WROTH WITH THE WOMAN by E. S.

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 17, 1876

WROTH WITH THE WOMAN.

By E. S.

A subscriber sends us an article which he copied from a late World's Crisis, entitled “Mrs. White's Visions,” the substance of it being an article which the Crisis copied from the A. & S. Advocate, and asks us to review it. In reply we would say that we have long considered the stale falsehoods and half-witted slanders against the visions peddled about with such avidity by clerical falsifiers, unworthy of further notice. We allude to the subject now simply at the request of our friend.

The objections against the visions, the strongest that can be urged, are taken up severally and answered in full in the work published at this Office, entitled, “The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, a Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts according to the Scriptures.”

In reference to the charges preferred in the article in question, as they are bare assertions, we meet them again with our oft-repeated denials. The visions have never taught the end of probation in the past, or the close of the day of salvation for sinners, called by our opponents the shut-door doctrine. No such proof can be shown. That they are self-contradictory, we deny. No evidence to sustain this assertion can be presented. That they contradict the Bible, we deny. They do contradict some things the objector sets forth as his views of the Bible; but that is a very different thing. If they did not contradict some of his positions, we should consider it good cause for rejecting the visions themselves. That they have ever been suppressed in any particular, we deny. Perhaps no better answer could be given to this charge than the following extract from the book above referred to, published in 1868. We quote from pp. 122, 126:—

“We now come to the great outcry about suppression. This the reader will at once understand cannot be urged as an objection against the visions themselves. If any wrong has been committed in this direction, it lies at the door of those who have had the charge of their publication. But there are charges made here which are infamously false. The visions are accused of following the views of the people; and as our views change, the visions must change to correspond; and if they cannot be changed they must be suppressed. To use the objector's own language, ‘All such visions are put where it is not an easy matter to get hold of them. Had it been possible they would long ago have destroyed them.’ We pronounce this an unvarnished, malicious falsehood; and those who make it, and those who love it, are respectively referred to Rev. 22: 15. They cannot produce the first particle of evidence that there has ever been any attempt or design on the part of the leaders in this work to suppress any of the visions. Having once published them and spread them through the ranks of believers, any one could see that it would be sheer folly to attempt any such thing. No; be it understood that we stand by everything that has been shown. And what is the great proportion of that which is charged upon us as suppression? Simply matter that has been once published, and the edition becoming exhausted, has not been republished. Now is there any law compelling us to keep on hand an edition of every vision that has ever been published? We certainly wish we had them, and could put them on sale at this Office. But because the editions are all exhausted, Oh, says this silly charge, they are now suppressed! This might just as well be said of every book that chances to be out of print. . . .”

“Let us briefly recapitulate, that the reader may look at all the facts in connection.

“1. Every vision, except such as pertained exclusively to individual cases, has been once published, put in print, and indiscriminately circulated, where friend and foe could alike obtain them. Attempts to suppress any of these would be utterly futile.”

“2. The main body of what we are accused of having suppressed, is simply the editions of some visions, which, having all been sold, have not yet been re-published!”

“3. Portions which are claimed to have been suppressed from some evil design, are simply some things which related to particular and local circumstances, and having accomplished their object, have not been inserted when that which is of general interest has been re-published.

“4. Expressions are retained inculcating the same sentiments, in language still stronger than those which the objector claims to have been suppressed on account of their objectionable features; so that the teachings of the visions are not altered a whit by the omission of those things which he asserts have been left out because they are not now believed.

“5. In answering these objections we have answered all the points which are set forth as suppressions, and have shown that they contain nothing but what we still fully indorse.

“6. If the objector could maintain his points, what would he prove? Nothing against the visions themselves, but only against those who have had charge of their publication.”

“In view of these facts this objection dwindles to a point that is not visible to the naked eye. And all the assertions that certain visions are not now for sale at this Office because we do not now believe them, or that there has been any effort made to call in visions for the purpose of suppressing them, or that if we could have got hold of them, they would long ago have been put out of the way, or anything of the kind, we brand as infamous calumnies, and bald and barefaced untruths.”

But it is urged again that a great wrong once existed which was not exposed by this gift, therefore it is not of God. Profound reasoning! Has God no other way of exposing wrongs, except by giving some one a vision concerning it? And if visions are manifested, is he obliged through that source to expose at once everything that is contrary to his will? In the case referred to, did not God know that the wrong existed? And were not prayers ascending to him from honest hearts to guide and guard his people from the power of the enemy? And could he not in a thousand ways have arrested the course of this individual, and caused his evil influence to come to light? Why did he not do it? Why then single out a gift and say that because the wrong was not exposed through that, it is not of God. We might just as well throw away prayer as useless, or disbelieve the providence of God, or deny that the Lord himself knew of the wrong because it was not exposed sooner. Shame on such malicious inconsistency!

