Men who are hard pressed upon any religious topic will use the best arguments they have. And no class of men can appreciate the importance of this more than Eld. Grant and his law-abolished friends. Seventh-day Adventists have pressed them hard upon the Sabbath question. This has driven them to misrepresentations of our real views and positions, as their present stronghold. By putting our people in positions which they know we do not occupy, and resorting to smut and blacking, they hope to raise prejudice in the minds of the people, and thus cut off our influence. But in doing this, they not only commit the high crime of deliberately bearing false witness against a God-fearing people, but they expose the fact that with them is a want of Bible evidence.
Those who have the truth of God can afford to be fair. They are sustained in their labors, not only by the happy fact that they have embraced sacred truth, but with the clear and harmonious evidences by which it is sustained. They can afford to state the positions of their opponents truthfully and correctly, and then refute them in the spirit of candor and honesty. But judging from the general conduct of not a few of our opponents, they cannot afford to be fair. They speak of our views, and of us as a people, as though they could not afford to rightly represent us, lest some of their adherents should hear us, and embrace our views.
The following from the Review of July 25, 1871, is a striking illustration of the course of some of our opponents, in the person of Eld. Miles Grant, who seems willing to sacrifice truth and honesty for the sake of abusing Seventh-day Adventists:—
The World’s Crisis of July 5, 1871, has an editorial headed, “San Francisco,” in which the editor does Seventh-day Adventists great injustice. He first gives the notice, from the San Francisco Daily Chronicle, of the tent-meeting held in that city by Elds. Loughborough and Cornell. The notice came from an unprejudiced pen, and was therefore candid. It follows:—
“ANOTHER SERIES OF TENT-MEETINGS.
“A sect styling themselves Second Adventists have determined to hold a series of meetings under canvas, with the view of advancing their peculiar theory of religion. A commodious tent has been erected on a vacant lot on the south side of Market street between Fifth and Sixth, in which place their doctrines, setting forth the theme of man’s nature and destiny, and the tendency of modern spiritualism, will be expounded. Elds. J. N. Loughborough and M. E. Cornell of Michigan, as well as other well-known Second Advent preachers, will address the meetings, which will commence this evening at 7:45 o’clock, and will continue every evening, and the usual Sunday services, for several weeks.”
If Eld. Grant feared that the people he represents might be confounded, in the minds of his friends in California, with Seventh-day Adventists, he could have made a fair statement of the facts in the case without any attempt whatever to misrepresent the Seventh-day Adventists. But his effort reaches beyond this. We are grieved that a religious editor, who holds in common with us very many points of important, unpopular Bible truth, should stoop to the gross misrepresentation in the following words. Eld. Grant says:—
“It will be noticed that these meetings are to be conducted by those who hold that Saturday—the Jewish Sabbath—should be observed now as a rest-day; and that those who keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath have taken upon them ‘the mark of the beast,’ referred to in Rev. 14:9–11. If this position were correct, then all Christians, who do not keep Saturday for a Sabbath, ‘shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.’”
We do not deny that we observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord our God. But we do deny that we observe a “Jewish Sabbath” any more than we worship a Jewish God. We reject the terms “Jewish Sabbath” and “Christian Sabbath” as not only out of the line of Scripture phraseology, but as conveying untruthful ideas. We are content with the Scripture terms, “the Sabbath,” or “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” without any false or odious qualifying word.
In reply to the statement that we hold “that those who keep the first day of the week as a Sabbath have taken upon them the mark of the beast,” and that “all Christians who do not keep Saturday for the Sabbath shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God,” we have to say that the statement is false. This is evident from the following facts:—
1. The third message is a warning to men not to receive the mark of the beast. Seventh-day Adventists are giving that warning. And the editor of the World’s Crisis is presuming marvelously upon the credulity of his readers in supposing that he can make them believe that such men as White, Waggoner, Loughborough, Cornell, Cottrell, Littlejohn, Butler, Canright, Van Horn, and others, are guilty of such stupid inconsistency as to devote their lives to a proclamation that warns the people not to receive what they already have!
2. Our works show that we believe no such thing. We are earnestly and tenderly teaching the people of every denomination of Sunday-keepers, and warning them of coming danger. We have a world-wide message of merciful warning, which gathers disciples from all the various churches of Sunday-keepers and from the world.
