We find it to be our duty at the present time to make a plain statement of the injustice which we have suffered at the hands of Eld. Miles Grant, editor of the World's Crisis. Several times, as the reader will see by the facts and dates herein given, we have called attention to this matter. And we should not now feel called upon to take up the subject in this manner were it not that Eld. Grant continues his course of injustice under the garb of sanctification, which is calculated to deceive those who have recently come to the faith with us, especially those who have never seen the publication of our statements in the REVIEW. He also continues to try to provoke discussions in localities where his only hope is to distract and tear down.
A noteworthy case of this kind has recently come off at Napa City, Cal. Elds. Loughborough and Cornell visited Napa in the summer of 1873, with their large tent, and as the result of their labors a church of Seventh-day Adventists has been raised up of about sixty members. They have built a house of worship, dedicated to the Lord, April 4, 1874.
Eld. Grant's people had no church in Napa. They had no cause in that city to defend. But in the month of March, Eld. Grant visited Napa, as a revivalist, and under the flimsy garb of modern holiness preached several discourses in the court-house, which took well with a few persons. He did not appear in Napa in his second-advent dress; but he labored to conceal his real views. And when he supposed that he had obtained a foothold, he challenged for a discussion upon the Sabbath question. More particulars, and the results, are given in another place.
The church at Santa Rosa, Cal., being ignorant of Eld. Grant's acts of injustice toward Seventh-day Adventists, in response to a request from a first-day Adventist, offered their house of worship to Eld. Grant by vote. This gave rise to an exposure of Eld. Grant's unchristian conduct toward the Seventh-day Adventists as a people, and Eld. J. N. Andrews and Eld. James White and wife in particular, before the quarterly meeting of S. D. Adventists held at Santa Rosa, March 7–9, 1874. The Conference Committee being present at that meeting, gave an expression of their views of this matter in the following:
PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTION.
Whereas, Eld. Miles Grant of the World's Crisis, Boston, Mass., has, without cause or provocation, treated the Seventh-day Adventists as a people, and in particular, Eld. J. N. Andrews and Eld. James White and wife, in an unchristian manner, therefore,
Resolved, That until Eld. Miles Grant shall make proper confessions of the wrongs alluded to above, our people should regard him unworthy to speak in their places of worship, or to enter into discussions with our ministers.
J. N. Loughborough, { Cal. Conf. Com. }
J. W. Bond,
John Judson.
Santa Rosa, Cal., March 9, 1874.
FACTS IN THE CASE.
In justice to ourselves, and to the cause of truth and righteousness, it becomes our duty to state facts relative to the course of Eld. Grant, which fully justify the action of the California Conference Committee.
In November, 1865, a discussion was held at Portland, Me., between Elds. Cornell and Preble. The question was thus stated: “The seventh-day Sabbath, observed by God's people prior to the crucifixion of Christ, is still binding upon mankind.” Eld. C. affirmed; Eld. P. denied. In the early part of the discussion, Eld. P. made a very bitter attack upon “Andrews' History of the Sabbath;” and he had so much to say respecting it that Eld. C. protested against this course of action as being wholly irrelevant to the question under examination. He declined to follow Eld. P. in this thing, but, at the request of Eld. Andrews, made him this proposition: “The author of the History of the Sabbath will discuss the merits of that work with Eld. P. through the columns of the Advent Review, the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists, provided that the discussion shall also be published in the World's Crisis, the eastern organ of the no-law Adventists.”
In reporting the discussion at Portland, the editor of the Advent Review, Uriah Smith, made the following remarks in reference to the foregoing proposition, in that paper of Jan. 30, 1866: “The door is now open for them to test this matter, if they dare step in and risk their cause in a fair and open encounter.”
The World's Crisis of Feb. 14, 1866, contained the following response from Eld. Preble:—
“CHALLENGE.”