The writer says, “The people who set so high a value on those visions, would be better off without them.” Well, he claims that a great many have given them up; hence it is an easy matter to see how much better off they are without them. We ask them, What do we find among those who have given them up? As to personal habits, we find pork, tobacco and beer; and they no doubt esteem the use of these things great privileges. As to religious theories, we find infidelity, universalism and spiritualism. Great blessings, indeed! And among those who still retain the observance of the Sabbath, we find stubbornness, alienation, discord and confusion. This is getting “better off” in a way we do not at all covet; while, on the other hand, those who regard these as one of the gifts in the church, stand united, rejoicing in the truth, pressing forward together for a higher life; and God is prospering the work in their hands.

“Were she a believer in modern spiritualism, she would see that kind of vision,” says the article. The man who can put forth such weakness for argument is deserving of our profoundest pity or supremest contempt, accordingly as we attribute it to mental imbecility or uncontrollable malice. If she were the servant of the devil, she would be doing his work; therefore don't put any confidence in her now. An effort of petty spite more apparent than this would be indeed a curiosity. If Moses had been Mahomet, he would have written the Koran instead of the Pentateuch. But Moses was not Mahomet, and sister White is not a spiritualist.

It is charged upon the visions that their course has been “to distract and divide churches, entirely ruining the faith of some, and engendering strife and unchristian feeling between others.” In reply we have only to point to facts open to all. Those who believe them are united, harmonious, and happy; the distraction, confusion, and alienation are among those who have rejected them; and they have come in on account of that rejection. To charge this upon the visions is to do just what the Jews did to the work and gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

On this point look at a little matter of consistency. Eld. Grant quotes and indorses this charge against the visions. But he hates our churches, our faith, and our work, and would be glad to see the first divided, and the latter ruined and destroyed. Now if, as charged, the visions are thus distracting and ruining the cause of this people, why don't he like a skillful general strive to foster this element of weakness among us, instead of being, as he is, so furious against them? He knows that these things are not chargeable to the visions.

It is asserted further that those who believe the visions are by them held back from receiving correct views on the subjects of the sanctuary, desolation of the earth, two-horned beast, &c., which are so much clearer and more consistent. Of course, then, those who have given up the visions, have adopted these better views. Why, then, don't they show the superior power and clearness of their faith by presenting a rapid increase of converts to it? S. D. Adventists are making converts to their views by scores every week in all parts of the land. Why don't these persons show a power in proportion to numbers to do still better? This should be the case if their views are more clear and consistent. But instead of this their converts are few and far between. They don't agree among themselves; and when they attempt to set forth their views on the subjects named, it is the most disjointed and incoherent mass that ever drizzled from a sane pen. The result is as might be expected. While S. D. Adventists number from 15 to 20 thousand, they, gathering up all the elements of defection which they are able at any one time to hold together, cannot, to be very safe in the statement, show a membership of five hundred; and we greatly doubt if they can boast of half that number.

As we have often stated, we repeat, we hold forth no views which are not based upon, and defended wholly by, the Bible. We believe that S. D. Adventists have been led to these positions in accordance with the promise of the Saviour, that the Spirit of truth would be given to his people to lead them into truth. And if a special gift in the church is in accord with these, it is only what we might expect, and we can but respond, Amen, to it. We have yet to learn of any who have rejected the visions, who have not soon surrendered the main pillars of present truth. They have thus separated themselves from S. D. Adventists and shown that they were not of us. Perhaps this is well. We find no fault with the providence of God, which seems to smite with judicial blindness those who hate a source of instruction so pure, and shut their eyes to light so plain. So long as persons love and rejoice in the great truths of the Bible for

this time, they feel no disposition to quarrel with this feature of the movement.

Eld. Grant quotes again: “Those visions are one of the greatest deceptions of the last days, because practiced upon an honest people, who are seeking after godliness.” Over this statement he rubs his hands in highest glee. Yet Eld. G. has admitted publicly that if any one would live out the visions he would be saved. Put these two together. A deception practiced upon those who are seeking after godliness which will lead them to such a degree of godliness that they will be saved! And yet this “is one of the greatest deceptions of the last days.” Surely, then, the deceptions of this time are not very dangerous—a deception that will deceive us into the kingdom!

So to any extent we might go on exposing the inconsistencies of this foolish tirade against the visions. But there is no object in following it further. Those engaged in it know but very little of sister White's work, and have still less acquaintance with her. This they very innocently confess when they say that if they “were better acquainted with her and her history,” they would probably be able to explain some things which they cannot now explain. We simply say to all, Acquaint yourselves with the writings of sister White, and with her history and work as far as possible. We have seen not a few who have done this come to her at the camp-meetings and confess that they had been deceived by the false statements of those who are at war with her, but now they had seen for themselves and were constrained to confess that the Lord was with her; and they asked with tears her forgiveness for their opposition. A terrible day is coming soon for the deceivers. Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good.

E. S.