3. The people have not received Sunday from enlightened choice. It has come to them as a matter of course, handed down from their parents, taken for granted, without close investigation, that it was really the Sabbath of the New Testament. The people have not received the mark of the beast in the sense of the warning message that mentions it. But when the warning message shall be fully given, the claims of the fourth commandment are understood, and the rival Sabbath of the papacy shall be enforced by law, then it will become a matter of fearful choice. It will be then, and not till then, that persons can receive the mark of the beast in the sense of the third message.
But what makes Eld. Grant’s statement appear still worse is the following evidence that he knew when he penned it that it was false. No Seventh-day Adventist has ever taught that all men “who do not keep Saturday for the Sabbath” have the mark of the beast, and are consequently doomed to the wrath of God. Thirty-seven volumes of the ADVENT REVIEW AND HERALD OF THE SABBATH have been completed, and in not one of them has this position been taken. Neither can it be found in one of our numerous publications. It would be very remarkable if all our brethren, public and private, had always in all they have said and written upon the subject of the mark of the beast, clearly stated that the solemn warning of the third message had reference to a future test, when men would accept of the papal Sunday as a matter of choice. But of this we are certain, that no one has ever stated the matter as reported by the editor of the Crisis.
As early as the spring of 1855, J. N. Andrews wrote a work entitled, “The Three Messages.” Several editions of this work have been published and sold, to the amount of twenty thousand copies. This has been regarded by our people as a standard work, well representing the views of Seventh-day Adventists. From it we take the following, written nineteen years ago the present month:—
“Notwithstanding the fourth commandment in the plainest terms enjoins the observance of the sanctified rest-day of the Lord, almost all the world now wonder after the beast, and observe the pagan festival of Sunday, which the great apostasy has substituted for the holy Sabbath. By the observance of the Sabbath, men acknowledge the great Creator as their God. But when they understandingly choose in its stead the Sabbath of the man of sin, they acknowledge him as above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, and as able to change the times and laws of God. There is no evading this point. If we observe the Sabbath of the Lord and that of the apostasy also, we only make the man of sin equal with God. But when we profane the Lord’s Sabbath, and observe in its stead the Romish festival of Sunday, we acknowledge the papacy above God, and able to change his times and laws. We speak of those who have the light of truth and act contrary to it. Those who have never yet understood that the observance of Sunday is a tradition of the fathers which makes void the fourth commandment are not referred to. It is the bringing of this Sabbath of the apostasy to the test that will constitute it the mark of that power that should think to change times and laws. There is no other papal institution that directly sets aside one of the ten commandments, that the whole Protestant world observes. This mark is very conspicuous in the forehead or hand, and signifies not a literal mark, but a public profession, or act, that all may see or know.”
“It is proper that we should speak with carefulness of that which relates to the events of the future. That the scene described in the conclusion of Rev. 13 pertains to the time of trouble before us, such as never was, we have no doubt. It is also evident that, in the providence of God, the line of separation between the worshipers of the beast and his image on the one hand, and those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus on the other, will be most distinct and visible. The third angel’s proclamation3will prepare the people of God for the coming crisis; and the formation of the image and the reception of the mark will prepare all the various classes of adherents to the beast to receive the vials of the wrath of God, the seven last plagues.”
3. In another standard work of Seventh-day Adventists of 328 pp., entitled, “Thoughts on the Revelation,” written by Uriah Smith, when editor of the ADVENT REVIEW, in 1865, we find the following clear statement:—
“It will thus be seen that a person does not have the mark of the beast in the Scripture sense, except by a voluntary obedience to the authority of the beast, with the issue fairly before him. The observance of the first day of the week, under the incorrect supposition that it is a scriptural requirement, cannot constitute the mark of the beast. God takes into the account the light a person has, and the motives from which he acts. He who was the light of the world once said to the Jews, ‘If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.’ John 15:22. Hence the good of past ages who have died in the observance of this institution, unaware of any connection between it and the enactments of the beast, and supposing, the while, that they were thereby rendering obedience to the requirements of God—can they be said to have had the mark of the beast? By no means. The honesty of purpose with which they lived up to the best light they had will be a guarantee of their acceptance with God. Hence, again, it cannot be said of any at the present time, that they have the mark of the beast. But the true church must not come up to translation encumbered, however unwittingly, with papal errors and institutions; and before we come upon the issue brought to view in chap. 13:15–17, light must be given upon the mark of the beast, and an effectual warning be uttered against its reception. The third angel’s message, now in full process of accomplishment here, is therefore timely and important. It is a summons to the faithful to make speedy preparations for the coming issue.” Pages 238, 239.