“In the REVIEW AND HERALD of Jan. 30, 1866, in referring to J. N. Andrews' History of the Sabbath, the writer says:—
“‘The door is now open for them to test this matter, if they dare step in and risk their cause in a fair and open encounter.’
“To this challenge I reply that I am ready, and ‘dare step in and risk’ an open encounter with any man in their ranks qualified to defend their cause in testing the merits of J. N. Andrews' History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath, either in oral or written discussion, as soon as arrangements can be agreed upon.
“Will they ‘dare’ do it? Will they ‘risk their cause’ in this manner? We shall see. They may try to shield themselves from this issue by saying they will not debate this question with me unless the World's Crisis will also publish the discussion. But I am disposed to ‘dare’ them to ‘risk their cause’ in an open encounter through the columns of this paper. But it is quite doubtful whether they will dare to run such a ‘risk’ as this. But we shall see what we shall see. T. M. PREBLE.
“East Weare, N. H., Feb. 5, 1866.”
The World's Crisis, having published this defiant challenge to the Seventh-day Adventists to risk an encounter with Eld. P. in the columns of that paper, did, by that act, in the most emphatic manner, commit itself that such discussion should be allowed a place in its columns, if the friends of the seventh-day Sabbath should dare to undertake it. Such being the case, it was proper that our General Conference Committee should take action with reference to this matter. It was not merely Eld. P., but it was really the World's Crisis, that thus threw down the gauntlet. And, moreover, this gave promise of an opportunity to reach the no-law Adventists with the argument in behalf of the seventh day. Only one member of the General Conference Committee was at this time in Battle Creek; but the editor of the Advent Review and the editor of the Youth's Instructor united with that member in responding through the REVIEW of Feb. 27, 1866, to the defiant language of the Crisis. Here is their response:—
“Acting for the other members of the General Conference Committee, we would designate Eld. J. N. Andrews as the one to conduct this discussion in behalf of Seventh-day Adventists. And he is hereby instructed to make such arrangements with Eld. P. and the Crisis as shall bring the matter to an early issue.”
[Signed]
U. SMITH,
G. W. AMADON,
J. M. ALDRICH.
In obedience to this instruction, Eld. Andrews addressed the following note of acceptance to the editor of the Crisis:—
“[For the Crisis.]
“Norridgewock, Me., March 5, 1866.
“BRO. GRANT: I accept the proposition of Eld. T. M. Preble, in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question through the columns of the Crisis and of the Advent Review. He proposes to discuss ‘the merits of J. N. Andrews' History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath.’
“In accordance with this offer, I name two points for discussion:—
“1. The Biblical argument for the observance of the seventh day.
“2. The historical argument relating to the seventh and first days of the week, and involving ‘the merits of J. N. Andrews' History of the Sabbath.’”
“Upon the publication of this acceptance in the Crisis, I will open the discussion of the first point.”
“J. N. ANDREWS.”
As the conductors of the Crisis had endorsed Eld. P.'s challenge for a discussion of this subject through its columns by publishing that challenge to the world, they could not, without the most flagrant injustice, refuse to insert in that paper Eld. Andrews' note of acceptance, even though they should decide to shut out the discussion. It would indeed reflect no honor upon them to publish a challenge for a discussion through their columns, and then refuse to allow the discussion to take place; but to go still further and refuse to publish the note of acceptance, or even to let the fact appear that the challenge was accepted, is an act of injustice that can only be justified by proving that the moral law is abolished. And now observe what was done. No notice was taken of this acceptance in the columns of the Crisis, but its editor addressed Eld. Andrews a private letter as follows:—
“Boston, Mass., March 15, 1866.
“BRO. ANDREWS: Your note of the 5th inst. was put into my hands to-day.
“Our regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis. I have sent your proposition to Bro. Preble.
“Your brother in Christ, MILES GRANT.”
To this letter Bro. Andrews returned the following reply:—
“Norridgewock, Me., March 19, 1866.
