Don’t Waste Your Time Coming up with a View Different From Waggoner’s
“The trouble we have been having on the covenant question for the last three weeks has seemed to wear me more than ordinary work.” So said Dan Jones in his letter to E. W. Farnsworth, February 17, 1890. Although Waggoner had been prevented from teaching on the subject in late January at the Ministerial Institute, the topic had by no means been laid to rest. When O. A. Olsen and W. W. Prescott returned to Battle Creek in early February, they found that all was not well at the heart of the work. Before the week was over, arrangements had been made “to investigate the covenant question before the minister’s school, and such others as may wish to come in.” Prescott chose to chair the meetings that would begin the very next week. Waggoner would finally be “allowed the floor to present his views.” He would not, however, be able to present his views without objections; others would “be permitted to ask questions or present counter-arguments if they chose to do so.” No doubt there were many objections, for according to Dan Jones, it was “evident that this question has stirred the people all over the country, and has met with much opposition.” Much of that opposition was coming from Dan Jones himself, which he readily shared in his correspondence with others around the country.On Sunday morning, February 16, Waggoner began the first of 10 two-hour sessions that would be held during the next two weeks on the topic of the covenants. Of the ten sessions Waggoner presented six, while Uriah Smith, R. C. Porter, and Bro. Bourdeau—evangelist and General Conference worker— presented one and a half each. According to Dan Jones, “two distinct views of the covenants” were presented, “one favoring the position that has been held in the past by our people, which was presented by Eld. Smith and Bro. Porter; and another party in favor of the advanced views held by Dr. Waggoner, supported by Eld. Bourdeau.” There is no question that Waggoner presented the covenants as he had in the Bible Readings and Senior Sabbath School lessons, which Dan Jones said was “similar to what he presented at Minneapolis.” The presentations of Smith and Porter confirm this, for their presentations were meant as a rebuttal to Waggoner’s teaching.
During his second presentation, Waggoner compared the old and new covenants, “showing that each had three objective points: first, righteousness; second, inheritance of the earth; and third, kingdom of priests.” God had promised man righteousness that would qualify him for everlasting life in the earth made new, and through this living experience man would become a witness to the character of God. It was at this point in Waggoner’s presentation that he shared concepts with which the brethren strongly disagreed: “Nothing was presented that Eld. Smith or anyone else … could object to, until near the close … when Dr. Waggoner drew a parallel between the old and new covenants.” What was it that the brethren strongly disagreed with? According to Dan Jones, it was because Waggoner had stated that in the first, or old covenant, “it all depended upon the obedience of the people; in the second, or new covenant, God does it for the people.”
Because of the objections raised by many of the brethren, and to “show perfect fairness to all concerned in the investigation,” W. W. Prescott decided to allow Uriah Smith to take up the third session and present the traditional view.
Uriah Smith and R. C. Porter Respond
For well over a year, Uriah Smith had been carrying a burden of concern for what he felt was taking place in the church he had helped to pioneer. Even before the Minneapolis Conference he had felt that there was a decided effort, a conspiracy as it were, by Jones and Waggoner to urge new doctrines upon God’s last day people. In his mind, the church already believed in the doctrine of justification by faith. As for the new ideas on the law in Galatians and the covenants, he felt these were only false side issues being pawned off as new light and that they had no connection with justification by faith. Even worse for Smith was the fact that Ellen White supported these men which, in his mind, damaged her credibility.Smith had never sat down and talked with Ellen White to understand her positions, neither had he responded to her several letters over the past year. He found it very disturbing that Waggoner be allowed to present the covenants before the Ministerial Institute. He had supported Dan Jones’ attempt to ban Waggoner from presenting and had written a disclaimer in the Review. After receiving another letter from Ellen White written February 16 (not extant), and listening to both of Waggoner’s presentations on the covenants, Smith could take it no longer. He fired off a response to Ellen White, letting her know how he felt about the whole ordeal. Smith’s six-page letter clearly expresses his deep and sincere concern. He desired to be in the “fullest union” with her, but he could not get around “some of the perplexities.”
Smith assured Ellen White: “It is not my wish that anyone should allow my position on any question to decide his belief on that subject.” He reminded Ellen White that unlike A. T. Jones, who allegedly stated, “‘I have got the truth and you will have to come to the same position in the end,’” he always said to one and all, “‘Examine the question and take only such a position as to you seems satisfactory.’” Smith traced some events beginning with 1886, to explain his side of the story. “Next to the death of Brother White, the greatest calamity that ever befell our cause was when Dr. Waggoner put his articles on the book of Galatians through the Signs.” As far as he was concerned, E. J. Waggoner’s views were the same as his father’s, J. H. Waggoner, which Ellen White, as far as he understood, had condemned back in 1856. If Smith were under “oath at a court of justice,” he would be “obliged to testify” that the “only point then at issue” was whether the law in Galatians represented the moral or ceremonial law.
