3. Messengers Overthrown by Temptation
One of the ways Satan has always worked to try to bring discredit to the message of God is through the failures of the messengers themselves. This was also the case in the 1888 aftermath, not only with Jones' and Waggoner's departure from the Church after the turn of the century, but also in Jones and Prescott's acceptance of Anna Rice as a second prophet to the remnant church.[1]*
During the summer of 1892, Ellen White wrote at least two letters where she mentioned the possibility that Jones and Waggoner might fall under temptation. Writing to O. A. Olsen because of the ongoing opposition to the most precious message, Ellen White asked: "Should the Lord's messengers, after standing manfully for the truth for a time, fall under temptation, and dishonor Him who has given them their work, will that be proof that the message is not true?" Her answer was an emphatic "No, because the Bible is true. ... Sin on the part of the messenger of God would cause Satan to rejoice, and those who have rejected the messenger and the message would triumph."
But Ellen White also indicated where a large part of the blame would lay: "I have deep sorrow of heart because I have seen how readily a word or action of Elder Jones or Elder Waggoner is criticized. How readily many minds overlook all the good that has been done through them in the few years past, and see no evidence that God is working through these instrumentalities. They hunt for something to condemn."[2]
To Uriah Smith, Ellen White wrote similar thoughts: "Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy." Yet once again, Ellen White foresaw the sad results among those who were already fighting against the heaven-sent message. If Jones and Waggoner were to fall, "this would not prove that they had had no message from God, or that the work that they had done was all a mistake. But should this happen, how many would take this position, and enter into a fatal delusion because they are not under the control of the Spirit of God. ... I know that this is the very position many would take if either of these men were to fall."[3]
Writing just before the beginning of the 1893 General Conference, Ellen White again dealt with this theme: "It is not the inspiration from heaven that leads one to be suspicious, watching for a chance and greedily seizing upon it to prove that those brethren who differ from us in some interpretation of Scripture are not sound in the faith. There is danger that this course of action will produce the very result which they are seeking to avoid, and to a great degree the guilt will rest upon those who are watching for evil." It was not the opposition from the world, but "the opposition in our own ranks has imposed upon the Lord's messengers [Jones and Waggoner] a laborious and soul-trying task; for they have had to meet difficulties and obstacles which need not have existed."[4] All of this must be kept in mind while dealing with the Anna Phillips Rice episode.
Anna C. Phillips was born in England, May 6, 1865. When she was 6 years of age, she accompanied her widowed mother to Cleveland, Ohio, where she was introduced to Adventism in her early 20s through the Sign of the Times. Suffering from poor health, she was almost an invalid until she was fully restored in answer to prayer at the Mt. Vernon camp-meeting during the summer of 1891. With new-found health and the ability to think and study more readily, Anna decided at the suggestion of G. A. Irwin to attend the three month Chicago Bible School which began in November of 1891.[5]
E. J. Waggoner, Miss Parmelee, J. N. Loughborough, W. W. Prescott, and G. B. Starr were all associated with the Bible school at the time.[6] Anna had such a rich experience at the school that at the end of the three months, she wanted to be a Bible worker. She received calls from the Ohio Conference and also from Elder Rice, a minister from Ogden, Utah. After much struggle, she decided to go out west, but upon arriving in Utah in the spring of 1892, she was received very coldly by Brother Rice. Instead of being used as a Bible worker in the area, she was put to work in his home as more of a housemaid, her stipend money and Bible materials being taken by Brother Rice for his personal use. Although Sister Rice was very kind and would eventually encourage the adoption of Anna into the Rice family, she was afraid of her husband and did only that which she was told.
These conditions continued for several months until August, when Anna had her first dream or vision in regard to Brother Rice himself. She describes the event and subsequent results as follows: "I had a struggle over it not knowing what to do. I told Sr. Rice and she advised me to write it out, and then pray over the matter, and then hand it to Mr. Rice and if the Lord wanted him to have it he would prepare him to receive it. I did so and after a day or two gave it to him. He said it was all true, and it seemed to make a change in his work." Shortly after this, "more came" to Anna, which she verbally shared with Sister Rice, with the idea that it would also be shared with her husband. The counsel and correction was mostly practical and when immediately accepted brought about a change in Brother Rice and in the home. He began having family worship, reading the Testimonies, living more closely the health message, going to bed at "ten o'clock instead of one or two" and rising in the morning, instead of noon, and also treating his wife with more kindness.