“BRO. GRANT: Yours of the 15th inst. has just come to hand. I learn with surprise and regret that your ‘regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis.’ Your regulations did allow the publication of a challenge in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question ‘through the columns’ of that paper. The proposition was clothed in very defiant language, and being admitted into the Crisis by its editor, it did necessarily open that paper to the discussion of this subject. In accepting Eld. P.'s proposition thus endorsed by yourself, I did not act upon my own responsibility. I was duly designated by those who have charge of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association to conduct this discussion in behalf of the observers of the seventh day. In shutting the columns of the Crisis without one word of explanation, you certainly do us great injustice. I think it would have been no more than just that you should have inserted my brief letter of acceptance, accompanied by such remarks as you deemed proper. My regret would have been no less that the discussion could not be had, but I should have felt that you had not been guilty of injustice. We stand before the world ‘dared’ to risk an encounter through the columns of the Crisis, and yet not allowed even to accept such challenge through its columns.
“You say that you have sent my letter to Eld. P. With Eld. P. privately I have nothing to do. An oral discussion is of very little consequence; I have other and more important duties to perform. But a written discussion that should bring the subject before the whole body of Adventists, I would deem really important. In good faith I accepted the proposition for such a discussion; if this cannot take place, the fault is certainly not on the side of Seventh-day Adventists. Will you not do us the justice to make a fair statement of the fact that we did accept the proposition of Eld. P. for a discussion through the columns of the Crisis and of the ADVENT REVIEW?”
“Yours in Christ, J. N. ANDREWS.”
To this appeal the editor and the conductors of the Crisis paid not the slightest attention. Yet to refuse such a demand is so manifestly unjust that we venture to assert that no man dare defend it. Eld. P.'s challenge was promptly accepted. Yet the Crisis, having published that challenge, refused to allow the fact of its acceptance to appear in its columns. The readers of the Crisis are left to believe, 1. That that paper is open to a fair discussion of the Sabbath question. 2. That the observers of the Bible Sabbath do not meet the subject in a fair, open encounter, through the columns of the Crisis and the REVIEW.
These impressions prevail extensively among the readers of the Crisis, as we are informed by competent authorities. And it really looks as if those who proposed the debate, and then shut out from the columns of the Crisis all mention of the fact that it was promptly accepted, did design by this unworthy conduct to make capital for the no-Sabbath or Sunday-Sabbath cause. It has given opportunity for not a little boasting, and Eld. P., to whom the editor of the Crisis says he sent the letter of acceptance, has had neither the principles of justice nor of honor strong enough to correct the false impression which has thus been fastened upon the readers of that paper.
Nor can it be said that the editor of the Crisis may never have received the second letter, and that he may therefore be blameless. He did receive the first on his own acknowledgment; and that first letter should have needed no second to awaken him to justice. But there is another fact to be noticed. After waiting some twenty days for a response to his second letter, Eld. A. sent the entire correspondence to the ADVENT REVIEW, in which paper of April 24, 1866, it was published to the world. As this failed to cause the Crisis to correct its injustice, the subject came up for consideration in the ensuing General Conference, May 17, 1866. The following resolution was unanimously adopted and published in the ADVENT REVIEW of May 22, 1866:—
“SABBATH DISCUSSION.”
“Whereas, There appeared in the World's Crisis, of Feb. 14, 1866, a very defiant challenge to S. D. Adventists for the discussion of the Sabbath question, particularly the ‘History of the Sabbath,’ through the columns of that paper; and
“Whereas, This challenge was promptly and unqualifiedly accepted, with the offer on our part that it should also appear in the REVIEW; and
“Whereas, The Crisis thereupon refused to allow the discussion to appear in its columns; and further refused to publish the brief note of acceptance from J. N. Andrews, who was designated to conduct the discussion on the part of our people; and further, when courteously requested to let the fact appear that the challenge had been accepted, would not even grant us that favor; therefore,
“Resolved, That we express our surprise at such a course on the part of the Crisis, and our inability to reconcile it with the principles of honor, of justice, and of Christianity.”