Smith could not see how E. J. Waggoner’s views went beyond his father’s; neither could he understand that Ellen White’s counsel to J. H. Waggoner was that he not make prominent his view at that time. For this reason Smith felt Ellen White had changed: “When you apparently endorsed his [E. J. Waggoner’s] position as a whole … it was a great surprise to many. And when they asked me what that meant, and how I could account for it, really, Sister White, I did not know what to say, and I do not know what yet.”
“The next unfortunate move,” Smith went on, “was when the brethren in California met, just before the [Minneapolis] Conference, and laid their plans to post up, and bring their views on the ten horns and the law in Galatians into that Conference. … [A]nd so they were introduced, and nearly ruined the Conference as I feared it would.” Smith felt that “a settled plan has been formed to urge these changes of doctrine upon our people till they shall come to be considered the views of the body.” Why wouldn’t he feel that way when “at all the camp–meetings, at institutes, schools, ministers’ meetings, etc.,” these views were “kept to the front, and put in at every possible place and opportunity”:
So you see two reasons why I can but look upon it with distrust; namely, because, first, it seems to me contrary to the Scriptures, and secondly, contrary to what you have previously seen. I do not mean his [Waggoner’s] views on justification by faith, and righteousness through Christ, for those we have always believed; but his view on the law in Galatians, which he deduces as a conclusion from his premises on those other points.
The real point at issue at that Conference was the law in Galatians; but Brother Waggoner’s six preliminary discourses on righteousness we could all agree to; and I should have enjoyed them first rate, had I not known all the while that he designed them to pave the way for his position on Galatians, which I deem as erroneous. I of course do not believe there is any necessary and logical connection between the two, but you know a truth may be used in such a way and with such an apparent purpose, as to spoil the pleasure we would otherwise feel in listening to it. …
I believe I am willing to receive light at any time, from anybody. But what claims to be light must, for me, show itself to be according to the Scripture and based on good solid reasons which convince the judgment, before it appears light to me. And when anyone presents something which I have long known and believed, it is impossible for me to call that new light.
Smith’s point cannot be overlooked. He claimed to believe in justification by faith; to him this was not new light. He just disagreed with Jones’and Waggoner’s views on the covenants and the law in Galatians. He rejected their position based on his understanding of the Scripture and what he felt Ellen White had been shown in the past. On both accounts he was mistaken. He could not see, as did Ellen White, that indeed what Jones and Waggoner presented on the covenants and the law in Galatians was “new light” which placed justification by faith in a “new setting.” This was the “third angel’s message in verity” that, if accepted, would lighten the earth with its glory.
Near the end of his letter, Smith related to Ellen White what he was “told that Brother A. T. Jones has taught here in the class this winter.” He had been told that Jones was undermining prophetic dates familiar to Adventists and supporting others who were doing the same. Smith informed Ellen White that he “might mention many other points, but will not take the time. It is these things that trouble me. These are the things that I am opposing.” He warned her that these false views, “if they are carried out, will utterly undermine your work, and shake the faith in the message.” Yet, “because I venture a word of caution on some of these points, I am held up in public as one who is shooting in the dark, and does not know what he is opposing. I think I do know to some degree what I am opposing.” Smith could not see that it was he, not Jones and Waggoner, who was undermining the work of Ellen White. Within a few days it was clearly shown that Smith accused Jones “wrongfully.”
After sending his letter to Ellen White, Smith had opportunity to present similar views publicly. On February 19, he presented his views on the covenants in contrast to what Waggoner had already presented in the two previous meetings. Smith desired not to present “anything in a controversial way,” but only to present “what the Bible teaches.” If something he said was not “in accordance with the ideas already presented” by Waggoner, it was “simply because it seems to me to be the better view, a better position.” Smith was thankful that “in regard to the subject of justification by faith and righteousness in Christ … there is harmony.” He was “not aware that there has ever been, or is, or ever can be, any difference of opinion among Seventh-day Adventists on this point. But on this subject of the covenants; there are some points, some scriptures, where there seems to be a difference of opinion.” Thus, Smith saw little connection between justification by faith and the covenants, whereas Jones and Waggoner connected the two, viewing justification by faith in the light of the two covenants.