Although her life became more peaceful, this was very short-lived for Anna, for shortly thereafter, Brother Rice shared the recent happenings with a Brother Harper from California and Bro. Lamb and Bro. Shaffer from Salt Lake. Soon Harper wanted Anna Rice to give up her work in Utah, start writing out counsel, and travel with him to California. He even wanted to have his picture taken with her, which seemed to be the final straw. All of this Anna refused to do. For several months she was totally distraught as Brother Rice and others pushed her to write out her dreams so that they could share them with others.[7]
It was at this very time that Anna "felt so impressed" that she "must talk with some of the leading Brethren and get their advice and counsel." So in her own words, Anna states that "on the fourteenth of Dec., 92 I started for Chicago."[8] The sequence of events and the date of Anna Rice's arrival are very important to note, for the 1892 camp-meeting revivals had already taken place, and the Battle Creek College and week of prayer revivals had already begun. Two important Testimonies from Ellen White had already been published--Special Testimony to Our Ministers No. 2, indicating it was time to pray for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which "awaits our demand and reception," was published in early November[9]--as well as her November 22 Review article confirming the beginning of the loud cry of the third angel "in the revelation of the righteousness of Christ."[10] A. T. Jones and many of the brethren had already arrived at the same conclusions in regard to the latter rain and the loud cry. Following Ellen White's November 22 Review article, Jones had preached "two stirring and profitable discourses" to an overflow audience in the Battle Creek Tabernacle on November 26. The first discourse was on the latter rain and loud cry, showing that it was now "the duty and privilege of the church to ask of the Lord rain in this time." The second discourse "was upon The 'Righteousness of Christ,' which the Christian secures by faith in him."[11]
Thus, when Anna Rice arrived in Chicago at the Bible school in the middle of December, all the above events had already taken place, and neither she nor her "visions" could possibly be responsible for the providential movements that occurred before her arrival. In fact, it seems obvious that the devil was seeking to bring about a situation that would discredit and thwart the genuine movements of the Holy Spirit then in progress. Unfortunately, discrediting these genuine movements in our Adventist history is a fact that is true even to this day.[12]*
A. T. Jones and J. N. Loughborough were the main instructors at the Bible school when Anna arrived; Jones, however, was there only through the end of the week so he could head back to Battle Creek in time for the week of prayer starting December 17.[13] Anna stated that she related her "experience to Bro. A. T. Jones and Bro. Loughborough, asking them what they thought and what I should do." Both advised her to write out her experiences, "saying that the test would be in the writings." Around the same time Anna also wrote to S. N. Haskell, California Conference president, and earlier, to F. M. Wilcox, sending him a document to possibly be published in the children's Sabbath School lessons. But when Brothers Harper, Lamb, and Shaffer got word she had gone to Chicago instead of staying to work in Utah and California, they sent word to Anna that she was "possessed with a devil." They also went to the Rice home and wrote to Haskell, denouncing her and her visions. Their actions were so vehement that it seemed only to support the validity of her dreams, for which she was now being persecuted.[14]
Although A. T. Jones left Chicago, Anna stayed at the Bible school six or seven weeks till its close. Though encouraged to write out her dreams while at the school, she delayed doing so until mid-January, 1893, when she wrote out a personal experience and dream she had, which had helped her trust in God more fully. J. N. Loughborough, although having been long in the work and familiar with fanatical movements from the early Advent years, was fine with reading Anna's account to the entire Bible class on Tuesday, January 17, the last day of the Bible school. Thus, while Anna was being represented in the worst possible light by Brothers Harper, Lamb, and Shaffer, according to her, Brothers Loughborough, Johnson, Haskell, Jones, and "several others" were encouraging her. Of interest is the fact, however, that in her long correspondence with Ellen White a year later, while going over the details of the events, she never mentioned W. W. Prescott.[15]*
Haskell wrote to Ellen White in early January, 1893, and amidst several pages dealing with other matters, mentioned Anna Rice. Haskell stated that the article he had read, sent by Anna to the Sabbath School department, "was very good, and no fault could be found with it; but it was thought it would not be appreciated, and so it was not published." But Haskell had also received negative reports from Bother Harper. Haskell's opinion was that Anna was "a simple minded, quiet inoffensive, earnest Christian," but based primarily on Harper's report, he "looked upon it with a degree of suspicion."[16] In all of Ellen White's letters to Haskell the remainder of 1893, however, she never mentioned the Anna Rice situation.