This failed to call out, either from the Crisis or from Eld. P., any correction of the wrong with which they stood connected. They could not complain of the language used as harsh or unbecoming, and they certainly were not ignorant of the injustice which we had suffered.
With the action of the General Conference, May, 1866, all effort on our part to obtain justice in this case ceased.
And yet we did not entirely cease to call attention to these things, but gave them abundant opportunity to do us justice if they had had the disposition. In the latter part of 1870, a correspondent of the Crisis made a bitter attack upon us in that paper, wherein were many false accusations. In reviewing this article, Eld. Waggoner republished the facts above set forth in the REVIEW AND HERALD of Feb. 21, 1871.
And again, in August of the same year, 1871, Eld. Andrews, in noticing some positions taken by Eld. Preble, published the whole matter, from the challenge of Eld. Preble to the action of the General Conference. Thus, from Feb., 1866, to Aug., 1871, these things have been repeatedly made public; but all this never had the effect to call out Eld. Grant, or lead him to correct the wrong which had been done to us in the paper of which he was editor. It being impossible to vindicate his course, he chose to remain silent.
And thus it went on until the latter part of 1872, when Eld. James White met Eld. Grant in California, and he there rehearsed these facts before Eld. Grant and some of his friends. Being thus called out in a manner which he could not evade, he promised that justice should be done to us in the Crisis. Accordingly, in that paper of April 16, 1873, appeared the following:—
“AN APOLOGY.”
“A short time since, we met in San Francisco Elder James White, of Battle Creek, Mich., who thought we ought to make an apology for not publishing Eld. J. N. Andrews' acceptance of Eld. T. M. Preble's challenge, published in the Crisis in 1866. After listening to Eld. White's remarks, we became satisfied that an apology was due to Elder Andrews and his friends. The facts are as follows: Eld. Preble published a strong challenge in the Crisis inviting any one who felt competent to defend the Seventh-day Sabbath, to debate the question with him orally, or by writing. Eld. Andrews sent an acceptance of the challenge, proposing to discuss the question in the columns of the Crisis. On the receipt of his acceptance, we wrote Eld. Andrews as follows:—
“Boston, Mass., March 15, 1866.
“BRO. ANDREWS:—Your note of the 5th inst. was put into my hands to-day. Our regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis. I have sent your proposition to Bro. Preble.
“Your brother in Christ,
“MILES GRANT.”
“We thought this was sufficient, at the time, supposing that they would make arrangements for an oral debate. We now think it would have been better to have published Eld. Andrews' letter in the Crisis, instead of sending it to Eld. Preble, then all would have known that he accepted the challenge for a written discussion.”
With all confidence we appeal to all who have read the foregoing documentary evidence in this case, that this “Apology” does not remove the wrong of which Eld. Grant has been guilty.
1. He says that “after listening to Eld. White's remarks we [he] became satisfied that an apology was due to Eld. Andrews and his friends.” But all the facts that Eld. White there presented had been well known by Eld. Grant for nearly seven years, and during all that time he knew that he was bound by every principle of honor and of Christianity to make reparation for the grievous wrong he had committed.
2. He says that Eld. Preble challenged any one “to discuss the question with him orally or by writing,” leaving out the material point that Eld. Preble's challenge contained the proposal to discuss through the columns of the Crisis. To suppress this truth was to mislead the minds of his readers.
3. He says, “Eld. Andrews sent an acceptance of the challenge, proposing to discuss the question in the columns of the Crisis.” This is not true. Eld. Grant well knew that Eld. Andrews' letter of acceptance contained no such proposal; he accepted a challenge which contained the proposal to discuss through the Crisis. Eld. Preble's challenge to discuss through the Crisis was published in the Crisis before Eld. Andrews wrote to Eld. Grant.