Throughout his presentation, Smith objected to what he felt were Waggoner’s heretical views. He spoke of the two covenants as “two stages, two dispensations” of the Abrahamic covenant. The first stage was fulfilled to the literal seed of Abraham when they inherited the promised land. The second stage would be fulfilled at the resurrection and the earth made new. Smith understood the old covenant as a contract or transaction the people made with God. They promised to keep the ten commandments and whatever else the Lord would add. The Lord then added the ceremonial law and the sanctuary service, “that sin might abound.” But alas, the old covenant was faulty because “it was not able to carry out the matter to the final consummation.” Why? Because “it did not have the right sacrifices—only the blood of animals.” After the cross and the sacrifice of Christ, the new covenant was made, representing a new dispensation. Now the people were to enter into the same type of contract as under the old—promising to keep God’s commandments. The reason the “old covenant could gender to bondage” in Paul’s day was because “certain teachers had come down from Jerusalem troubling their minds and saying they must be circumcised.” This was Paul’s only point in his allegory in the book of Galatians chapter 4. Smith evidently hoped his explanation would convince others of Waggoner’s erroneous views.
Over the next several days, Waggoner continued his presentations on the covenants and their relation to righteousness by faith. There was “much interruption,” as objections and questions were raised for the sole purpose of proving his position wrong. Dan Jones felt Waggoner deserved such treatment. “It is that disposition to crowd in and take advantage, that seems to be so manifest in both Dr. Waggoner and Eld. A. T. Jones that makes their labors unpleasant to some of the brethren here at Battle Creek, I think; and we can readily account for its being so.” Dan Jones was sure that Jones and Waggoner had presented their “new theories … in our denominational schools and ministerial institutes, and run them through the sabbath-school lessons” without going through the brethren who had “done much to formulate the doctrines.” This was “altogether out of place” and “hereafter more care would be taken that the sabbath-school lessons should be thoroughly examined and approved before being sent out all over the country.”
On February 24, R. C. Porter took up the subject of the covenants during one of the two-hour sessions. He was even less amiable than Smith, telling the ministers: “I hope to present something that I think is more in harmony with the truth on the point … which, it seems to me, is the better view.” Porter, like Smith, saw that the “Abrahamic covenant embraced both the old and the new covenant.” The “two covenants are but the means in the different ages for the carrying out” of God’s plan—two dispensations. More than a half dozen times Porter reiterated this point, seeking to make a contrast with Waggoner’s view. To R. C. Porter the old covenant did not differ from the new covenant, only as to the matter of time in which it was instigated. “Under every covenant the conditions must be the same: they must be obedience [sic], positive obedience.” And besides, Porter stated, the “Lord promised the people” just as much help “under the old covenant” as under the new, for “it surely was not made unless there was help to enable man to keep the covenant.” Porter also believed that promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in the old covenant to the children of Israel; God “accomplished all He designed to.”
Through all these arguments Porter was trying to establish that the old covenant: was based on time, was based on the mutual agreement of God and the people, was fulfilled to Abraham’s literal seed, was done away with at the Cross, and was thus not a covenant that could be entered into under the new dispensation. It is clear that for Porter, Smith, and many other brethren, their biggest objection to Waggoner’s views was his position that neither covenant represented a dispensation or time period during the plan of salvation, but rather the condition of men’s hearts regardless of when they lived on earth, and second, that the old covenant was based on the promises of the people, whereas the new or everlasting covenant was based on the promises of God.
Waggoner believed that instead of responding in faith as Abraham their father had done, Israel had manifested pride and self–sufficiency, vainly promising “all that the Lord has spoken we will do” (Ex. 19:8). Thus God had come down on Sinai and spoken the ten commandments with thunder and lightning. This was primarily that schoolmaster, or added law which was to bring them to Christ. To this view the brethren could never concede, and for this reason they rose up in opposition against God’s appointed messenger.
During the last week of February, the final presentation of the covenants was given. “At the close it was plain to be seen that there were two distinct views of the covenants as it had been presented,—one favoring the position that has been held in the past by our people … and another party in favor of the advanced views held by Dr. Waggoner.” Although no official action was taken, Dan Jones hints that some sort of summary statement or resolution was made: “No expression was taken that would in any way draw the lines between the parties stronger than necessary.” Dan Jones suggests the covenant question was then “dropped, and the school is going on with its regular work.” This hardly meant, however, that the issue had been resolved. A few days later, Dan Jones admitted “the investigation on the covenant question closed up with no better satisfaction than before it began.” In fact, Jones stated, “the result has not been to bring the brethren together and unite them in working for the upbuilding of the cause of God, but has rather been to create party spirit and party feelings, and to magnify the differences and views that existed between them.” Sad to say, Dan Jones himself was responsible to a large degree for that “party spirit” that was leading many of the younger ministers to reject Waggoner and the views he was presenting.