The editor of the Crisis cannot be held guiltless for his misrepresentations of the views of Seventh-day Adventists on the ground that he may not have read these works. Before making such sweeping statements, calculated to prejudice all who regard him as an intelligent and honest man, he should understand our views. If he does not understand our positions, he should not meddle with them before the people. A candid public will hold a professing Christian editor accountable for abusive statements in reference to a sincere Christian people made in ignorance of the real facts in the case, the same as if he uttered willful falsehood.
But it is a fact that, in the presence of a large audience, in Library Hall, Chelsea, Mass., November, 1869, on the occasion of a discussion on the Sabbath question, between Eld. Miles Grant, editor World’s Crisis, and Eld. M. E. Cornell, of Battle Creek, Mich., Eld. Cornell did correct Eld. Grant’s misrepresentations on this subject in the following words:—
“One thing has been said for mere effect, which I must notice. We do not believe that they who keep Sunday have the mark of the beast; we do not teach so. It is a misrepresentation. But we do believe that when it becomes enforced by law, the warning has been given, and the people become enlightened on the subject, if they then persist in disobedience to God by breaking his holy Sabbath for an institution of another, opposing power, they will be condemned as worshipers of that power.”—Discussion, p. 107.
This report of the discussion Eld. Grant indorses in the following certificate, printed upon the second page of the “Discussion”: “This is to certify that the following report, as taken by Eld. J. H. Waggoner, is impartial and honorable. It does not profess to be a verbatim report, but the points and ideas are well expressed and satisfactory.
“MILES GRANT.”
But imagine our surprise, when we saw in an issue of the Crisis in July, 1871, only twenty months after Eld. Grant had been corrected in the most unmistakable manner, the same old falsehood repeated from his pen.
With these facts before him, the editor of the World’s Crisis will find it a difficult matter to free himself from the charge of a deliberate attempt to deceive his readers, in the act of abusively misrepresenting us. Neither will those who read this exposure be able to excuse him, unless it be those of his friends who believe the commandment abolished which says: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
Springfield Camp-meeting.
It is proper here to make a statement of the treatment which Eld. White and his wife received from Eld. Grant and others at the Springfield Camp-meeting in 1869. We would first state that the first time that Eld. White and Eld. Grant met was on a western train, at which time Eld. Grant stated that his greatest objection to Seventh-day Adventists was their exclusiveness. Eld. Grant there stated to Eld. White, “I can worship with you, but your views will not let you worship with me.”
Eld. White cherishing views of Eld. Grant’s honesty, which he has since been forced to abandon, took Eld. Grant at his word and in a few weeks addressed a note to him relative to pitching a family tent upon the Springfield camp-ground, to be occupied by himself and some half dozen others. Eld. White stated that neither himself nor any one of his company would say anything publicly that was out of harmony with the general sentiments of the meeting, neither would they sell any of their books.
This note receiving a favorable response from Eld. Grant, Eld. White, sister White, Mrs. Dr. Chamberlain, and Elds. Waggoner and Cornell came upon the ground and took up tent life. Several other S. D. A. brethren were occasionally with them. Eld. White always has a quantity of our publications with him. And when his friends called upon him at his tent or when he met them upon the grounds he usually gave them some of his publications. He did not scatter them upon the seats, neither did he distribute in the tents, he simply in the most quiet manner handed them to personal friends and those who came to his tent and asked for them.
It was not long, however, before Eld. White was summoned to meet the camp-meeting committee in the rear of the speakers’ stand. So accompanied by Elds. Waggoner and Cornell he appeared before that committee to answer to the charge of a violation of promise in giving away, in the manner afore stated, some of his publications. Eld. White very soon made it appear that he had made no promise relative to giving away his publications, and that he had strictly kept his word. And as opposition publications from the office of the World’s Crisis had only a few weeks before been scattered broadcast in the Seventh-day Adventist tent in Chelsea, Mass., where Eld. Cornell was preaching, Eld. White did not expect that any one would object to his handing out some of his publications in the manner afore stated.