4. By admitting the challenge into the Crisis to discuss through the Crisis, he deprived himself of the right to refuse to publish the acceptance of that challenge on the supposition that they would get up an oral debate; for he had bound himself by every principle of honor to admit the discussion, or at least to admit the letter of acceptance.
Had not the proposal to discuss through the Crisis been published in the Crisis before Eld. Andrews wrote to Eld. Grant, he might have refused without sacrificing his honor. But Eld. Grant, being the editor, was himself the responsible party for the publication of that proposal. And thus it appears that this “Apology” is only a lame excuse, giving an entirely wrong view of the case, leaving the readers, especially those on the Pacific coast who knew nothing of the facts, to infer that we had no great cause of complaint, and that he had done nothing very dishonorable. Such a perverted statement of the case, instead of doing us justice, is really an aggravation of the offense.
His statement should have been full, honest, and truthful; and even then he could never do full justice to all concerned. For he must have known that many who read the challenge in the Crisis seven years before would never see his “Apology,” and they could never have the benefit of any restitution he might make. After thus letting it stand for about seven years before his readers, it is but a poor “apology” for justice that he published an account so erroneous, and so directly calculated to mislead.
VILE SLANDER.
And Eld. Grant has not only been content to do us this great injustice and to let the wrong stand uncorrected for years, but he has suffered articles to appear in the Crisis charging us with being hypocrites and deceivers of the people. And moreover he has taken part in these assertions, especially in2speaking evil of sister White, whom he has openly and publicly accused of being influenced by the spirit of a demon.
In the World's Crisis, of July 5, 1871, in an article on “The Shakers,” he goes far out of his way to visit upon sister White terms of the severest denunciation. After noticing many of the false theories and foolish positions of the Shakers, and the silly pretenses, blasphemous claims, and disgusting exercises of Ann Lee, whom they styled their “spiritual mother,” Eld. G. says:—
“It will be seen from the foregoing testimony that her ‘revelations,’ ‘visions,’ ‘tongues,’ and ‘prophesyings,’ evidently proceeded from the same source as those given to Swedenborg, the spiritualists, the Mormons, and Ellen White, the oracle of the Seventh-day Adventists. If one is from demons, they all are. To our mind this is a clear case.”
He then goes on to speak of “seducing spirits,” and their dark and diabolical character, after which he says:—
“In order to get an influence over the professed children of the Lord, they will pretend to great sanctity, and require their followers to practice much self-denial,” &c.
Whether this refers to the “Shaker mother,” to the “oracle of the Seventh-day Adventists,” or to the “seducing spirits,” the ambiguity of the language renders it impossible to determine. But a few lines farther on, he speaks in a manner clearly to be understood. He says:—
“It is a sad fact that these seducers very often get the confidence of some of the most sincere men and women; just as a counterfeiter or a seducer has best success among honest and virtuous people, who are unsuspecting. This is true in relation to the systems we have previously named in this article.”
Here Seventh-day Adventism is placed on a level with Shakerism and spiritualism, and compared to a counterfeiter and seducer. Verily Seventh-day Adventism must have some very damnable features to stir Eld. G.'s spirit to the depth here exhibited. If its character is such as that of spiritualism, Eld. G.'s zeal in this matter may pass as righteous indignation; but if it is not, such bitterness of spirit can be excused by no system less lax than that which advocates the abolition of the moral law of God.
How, then, does Seventh-day Adventism differ from that particular type of Adventism with which Eld. G. is identified? It differs chiefly in two particulars: 1. It advocates the observance of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, on the ground of the perpetuity of the moral law, while Eld. G. refuses to keep it because he holds that the commandments have been abolished; and 2. It has that which it claims to be the promised spirit of prophecy in the church. Heartily as Eld. G. may dislike the Sabbath, we do not apprehend that it is this feature which has called forth this bitter invective; for we have never known him thus to speak of the Seventh-day Baptists, whose Sabbath theory and practice is identical with ours, nor to compare their system to a counterfeiter and seducer. The chief trouble, then, is with the visions of sister White. Let us see, therefore, if they can be justly placed in the same category with the views and claims of Ann Lee and the unhallowed teachings of spiritualism.
