testimony that has been going during these last two years proclaiming the righteousness of Christ, who can you point to as bringing out special light for the people? This message as it has been presented, should go to every church that claims to believe the truth, and bring our people up to a higher stand-point. …

Every worker has his place; but God does not want any man to think that no other message is to be heard but that which he may have given. We want the past message and the fresh message.

On Wednesday, February 5, Ellen White spoke once again to those gathered at the meetings in Battle Creek. She pled with the brethren to draw nigh to God and to one another. She tried to encourage them that God was seeking to bless them with “light flashing from the throne of God … that the people might be able to stand in the day of God.” Churches were “ready to die” due to a lack of “spiritual food.” The ministers were to present to these churches truths “not from another man’s brain, but from the light you have received by diligent search of the Word of God.” She encouraged her listeners once again with the wonderful results in South Lancaster where she had worked alongside A. T. Jones in sharing this message:

Nearly every student was swept in by the heavenly current, and living testimonies were given that were not surpassed even by the testimonies of 1844 before the disappointment. Many learned at South Lancaster what it meant to surrender their hearts to God—what it meant to be converted. Many said, “I have for years professed to be a follower of Jesus, but I never knew before what it meant to know Jesus or the Father. I have learned from this experience what it means to be a Christian.” …

Brethren, there is light for us; there is light for the people of God, “and the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” The reason men do not understand is because they fasten themselves in a position of questioning and doubt. They do not cultivate faith. If God gives light, you must walk in the light, and follow the light. Light is flashing from the throne of God, and what is this for?—It is that a people may be prepared to stand in the day of God.

Notwithstanding these events, the brethren still cautioned others not to attend classes given by Jones and Waggoner, and some attended only to ask questions for the sake of discrediting their presentations. Ellen White warned them that it was “too late in the day to cry out against men for manifesting too much earnestness in the service of God; to say ‘You are excited; you are too intense, too positive.’ It is too late to caution your brethren in studying the Bible for themselves, [for fear] they may be deceived by error.” She felt a great sense of urgency to warn the brethren against repeating the mistake of the Jews:

As I am writing on the “Life of Christ [The Desire of Ages],” I lift up my heart in prayer to God that light may come to His people. As I see something of the loveliness of Christ, my heart ascends to God, ‘O, let this glory be revealed to thy servants! Let prejudice and unbelief vanish from their hearts.’ Every line I trace about the condition of the people in the time of Christ, about their attitude toward the Light of the world, in which I see danger that we shall take the same position, I offer up a prayer to God: ‘O let not this be the condition of thy people. Forbid that thy people shall make this mistake. Increase their faith.’ … We shall have to meet unbelief in every form in the world, but it is when we meet unbelief in those who should be leaders of the people, that our souls are wounded. This is that which grieves us, and that which grieves the Spirit of God.

The Holy Spirit was being grieved away by the unbelief of those primarily in leadership positions. They were blocking the light from coming to the people, and their influence was affecting the entire church.

The very next morning when Ellen White spoke to the leading brethren, she wondered why “a good many” men, including Uriah Smith, were not attending the meetings. Was it for fear they would be “won?” They were staying away and “all the time firing in the dark against [Jones and Waggoner].” She stated that the ministers “should understand where the Spirit of God is,” that they “might know the impressions that the Lord is making upon His people.” These were, Ellen White stated, “the very men that ought to be here to feel their interest of having the truth for their positions of trust … to be fitting for these positions, [but] they are not here at all; they do not come near.” Instead of quibbling and trying to find hooks on which to hang their doubts, these ministers needed to go to their “knees in prayer; for Christ’s sake see the error and mistake of the Jews.”

Ellen White told of how she awoke the morning before with such a heavy burden. She felt such a responsibility knowing that men were “not walking in the light.” She entreated the brethren: “When you go from this place, Oh be so full of the message that it is like fire shut up in your bones, that you cannot hold your peace. It is true men will say, ‘You are too excited; you are making too much of this matter, and you do not think enough of the law; now, you must think more of the law; don’t be all the time reaching for this righteousness of Christ, but build up the law.’ Let the law take care of itself. We have been at work on the law until we get as dry as the hills of Gilboa, without dew or rain. Let us trust in the merits of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” Would they heed the admonition?