But what about Ellen White? What was her opinion on the covenants? Was it of any concern to her? If it was, why did she remain silent while Waggoner was presenting on the topic?
Ellen White Takes Her Stand
During the later part of January and early February, Ellen White participated in the Ministerial Institute, speaking “every day, with one or two exceptions” for “three weeks.” However, during the two-week investigation of the covenants, we find her strangely silent. One reason for such silence was the investigations themselves. These two-hour classes on the covenants most likely took the place of the morning meeting where Ellen White usually spoke. But Ellen White herself gives the main reason for her silence: “I have been watching to see what course these men would take, how much light would come into their souls. I have been watching to see.” It was her desire that the brethren recognize for themselves the light being presented. In fact, when Dan Jones came to her during the investigations and asked her opinion, she pointedly replied: “I will not tell you my opinion; my faith. Dig in the Bible. Sink the shaft of truth to find out what is truth.” It was not because she was without an opinion on the subject that she refused to answer Jones’ question, but because she wanted the brethren to accept the light based on their own study of the Bible. Besides, many of them doubted her inspiration and authority, and it would have done little good for her to declare her position prematurely.Ellen White was not in the dark on the subject of the covenants, nor about the opposition that was taking place: “while I have been keeping in silence, the Lord has been revealing night after night, the position of individual cases before me.” It was not long before she stated, “No more will my lips be sealed.” This was because the Lord “urged” her to give her “testimony.” When the covenant investigation ended during the last week of February, other meetings took their place, running “from half past seven to nine.” Ellen White began attending the meetings, and speaking “quite freely.”
On Sabbath morning, March 1, Ellen White wrote solemn thoughts in her diary: “I have been shown that love for Christ and for God has well-nigh died out of our churches. And because we do not love God, we are lacking in love for one another.” She wrote of the men “binding themselves together in unsanctified confederacies,” framing “resolutions” and laying “plans that do not bear the endorsement of God.” In her Sabbath sermon, she preached on “Christ’s riding into Jerusalem” which made a “solemn impression upon the full house.” In the afternoon she spoke again, saying “just as straight things as God ever gave me to speak.” On Sunday as she attended the morning meeting held in the east vestry of the Tabernacle, “there were but few” who attended. By midweek, however, the room was well filled with ministers and other brethren and sisters from Battle Creek; the number swelling to over three hundred.
All week Ellen White spoke very directly with the brethren gathered before her. She found it a “difficult problem” to know how to deal with their “strong spirits.” On Friday morning, March 7, she “went into the ministers’ meeting” with her soul “greatly distressed.” In the night season her soul had been in “agony” as the Lord had once again “laid it all open again before me, just the influence that was at work, and just where it would lead.” She “did not know what to expect, or how long this thing was going to persevere.” She reminded the large group of ministers how she had warned them after Minneapolis “that every one of them that laid that hardness into their hearts … they never would see a ray of light till they confessed it.” That was exactly what was taking place. On Sabbath morning, still burdened with what the Lord had revealed to her the day before, Ellen White wrote once again to Uriah Smith. She knew the effect he was having upon others and could not let him go on oblivious to the fact:
Night before last, the Lord opened many things to my mind. It was plainly revealed what your influence has been, what it was at Minneapolis. … You will not only have in the day of final accounts to meet your own course of action but the result of your influence upon other minds. You have refused my testimonies … you have labored to make them of none effect as did Korah, Dathan and Abiram. …
You have strengthened the hands and minds of such men as Larson, Porter, Dan Jones, Eldridge and Morrison and Nicola and a vast number through them. All quote you, and the enemy of righteousness looks on pleased. …
After your course of action has unsettled the minds and faith in the testimonies, what have you gained? If you should recover your faith, how can you remove the impressions of unbelief you have sown in other minds? Do not labor so hard to do the very work Satan is doing. This work was done in Minneapolis. Satan triumphed. This work has been done here [too].