Eld. White and his friends received permission to retire, with the promise that in a few minutes, at a given place, the decision of the committee would be made known to them, which proved to be that Eld. White must hand out no more of his publications, to which he consented. But before he got back to his tent, a keen, shrewd appearing lady, doubtless selected for the purpose, came to his tent and in the most urgent manner wished to purchase a couple of pamphlets. Dr. Chamberlain not knowing the decision of the committee, and Eld. White’s consent to it, gave the lady the two pamphlets, but refused to take her money, stating that Eld. White had promised to sell no publications on the ground. And in less than five minutes, Eld. Matthewson, accompanied by Eld. Himes, came to Eld. White’s tent in a rage with the two pamphlets in his hands, which he had received of the afore-mentioned lady, demanding him to take down his tent and leave the grounds immediately. Eld. White attempted an explanation, which was at first denied by Eld. Matthewson, but in consequence of the pacific words of Eld. Himes, was permitted. Eld. White asked his wife and Dr. Chamberlain to explain the matter, which was done by Dr. Chamberlain, in a clear and calm manner, stating, at the same time, that she was acquainted with both Eld. Matthewson and Eld. Himes, and that they had frequently been guests at her house in Middletown, Conn., before the death of her husband.
And yet Eld. Matthewson persisted that Eld. White should immediately take down his tent and leave the grounds. Eld. White then stated that he should not be driven off from the grounds in any such way, that he had done nothing worthy of such treatment, that he demanded the right to make a full explanation, and that if Eld. Matthewson pressed the matter he would find that in this case he had been making history that would afterward prove unpleasant to him. Said Eld. Matthewson, “Do you mean that you will publish it in your paper?” “I do,” replied Eld. White, and continued, “my appointment in Lancaster makes it necessary that I should leave to-morrow, which I shall do.” This ended the matter, and the next day Eld. White quietly left the grounds.
One other circumstance in which Eld. Grant acted a part should here be mentioned. Bro. and sister W. were walking around the grounds near the stand about eight o’clock in the morning. The time for social service was at nine. Before the stand, where the prayer-meetings were held, were two of Eld. Grant’s brethren. The breakfast hour had passed, and hundreds were moving in different directions on the grounds. One of the two brethren before the stand said to the other, “Let us start a prayer-meeting; there is nearly an hour before the regular appointment which will be lost unless we do. The people had better be here in prayer-meeting than to be strolling around the grounds.” They sung, which gathered a few. And while one of them prayed, more came; and when about fifty were gathered, sister White arose and began to speak. Her clear, full voice reached the ears of those who were walking about the grounds, and they flocked to the stand, and when more than one thousand were quietly seated, and were listening to sister White with the greatest attention as she was speaking upon practical godliness, and not one word out of harmony with the doctrines or spirit of the meeting, Eld. Grant arose and said:— “Sister, this is no place for preaching! This is no place for preaching”!
As sister White had been speaking only five or six minutes she did not think it proper to sit down at, once, and continued her remarks for a moment, when Eld. Grant vehemently repeated again the same words. The reader will bear in mind that this did not occur at the time of any regular service. Moreover Eld. Grant had no occasion to interrupt sister White on the ground that she was advocating views contrary to those taught at that meeting. And even admitting that the hour had arrived for social service, no Christian gentleman would treat a woman, whose position demanded respect as a public speaker, as Eld. Grant treated sister White.
By this time the reader may inquire, What did Eld. Grant mean when he said to Eld. White, on the occasion of their first meeting on the railroad train, that his greatest objection to Seventh-day Adventists was their exclusiveness, and that he could worship with them, but they could not worship with him? The matter can be explained only on the ground that the man will, when it serves his policy best, say one thing when he means another.
And why fear to have Mrs. White speak upon the Springfield camp-ground? This was virtually answered by one of their ministers, who was in favor of driving them from the ground, who said, “We don’t want the influence of their presence on the ground, even if they should not say a word”.