Ann Lee claimed that Jesus appeared to her in person and baptized her into and with the Christ Spirit as John had baptized him. Does sister White put forth any such foolish claim? Eld. G. knows that she does not.
Ann Lee claimed to be a “spiritual mother” to the Shakers. Does sister White make any such claim in reference to S. D. Adventists? He knows that she does not.
Ann Lee claimed that God is dual, male and female, that Christ is in like manner dual, and that the second appearing of Christ was manifested through her; that she was baptized with what they call the “Christ Spirit,” and became the female counterpart of Christ. Does sister White put forth any such disgusting and blasphemous claims? He knows that she does not.
Does she countenance the immorality, the licentiousness, the atheism, the infidelity, or any of the other corruptions and follies of spiritualism? Eld. G., if he has had the candor, before thus passing judgment upon her, to acquaint himself with her writings, knows that with all her energy she labors to expose and condemn these evils from first to last, from the greatest to the least. Is it then just to rank her writings and her work with Shakerism and spiritualism? If it is just to rank a person with drunkards who never partakes of intoxicating liquor, if it is just to assign a place among libertines to a person who maintains the strictest chastity of character, if it is just to confound with thieves a person who sacredly regards the rights and property of others, in short, if it is just to put no distinction between the innocent and the guilty in any practice of immorality and wrong, then it is just to class the works of sister White with Shakerism and spiritualism, and the course Eld. G. has taken can be justified, but not otherwise.
To the visions as given and used among S. D. Adventists, Eld. G. cannot object on the score of their leading to fanaticism, immorality, or any evil; for their tendency is just the reverse. They aim invariably and persistently to lead to a higher type of morality, to a greater nearness to God, and to a preparation in heart and life, full and complete, for the soon coming of our Lord and Saviour. Yet Eld. G. compares them to a counterfeiter and a seducer, cold-blooded and heartless villains, the first of whom goes deliberately to work to rob honest people of their property, the second laboring to compass the ruin of innocent victims, both for time and for eternity, by robbing them of their virtue. To accuse the visions of thus seeking, designedly and maliciously, under a garb of piety, and a cloak of religion, to lead souls to utter and irretrievable ruin, is a terrible charge; and a man should have the very clearest evidence to sustain their diabolical character, before blistering his lips with curses thus hissing hot against them.
Says Eld. G., “We have known these ‘seducing spirits’ to secure the confidence of their victims for weeks, months, and even years, before they were detected in the deception.” But was the devil ever known to continue the inculcation of all good principles and warning against all evil for twenty-nine years, as in the case of these visions, among those he had in his snare? Hundreds have already died in the belief of these visions, who, so far as they were influenced by them, were led to godliness and purity of life, and no effort was made, from first to last, by this means to instill evil into their minds and lead them away from holiness and God. Is this the way the devil treats people? If so, his kingdom is divided against itself.
About twenty-six years spiritualism has been in the land. It began at first in a very pious manner, but it could not retain the mask for any length of time; and, behold, what a monster of iniquity it appears to-day! But here is a work dating back three years previous to the rise of spiritualism, and going forward at the same time, of an exactly opposite character, denouncing spiritualism at every step, exposing its evils, and warning people against its corruptions.
And these apply not to the present only, but to the future, when it is predicted that spiritualism will manifest greatly increased power, and we are warned now to prepare to be able to stand against its influence then. Both these works, says Eld. G., are alike the work of the devil. Does the devil thus work against his own interests?
Those who know the irreproachable life of sister White, and the purity of her teachings, will not be slow to determine by what spirit Eld. G. is moved to make such declarations against her.