As Ellen White continued to write, she made it clear where she stood on the covenant question. It was more than just her own opinion, for it had been revealed to her from heaven itself. She described Waggoner’s presentations of the covenants as “true light,” and Smith’s as a twisting of the Scriptures:
Night before last I was shown that evidences in regard to the covenants were clear and convincing. Yourself, Brother Dan Jones, Brother Porter and others are spending your investigative powers for naught to produce a position on the covenants to vary from the position that Brother Waggoner has presented, when had you received the true light which shineth, you would have not imitated or gone over the same manner of interpretation and misconstruing the Scriptures as did the Jews. What made them so zealous? Why did they hang on the words of Christ? Why did spies follow him to mark His words that they could repeat and misinterpret and twist in a way to mean that which their own unsanctified minds would make them to mean? In this way, they deceived the people. They made false issues. …
The covenant question is a clear question and would be received by every candid, unprejudiced mind, but I was brought where the Lord gave me an insight into this matter. You have turned from plain light because you were afraid that the law question in Galatians would have to be accepted. As to the law in Galatians, I have no burden and never have had and know Brother Smith, Porter, [Dan] Jones or anyone will never be prepared to receive light … until every one of you are converted. …
I would not now depend upon your knowledge or interpretation of Scriptures. … If you turn from one ray of light fearing it will necessitate an acceptance of positions you do not wish to receive, that light becomes to you darkness.
Later that morning E. J. Waggoner gave “a most powerful discourse” to all those gathered in the Battle Creek Tabernacle. Ellen White heard from “many who were present, and their testimony was unanimous that God spoke through him.” In the afternoon, “Elders Olsen and Waggoner led the meeting” held in the office chapel where a “large number were present.” Ellen White rose up to speak and “all knew that the Spirit and power of God were upon” her. She spoke with “earnestness and decision,” repeating some of the same things she had written to Uriah Smith earlier that day. She wanted everyone to know where she stood on the covenant question and how she viewed it in connection with the third angel’s message:
[T]he light that came to me night before last laid it all open again before me, just the influence that was at work, and just where it would lead. I want to tell you brethren, whoever you are, I want to tell you, that you are just going over the very same ground that they went over in the days of Christ. You have had their experience; But God deliver us from having the come-out-of-it as they had. … May God have mercy upon your souls, because you need it. You have stood right in the way of God. The earth is to be lighted with His glory, and if you stand where you stand today, you might just as quick say that the Spirit of God was the spirit of the devil. You have said it now in your actions, in your attitudes, that it is the spirit of the devil. …
Why do you not hear the words of Christ that are presented to you? Why will you have darkness? They are so afraid to see that there is another ray of light. … Do not hang on to Brother Smith. In the name of God, I tell you, he is not in the light. He has not been in the light since he was at Minneapolis. … [Y]ou have tried in every way to resist the Spirit of God. May God have compassion on your souls. …
But if Jesus, when He was upon earth, with all His power and miracles could not break down that prejudice that was in the heart of the people, what can we do? … Let the truth of God come into your hearts; open the door. Now I tell you here before God, that the covenant question, as it has been presented, is the truth. It is the light. In clear lines it has been laid before me. And those who have been resisting light, I ask you whether they have been working for God, or for the devil. It is the clear light of heaven, and it means much to us. It means to show us that you cannot depend upon your own smartness and your criticism, but you must hang your helpless soul upon Jesus Christ, and upon Him alone. God help you to see. God help you to understand.
Following Ellen White’s earnest appeal, “many bore testimony and some confessions were made; but,” according to Ellen White, “the break was not complete, and we did not have that complete victory I desired.” Sunday morning Ellen White spoke again, pouring out her “testimony in warnings, reproof, and encouragement.” She started the meeting by reading the story of Pentecost from the book of Acts. Then, speaking to the leaders before her, she readily exclaimed: “Now, brethren, the blessing that is here spoken of we may receive when we come to God with our whole heart, when we empty it of every kind of prejudice and all this doubting and unbelief; then we can expect the Spirit of God.” Ellen White reminded her listeners of Jesus’ dedication in the temple while He was yet an infant. The priest “that was there officiating did not know Him,” but Simeon “recognized Him because he was where he could discern spiritual things. … [H]e recognized the Spirit of God.” In one of her strongest appeals, Ellen White cautioned the brethren that in their present condition they were incapable of recognizing the movings of the Spirit, and of the fourth angel spoken of in Revelation chapter 18:
And how is it with us individually? We know that the Spirit of God has been with us. We know that it has been with us time and again in the meetings. We have not a doubt but that the Lord was with Elder Waggoner as he spoke yesterday. We have not a doubt of that. I have not a doubt that the power of God in rich measure was hanging over us, and everything was light in the Lord to me yesterday afternoon in the minister’s meeting. Now, if there had been a throwing open the door of the heart and letting Jesus in, we would have had a precious season there yesterday. I have not a doubt of it.