This course of conduct shows their lack of confidence in their own positions, and their inability to sustain them from the word of God. This was also manifested in a request from Eld. Grant that our list of publications should be left off from the cover of that portion of the Discussion between Eld. Cornell and himself which he proposed to keep for sale at the Crisis office. He feared even to have the list of our works on the Law and Sabbath fall into the hands of his patrons, lest they should know that such works were in existence, and should obtain them, read them, and believe what they teach. So we have the same Eld. Grant, both in relation to the Discussion and also Eld. Waggoner’s triumphant refutation of the doctrine of the non-resurrection of the unjust, and sent the books to the Crisis office with blank covers.
Eld. Grant and his associates have done all in their power to hide from their people the evidence of the Sabbath truth. And the reader can now form an opinion of the unrighteous means they have been willing to resort to in accomplishing this. But the most powerful weapon in their hands has been prejudice, which they have labored to stir up in the hearts of their people. Are any of their people in danger of embracing the Sabbath, a few slanderous statements about sister White and her visions are immediately set forth to intimidate them. Their course in this respect reminds one of the mother who would frighten her child to obedience by threatening to shut him up with the “bugbears in the dark.” It is astonishing what an influence these men have over their followers. It is well illustrated by the influence of the priest over Roman Catholics. The confidence of their followers in their slanderous reports reminds us of the Roman Catholic school-master, who said in the honesty of his soul that Martin Luther was a drunkard and put forth his writings against Rome by the power of the devil in his fits of delirium tremens.
Eld. Grant’s followers in San Francisco were so thoroughly scared into obedience by his outcry about sister White and her visions, that when Bro. and sister White visited San Francisco for the first time, in 1873, they would not consent to have them speak in their place of worship, though Eld. Fassett and wife, their regular speakers, were absent. Bro. Diggins, who attended their meetings on Sunday, and was one of their supporters, went to the leading men with the pledge that nothing should be said by Bro. and sister White contrary to the views of that people. But, notwithstanding this pledge, and the fact that their regular speakers were absent, Bro. Diggins was denied.
Eld. Grant’s Attack
By Dudley Marvin Canright
UPON ELD. JAMES WHITE AND WIFE AT NAPA, CAL., MARCH 28, 1874.
While discussing the Sabbath question with Eld. Miles Grant at Napa, Cal., we had an intermission of the debate for three days, including Sabbath and Sunday, during which both parties were to hold religious services. In honor, both parties were bound not to attack the other during the intermission. But Sabbath afternoon we saw the following notice in the Napa Reporter:—
“REQUEST.—Elder Grant has been requested by respectable citizens to deliver a lecture, before his departure from our city, on what he knows about Latter-day Prophecies and Visions. Some rich developments may be expected, as the Seventh-day Adventists, his opponents, are said to be adherents to that faith. Mrs. White, from Battle Creek, Michigan, their great medium, is attending the debate, we are told.”
It is evident upon the face of it that either Eld. Grant wrote this notice himself or instructed the one who did write it. It was designed to give the impression that we were spiritualists, and that sister White was a spirit medium. By doing this, Eld. Grant hoped to prejudice the people against us, and close their ears to the arguments in the debate. Evidently he was willing to resort to anything, however dishonorable, to gain his end.
I attended his lecture. It was an exposé of modern spiritualism, showing that it was the work of devils, or demons, exactly what we teach. He stated that many persons on the start were deceived by the demons, because these spirits told them to pray, to believe the Bible, to be holy, &c. Having thus gained their confidence, next the spirits would lead them to doubt this passage, then that; then to reject Christ, and finally to reject the Bible and all. Here he stopped and gave opportunity for questions, several of which were asked. But as no one asked for what he wanted to bring out, he introduced it himself, viz., Mrs. White’s visions. In his sanctimonious statement, he said it was a great cross for him to do it; while the whole affair was evidently of his own getting up for the express purpose of making this attack upon sister White.
He said that Mrs. White was inspired by a demon, the same as all spirit mediums. In proof of this, he said that her visions contradicted facts, contradicted themselves, and contradicted the Bible. He admitted that she was honest, taught good morals, gave good advice, &c. But the object was to divide God’s children, to proselyte, to get up a false sect, as the Sabbath, and thus tear down God’s people. He then read a letter from Eld. J. C. Welcome, of Maine, stating that he (Welcome) knew Eld. White and Ellen Harmon (now Mrs. White) in 1844. That they were both wild fanatics, and that he had frequently seen Ellen in vision. He also read a letter from Israel Dammon, of Maine, stating that he had been acquainted with Eld. White and wife when Ellen had her first visions. At first he had confidence in them, but soon renounced them. Also Eld. Grant stated that sister White saw that Saturday was the Sabbath, and that she introduced it among Adventists, and that she saw the Lord would come in June, 1845, &c.