The following morning, Ellen White continued along the same lines. The brethren were making a mistake in “considering men infallible.” The people were looking to the “ministers to take care of them” as if they had no personal work to do themselves. But, regardless of a man’s position, whether he was an old leader in the work or a newcomer, the people were to study the Bible for themselves to see what was truth. The people were to put their trust in God and not man, for “there are not any of us infallible.” But the fallibility of man did not negate the fact that God had more light for His people which was to be given through His appointed messengers: “There is power for this people. I know it. God has been revealing it to me for years, and the time has come. We want to know that that living faith should be inspired in our hearts, and that we shall be reaching out for more light and more knowledge.”

Ellen White was not called to be a prophet who settled every difference of opinion, telling people what they must or must not believe. She had not been the easy way out in the past, neither would she be the easy way out during the conflict over the covenants. In the early days when the pioneers discovered truths about the Sabbath and the heavenly Sanctuary, the Lord confirmed these truths through Ellen White’s prophetic gift only after they had earnestly studied the Bible. This would also be the case with the law in Galatians and the covenants. The Lord did not reveal all the light on these points of controversy at once. As Ellen White saw opposition rising against that light, she pointed the people to the Bible. The purpose for such study was not only to determine if what Jones and Waggoner presented was truth; it was also to lead the people to a personal experience in that truth. The Church was already dealing with the lukewarm results of a mere mental assent to a list of creedal truths, justification by faith being one of them. Furthermore, Ellen White’s authority as a prophet of God was being greatly questioned by many church leaders because she supported Jones and Waggoner and the message they presented. She knew that if the people would go to the Bible for themselves they would see that God was indeed sending showers of blessings upon His Church:

Now, here you are in this school. Brother Waggoner may present the truth before you. You may say that the matter that he presents is truth. But then what will you do? You must go to the Scriptures for yourselves. You must search them with humble hearts. If you are just full of prejudice and your own preconceived opinions, and if you entertain the idea that there is nothing for you to know, and that you know all that is worth knowing, you will not get any benefit here. But if you come like children, you want to learn all there is for you. … The Lord of Heaven has led the mind of man to make a specialty of studying the Scripture and when those Scriptures are presented, He has given [us] reasoning powers … [to] see the evidence just as well as he [the presenter] can see it; I can find the evidence as he finds it. I can go out and speak the truth because I know it is the truth. …

I believe without a doubt that God has given precious truth at the right time to Brother Jones and Brother Waggoner. Do I place them as infallible? Do I say that they will not make a statement or have an idea that cannot be questioned or that cannot be error? Do I say so? No, I do not say any such thing. Nor do I say that of any man in the world. But I do say God has sent light, and do be careful how you treat it.

At that particular point in time, the Lord had not specifically revealed to Ellen White that Jones and Waggoner’s position on the covenants was correct. He had, however, made it clear that He was sending light and precious truth, howbeit through fallible men. The important question was not whether Jones and Waggoner were infallible, but how the brethren were treating the light that God had sent. Instead of looking for flaws in the messengers and the message, they were to study as if looking for light. Instead of telling the people to stay away from the meetings, they were to encourage investigation:

I speak of these men [ministers] that they may know, that they may understand, what is truth; and if they will not hear, if they will keep away, just as the ministers tell the congregations, the stay-away argument, don’t go to hear. Now, you want to hear everything. If he [Waggoner] has got error we want to know it, we want to understand it … and then we want to investigate for ourselves. We want to know that it is truth; and if it is truth, brethren, those children in the Sabbath School class want it, and every soul of them need it. … Those that are in responsible positions, I say you are under obligation to God to know what is going on here. …

This has given me such a sadness and grief to know that there are those who have just had their hearts filled with prejudice. And they listen for every word they can catch. … Who says they [Jones and Waggoner] are perfect? Who claims it? We claim God has given us light in the right time. And now we should receive the truth of God—receive it as of heavenly origin. … When a point is proven, Oh, they [the brethren] will not acknowledge a word. Why, they see no light, but pour it in, question after question. Well, not one point is settled. They do not acknowledge they have met that point; but pour in a whole list of questions. Now, brethren, we want to know what it is to examine the Scriptures, as those who want light, and not those who want to shut out the light.

Such was the state of things at the Ministerial Institute before Waggoner even had an opportunity to present on the two covenants. An environment was set in place conducive to rejecting all the light that God was seeking to pour upon His people. Those gathered there were ministers and leaders in the church. And although their acceptance or rejection of the light sent from heaven was an individual choice, the consequences would affect the entire church; their sin would be a “nations sin,” like that of the Jews. Men had become “guide–posts pointing in the wrong direction.” For their sins, the “whole church stands accountable.”