If we place ourselves in a position that we will not recognize the light God sends or His messages to us, then we are in danger of sinning against the Holy Ghost. Then [it is dangerous] for us to turn and see if we can find some little thing that is done that we can hang some of our doubts upon and begin to question! The question is, has God sent the truth? Has God raised up these men to proclaim the truth? I say, yes, God has sent men to bring us the truth that we should not have had unless God had sent somebody to bring it to us. God has let me have a light of what His Spirit is, and therefore I accept it, and I no more dare to lift my hand against these persons, because it would be against Jesus Christ, who is to be recognized in His messengers.
Now, brethren, God wants us to take our position with the man that carries the lantern; we want to take our position where the light is, and where God has given the trumpet a certain sound. … We have been in perplexity, and we have been in doubt, and the churches are ready to die. But now here we read: “And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. …” Well now, how are we going to know anything about that message if we are not in a position to recognize anything of the light of heaven when it comes to us? And we will just as soon pick up the darkest deception when it comes to us from somebody that agrees with us. … [T]hat is just the work that has been going on here ever since the meeting at Minneapolis. Because God sends a message in His name that does not agree with your ideas, therefore [you conclude] it cannot be a message from God.
Backbone of Rebellion is Broken
Ellen White’s strong appeals were not without effect. Many began to see the whole situation in a different light and realized that they had been wrongly influenced. Ellen White felt that “this had been the hardest, long and persistent resistance” she had ever had. “Some confessions were made and quite a number who had been in darkness made confessions of their finding Jesus and being free in the Lord.” More freedom was coming into the meetings and the darkness was “no longer a controlling element.” Yet Ellen White hoped for “more of God’s Spirit,” and to see “these ministers free in the Lord and joyful in their God.”Monday, March 10, brought Ellen White more good news that she shared with her son W. C. White: “I am much pleased to learn that Professor Prescott is giving the same lessons in his class to the students that Brother Waggoner has been giving. He is presenting the covenants. John [Froom] thinks it is presented in a clear and convincing manner. Since I made the statement last Sabbath that the view of the covenants as it had been taught by Brother Waggoner was truth, it seems that great relief has come to many minds. I am inclined to think Brother Prescott receives the testimony, although he was not present when I made this statement. I thought it time to take my position, and I am glad that the Lord urged me to give the testimony that I did.”
Ellen White also felt she no longer carried the load of not being able to express herself freely: “I am free and talk as the Spirit of God giveth me utterance.” She stated that as a result, the “men who have held things have no power now.” The “largest number present” were now receiving her testimony. There were also many others who “with tears confessed” how tried they felt “because they could not have the privilege of listening to Elder Waggoner’s teaching without so much interruption.” Thus, those who had been “shedding darkness on the class” began to see the results of their rebellion.
The following day, Ellen White shared again with the brethren. She told them how the believers had to meet with “prejudice and with ridicule and with sneers and with criticism” in 1844, and this was “the very same character that we have had to meet here in this conference.” Thus it was their “duty— without revealing the spirit that the churches manifested, which was so unlike Christ”—to go to the Word of God for themselves. “The great error with churches in all ages has been to reach a certain point in their understanding of Bible truth and there stop. … and they refuse light.” Yet God had “greater light,” “more or increased light” that would “shine in greater clearness and more abundantly upon all who have improved the light given.” They were to “expect light” to “continue to shine from the Word of God,” and to “reveal more and more distinctly the truth as it is in Jesus.”
While encouraging deeper Bible study, Ellen White also warned that “as a people we are certainly in great danger … of considering our ideas, because long cherished, to be Bible doctrines and on every point infallible, and measuring everyone by the rule of our interpretation of Bible truth. This is our danger, and this would be the greatest evil that could ever come to us as a people.” The tendency to put “entire dependence upon the leaders” and not study for oneself, was after the manner of the “church of Rome.” With solemn earnestness Ellen White warned of the results of such a stance:
We have seen in our experience that when the Lord sends rays of light from the open door of the sanctuary to His people, Satan stirs up the minds of many. But the end is not yet. There will be those who will resist the light and crowd down those whom God has made His channels to communicate light. … The watchmen have not kept pace with the opening providence of God, and the real heaven-sent message and messengers are scorned.
There will go from this meeting men who claim to know the truth who are gathering about their souls the garments not woven in the loom of heaven. The spirit that they have received here will be carried with them. I tremble for the future of our cause. Those who do not in this place yield to the evidence God has given will war against their brethren whom God is using. They will make it very hard. … These men will have opportunities to be convinced that they have been warring against the Holy Spirit of God. Some will be convinced; others will hold firmly their own spirit. They will not die to self and let the Lord Jesus come into their hearts. They will be more and still more deceived until they cannot discern truth and righteousness. They will, under another spirit, seek to place upon the work a mold that God shall not approve; and they will endeavor to act out the attributes of Satan in assuming control of human minds and thus control the work and cause of God.