When he was through, I asked the privilege of making a few remarks. This he denied me. So at the close of his meeting I announced to reply to him the next evening at seven o’clock in Assembly Hall, and that Mrs. White would speak at 7:30 P. M. At the time appointed, several hundreds assembled at the Hall.
REPLY.
I replied briefly that Eld. Grant did not produce the facts which he said the visions contradicted; nor did he show that they contradicted themselves. He attempted to show that they contradicted the Bible; but it was only his view of the Bible which they contradict. As to his witnesses, it is no new thing for the innocent to be condemned by perjured witnesses. Such was the case with Christ, Matt. 26:59–61; with Stephen, Acts 6:12–14, and with Naboth, 1 Kings 21:1–16.
I stated that I was personally acquainted with Eld. Dammon, and knew him to be a notorious fanatic. While preaching, he would halloo, and jump about, even over the desk into the congregation. He was a leader of a band of fanatics in Maine in 1845 who held that the dead had arisen and gone up.
The visions condemned him for this fanaticism, which caused him to turn against them. He was associated with one Simeon Hall, who so disturbed my meetings to that degree that I had to have him arrested to keep the peace.
I am also acquainted with Eld. Welcome. He was with Eld. White in meetings only at one time—and that was for less than a week in 1844, at which time Eld. White baptized him. Was Eld. White such a fanatic as he claims? Then what must he have been to have chosen Eld. White to baptize him! But the fact is that Welcome’s statement is a base falsehood. He never saw sister White have a vision. She was never acquainted with him. And she had no vision till three months after the only meeting at which sister White and Eld. Welcome were both present. While in New Hampshire in 1868, I read a letter from Eld. Welcome acknowledging that he had never seen Mrs. White in vision, but only learned what he reported by hearsay.
From the very nature of the case it might be expected that falsehoods and slanders would be put in circulation against sister White, not only on account of her having visions, but for her plain testimony, and her cutting reproofs of sins. These have followed her more or less for the past twenty-nine years. And in giving a sketch of her life published in 1860, she states that she had nothing whatever to do with fanaticism in Maine, only to labor to correct it, which labor made the unfortunate subjects of it her enemies. The following testimony, signed by twenty-nine persons scattered in different parts of Maine, was given sixteen years ago, and published in 3000 copies of sister White’s life. Nineteen of these persons are now living.
FIRST TESTIMONY.
In view of the slanderous reports circulated by a few individuals against Bro. and Sr. White, we feel called upon to testify that we have been personally acquainted with them and their course since 1844, and therefore know that any statements that would represent them as being in any wise connected with, or countenancing in any degree, those fanatical abominations into which some in Maine and elsewhere were drawn during the years 1844–1846, are wicked and malicious falsehoods. We have never known them to be in the least infected with the spirit or works of fanaticism, but on the contrary, as the untiring and unflinching opposers of the same.
H. N. Smith, George Cobb,
S. B. Belden, Lewis B. Stowell,
Edward Andrews, Laura T. Stowell,
S. L. Andrews, Lewis O. Stowell,
A. S. Andrews, Marion C. Stowell,
Cyprian Stevens, Sarah H. Stowell,
Paulina Stevens, N. N. Lunt,
Stockbridge Howland, S. H. Lunt,
L. M. Howland, R. D. Waterman,
F. H. Howland, D. W. Wright,
R. D. Howland, Thomas Worcester,
M. A. Aderton, Lydia Bolton,
Almira T. Stevens, P. A. Gammon,
F. J. Stevens, Abram Barns,
S. W. Flanders.
Here is another testimony, given sixteen years ago, signed by one Methodist, three first-day Adventists, and four S. D. Adventists:—
SECOND TESTIMONY.
PORTLAND, ME., Aug. 10, 1858.
As unfavorable reports are in circulation against Eld. James White and wife, it is a pleasure to us to testify that we have been personally acquainted with them since 1844. They have had no sympathy with the no-work theory, voluntary humility, spiritualism, second advent and spiritual union not in accordance with the law of marriage, but ever raised their voices against these different forms of fanaticism which prevailed with some in New England.
N. N. Lunt, S. H. Lunt,
Jacob Mills, Thomas Worcester,
Dorcas Wright, Phebe A. Gammon,
Elizabeth Haines, Isaiah Libby.
Numerous other testimonies to the same effect may be seen in the back part of sister White’s book. Not less than ninety names are signed to these, among which are ministers, editors, authors, &c. This book has been widely scattered, and its statements remain uncontradicted.
The statement is not true that sister White did introduce the Sabbath. It is a fact that it was taught and observed by scores of Adventists a year before sister White embraced it, and that she received it from Bible evidence, and not from a vision. She kept it over one year before she saw anything about it in vision. It is also true that sister White has since 1844 opposed the setting of time for the Lord to come; and so have the S. D. Adventists as a people, as all their publications for a quarter of a century will show.
But Eld. Grant has been a leading spirit among the fanatical timeists, setting and preaching time after time as he had to publicly confess in his meeting above-mentioned, held in this city.
As questions were asked to draw out his true position as an Adventist, it was amusing to see him evade the point, and try to keep back his true colors. In answer to the inquiry whether he were an Adventist, he said he was a Christian. This is only a sample of his evasions. He is evidently a policy man. But about his time-setting, indeed, the false and fanatical time-movement of 1854 gave birth to the World’s Crisis, which has lived on time-setting much of the time since, and this, too, under the editorship of Eld. Grant. Please notice another of his fanatical vagaries. For years Eld. Grant’s hobby was that Louis Napoleon was the “personal antichrist, the destined monarch of the world.” But alas, Napoleon must die and die! What fanatical theory he will next hatch up, time will show.
As to dividing and proselyting, if it be true of the visions, it is equally true of Eld. Grant and his work. For years it has been his chief business to write, lecture, and debate, in favor of the doctrine of the sleep of the dead, the destruction of the wicked, and other doctrines. As he preaches these, and members of other churches embrace them, division necessarily follows. It has followed his labors. He makes it his business to proselyte from all other churches. He rejoices in reporting how many out of the Methodist church, and how many from the Baptist, &c., have embraced his views, come out, formed a new church, &c. How unjust, then, for him to raise this cry against sister White when he himself is doing the same thing! But he was not here in his true garb, nor to preach his own doctrine, but to tear us down, if possible. Hence he could use any argument to curry favor with other sects.
I have traveled and preached three years in Maine; have labored where sister White was born and had her first visions; also where Eld. White was raised; and have traveled and lectured where he lectured at the time referred to by Eld. Grant; have conversed with many who knew Bro. and sister White, and were familiar with their early lives and labors, and I found these reports to be malicious slanders without the least foundation in truth.
Furthermore, for most of the time during the twenty-five years past Eld. White has been the editor of our paper, the Advent Review and Herald of the Sabbath, now having a circulation of over thirteen thousand copies; is the editor of our health journal, The Health Reformer, one of the highest-toned health journals in America; is president of our Publishing Association located at Battle Creek, Mich., with a capital of about $100,000, running three steam presses, and employing some fifty hands daily; is one of the directors of the Health Institute, Battle Creek, Mich., which has a capital of some $50,000, and is treating from forty to eighty patients continually. Sister White has stood by her husband and greatly aided him in all this work. Eld. White and wife have lived in Battle Creek for nineteen years. I have lived there, and know that no persons are more highly esteemed there than they are. Any time that sister White will speak, she can have a crowded house, more than any other speaker.
At our annual State camp-meetings where thousands attend, the presence and labors of Bro. and sister White are always earnestly called for, and nowhere more urgently than in Maine. No more devoted, pious, believing people can be found than those who have thus enjoyed the teachings and example of sister White for the last twenty-seven years. If she be a medium of Satan to deceive men and women and lead them away from faith in God, Christ, and the Bible, it is about time such fruits began to appear!! How long does it take those who have begun to sip at the fountain of spiritualism to lose their faith in the Bible and in Christianity? A few weeks, or months, at most. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
At the close of my remarks the spacious hall was crowded, and sister White followed with a discourse which held the large audience in almost breathless silence for more than one hour. Eld. Grant at the same hour had forty hearers at the Disciple chapel.