Following Ellen White’s morning talk many testimonies were given and confessions made. Brother Larson “confessed that his feeling had not been right.” Brother Porter, who had opposed Waggoner during the covenant investigation, stood “all broken up so that he could say nothing for a few moments.” He confessed the wrong he had done Ellen White and Elder Waggoner, and humbly asked them “to forgive him.” Brother Prescott “wept like a baby when Brother L[arson] and P[orter] were making their confessions.” In fact, “the whole room was sobbing and praising God for there was a revealing of His power.” Men “so strong and high-headed” began to feel that they had been “working against the Spirit of God.” At this, Ellen White could write to W. C. White that “the backbone of the rebellion is broken in those who have come in from other places.” God was indeed seeking to pour out His Spirit on a languishing church. Oh, that all would have recognized it and confessed.
Two Special Meetings
On Wednesday afternoon, March 12, Ellen White called for a “meeting of the prominent ones.” Recognizing that the Holy Spirit was working on many hearts, Ellen White wanted the key leaders in Battle Creek to meet together and seek to clear up the controversy that had existed since Minneapolis. For the first time, Ellen White and E. J. Waggoner would be able to give an answer to many of the false accusations that had been afloat since before the Minneapolis Conference. After prayer, Ellen White “said that Brother Waggoner had some things to say” which she “wished them to hear, which would disabuse some minds.” Waggoner, with the help of C. H. Jones (manager of Pacific Press and president of the International Sabbath School Assn.), was able to take up “the Sabbath School lessons,” explaining that nothing underhanded had been done in introducing his views on the covenants. He explained that he had been asked by the General Conference to rewrite the two lessons that were missing, but upon examination he found that he would have to rewrite several of the other lessons as well. None of this was done, however, without obtaining permission from the Sabbath School Association. Waggoner made it clear that at every step he had run the lessons through the proper channels, and that the lessons were not published without first receiving the approval of all the committee members, including Eld. Smith. All had “liberty to speak as they saw fit, asking any questions. All these things seemed satisfactory.” Ellen White felt that Waggoner “spoke well,” leaving a “favorable impression … upon minds, and there was no rising up, no spirit of opposition” to what he had to say.Ellen White then shared what her experience was before and during the Minneapolis Conference, and how she had labored “to get the messengers and message to have a fair chance.” She “told freely” of the “prejudice existing in minds,” and what the Lord had revealed to her during that time. She spoke of how her “testimony had been made of none effect” since Minneapolis, and how men had not even come for an interview to see if the accusations were correct. She asked how Uriah Smith could treat her as he did; what was the cause for all this? “It was finally simmered down to this—that a letter had come from California to Brother Butler, telling them that plans were all made to drive the law in Galatians.” This was “met and explained” by herself and Waggoner; “there were no plans laid.”
The meeting, which lasted for several hours, “was very much a success.” Ellen White thought that “those who had made so much out of so very little, were much surprised at the outcome or showing up of the matter.” With all this progress, however, Ellen White felt “almost hopeless in reference to expecting a general breaking up of the soul under the influence of the Spirit and power of God.” She was sick and exhausted for the remainder of the week. When asked to speak on Sabbath, she refused, for she “had not the strength.” She sent word to Dan Jones to have Waggoner speak, and with a “little reluctance” he was “finally invited.” Waggoner “gave a most precious discourse on the message to the Laodicean church,—just what was needed. This was another rich blessing to the church.”
In the afternoon “another meeting was held in the office chapel.” Sick as she was, Ellen White attended and spoke up several times. Many shared their testimonies, “but there was no decided break.” Brother Porter talked, “but was not free.” Ellen White reminded them that when “the Lord sends us light and food that all the churches need, we may well expect that the enemy of all righteousness will do his utmost to prevent that light coming in its native heavenly bearings to the people.” Those whose minds were “full of unbelief and doubts” Satan would use to “intercept the light that God means shall come to His chosen ones.”
On Sunday morning, March 16, “weary and almost discouraged,” Ellen White ventured into the meeting. When it was about to close she “made some very close remarks. I kept before them what they had done to make of none effect that which the Lord was trying to do and why. The law in Galatians was their only plea.” After such a talk, R. C. Porter “made humble confession with tears,” telling Ellen White, “we will sustain you as you go forth to your trying work.” Would he live up to his word?
In another meeting that same day, Ellen White continued her appeal. She repeated many of the same warnings. Unless true confessions were made “everyone who has taken a position similar to the one they took in Minneapolis would go into the darkest unbelief.” This would place them “where there is no reserve power that God has to reach them with. Every arrow in His quiver is exhausted.” In every meeting that she attended she “felt that there is a pressure of unbelief.” She could go among those that had “never heard of the truth and their hearts are more susceptible than those that have been in the truth.” When God “manifests His power as He has manifested it,” she declared, “it is very nigh unto the sin of the Holy Ghost to disbelieve it”:
If ever a people needed to be removed, it is those that took their position in Minneapolis at that time on the wrong side. …
Let no soul go out from here with darkness, for he will be a body of darkness wherever he goes. He scatters the seeds of darkness everywhere. He carries all these seeds and he begins to sow them, and it unsettles the confidence of the people in the very truths that God wants to come to His people. …
I know that He has a blessing for us. He had it at Minneapolis, and He had it for us at the time of the General Conference here [1889]. But there was no reception. …
It is something beyond anything I ever saw in all my experience since I first started in the work. The people of God who have had light and evidences have stood where God would not let His blessing fall upon them. In the chapel hall [yesterday] the power of God was all ready to fall upon us. I felt for a little time as though I could look right into glory; but the spirit that was there drove it away. …
One brother thinks that Sister White doesn’t understand her own testimonies. Heard that in Minneapolis. Why? Because the brethren did not agree with them. Well, there are some things that I understand. I understand enough to acknowledge the Spirit of God and to follow the voice of the Shepherd. I understand that much.
In a letter to Uriah Smith, Ellen White confirmed her earlier statement. In the “meeting on the Sabbath in the office chapel … the Spirit of the Lord came nigh to us. Christ knocked for entrance but no room was made for Him, the door was not opened and the light of His glory, so nigh, was withdrawn.” Thus, exactly as had happened at the 1888 and 1889 General Conference, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit had been pushed away.
Ellen White wanted “to know why the enemy is having such power upon human minds as he has here.” She wanted to know why the brethren had “been standing here and questioning, and just about ready to give up the Testimonies.” She asked that the leading brethren might “assemble again … and if anything can be taken out of the way, God help us to do it!” Because A. T. Jones was unable to attend the first special meeting, having been in Tennessee, Ellen White wanted him to have an opportunity to answer “all the objections that have been created.” She wanted to get the “snags out of the way and make those who have talked of these things bury them if possible, never to be resurrected.”
On Wednesday, March 19, the second special meeting was held. A. T. Jones “talked very plainly, yet tenderly in regard to their crediting hearsay and not, in brotherly love, taking the matter to the one talked about.” Earlier in the ministerial meetings, Uriah Smith had responded to Ellen White’s “letter of appeal by writing [her] a letter accusing Elder Jones of tearing up the pillars of our faith.” A. T. Jones’ explanation revealed that Uriah Smith had “accused him wrongfully.” Dan Jones was “surprised to see some things that look inexplicable, vanish away into thin air when a few explanations were made. Some reports that had gone out in reference to points Eld. [A. T.] Jones had taught here in the school, which was supposed to rest on indisputable evidence, all vanished away until there was nothing at all of it. The reports proved to be utterly false.” Unfortunately, Uriah Smith did not confess the wrong he had committed nor seek to revoke the false rumors he had spread around; it is much easier to tell a lie about someone than it is to retract it.
Ellen White then spoke to the brethren as straight as she knew how. Writing her son later that day she stated: “Willie, I talked as they had never heard me talk before. I went over again the transactions at Minneapolis and since that time.” It was, she exclaimed, “as solemn a meeting as I had ever seen.” Ellen White “addressed plain remarks to Elder Smith,” exclaiming that although “it was not surprising” that the brethren “who had known but little of the work the Lord had given [her] to do should have temptations,” Elder Smith “was not excusable.” She “had reason to expect [her] brethren would act like sensible men, weigh evidence, give credence to evidence, and not turn aside from light and facts of truth and give credence to tidbits of hearsay and suppositions.”
As a result of this meeting and the explanations given, Ellen White could declare: “the whole atmosphere is changed.” Many were subdued, realizing how foolish their opposition had been. At last a break had come, and the final week of the Institute did indeed exhibit a different spirit.
Tired and exhausted, Ellen White left Battle Creek before the last weekend of the Institute. Having “spoken for the last time” she felt her “duty was discharged.” She “had no more to say to the church or to [her] ministering brethren.” As she headed for Chicago and then Colorado before returning to California, she hoped that the progress made in the final days of the Institute would continue moving forward. Unfortunately that hope was never realized.