Although A. T. Jones had also urged Anna to write out what she had been shown and to send him a copy, she did not do so until February 7th, 1893. Even so, while Jones was speaking at the Ministerial Institute on February 5th, at the end of his lecture where he had compared the events of Pentecost to the time of the latter rain, he read from Joel chapter 2: "'And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions! ... And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit'" (Joel 2:28, 29). Based on the fact that Peter had quoted this prophecy in Acts 2:17, 18, during Pentecost, and based on the times they were living in, Jones confidently proclaimed: "Thank the Lord, he is not going to be content much longer with one prophet! He will have more. He has done a wonderful work with one. And having done such a great work with one, what in the world will he do when he gets a lot of them?" Jones was unmistakably anticipating the fulfillment of Joel chapter 2, although Ellen White would later caution him for such a broad interpretation of this prophecy, as not all who "prophesy" would necessarily hold the office of a prophet.[17]
Two days later, on February 7th, Anna Rice wrote a note to A. T. Jones and gave him the first of two "testimonies." But this first testimony was that which she had been "shown" for Brother and Sister Rice in August of 1892, and was primarily of a personal nature. Although Jones may have been persuaded that this "testimony" was genuine, based on the results in the Rice home which Anna had already reported to him, it is unlikely that he would have wanted to share this more personal "testimony" publicly at the Conference.[18]
Finally, on Feb. 21, just two weeks before the General Conference meetings ended, Anna Rice wrote out the second "testimony" and sent it to A. T. Jones. This particular "testimony" was much more of a general nature and directed toward the entire church. It called for repentance and reformation, putting away worldliness, and getting ready for the Second Coming by supporting the cause.[19] Most likely, it was this testimony that, according to C. McReynolds, Jones wished to read at the 1893 Conference, but O. A. Olsen had opposed such an idea when Jones requested it.[20]*
Although A. T. Jones and others may have considered at this time that Anna Rice was the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in God giving visions to young men and young women, there is no credible evidence that their lectures--which were assigned six months earlier--or the manifestations of the Holy Spirit at the 1893 Ministerial Institute and General Conference, were brought about by such a belief or through Anna Rice's influence. Likewise, there is no evidence that the revivals of 1892 and 1893 were the result of extremism, excitement, and fanaticism caused by a belief in Anna Rice's testimonies.[21]* Neither is there any evidence that W. W. Prescott was promoting Rice's testimonies at this point in time, which apparently only happened after the Conference.[22]*
During the summer of 1893, Jones and Prescott did take steps in promoting the few "testimonies" Anna Rice had written; though L. T. Nicola later stated that "except the frequent mentions of the duty of 'knowing the voice for ourselves,' there was scarcely anything said about the Rice testimonies."[23] Jones, however, did quote from them at a couple camp-meetings, but unbeknown to his audience.
The Anna Rice episode came to a head on December 30, 1893, at the Battle Creek Tabernacle. After Ellen White's week of prayer reading, "The Call from Destitute Fields," was read from the Home Missionary Extra,[24] A. T. Jones read from what he called "an unpublished testimony" which was actually the "testimony" Rice had sent him on Feb. 21, during the General Conference. Jones reported that "the unpublished testimony read insisted on entire separation from the world and worldliness, from pride and outward adorning, and that there should be plainness of dress, and especially a 'tearing off' of gold, etc., instead of wearing it on the body, 'as the heathen do.'" As a result of both readings, a revival service broke out, as people began taking off their gold and jewelry and donating it to the cause of God.[25] Seventy individuals requested baptism as a result of the revival meeting, the number swelling to nearly 150 by the following week. The next Sabbath afternoon W. W. Prescott conducted the praise service in the Tabernacle, "filled to its utmost capacity," during the baptismal service.[26]
Such an experience only seemed to prove the validity of Anna's "testimonies." Prescott also continued to promote them in a subtle way during a series of meetings on "The Spirit of Prophecy in the Church," in the months of January and early February, 1894. He did so by presenting the idea that all were to have the gift of prophecy, not necessarily in exercising the gift themselves, but in being able to discern the gift wherever it is manifested.[27] But the movement came to an abrupt halt when a Testimony arrived from Ellen White in A. T. Jones' mailbox in mid-February. Ellen White sought to put things back in proper order:
I have received letters from some in America stating that you have endorsed Anna [Rice's] revelations, and that you read them to the people, giving the people the impression that you are reading from the testimonies of Sister White. ... The spurious and the counterfeit are in the field, and minds must be under the constant control of the Spirit of God in order to detect the counterfeit from the genuine. ...
God has in a special manner used you and Brother Waggoner to do a special work, and I have known this. I have given all my influence in with yours, because you were doing a work of God for this time. I have done all that it was possible for me to do in Jesus Christ to stand close to you, and help you in every way; but I am very sorrowful when I see things that I cannot endorse, and I feel pained over the matter. ...
Let not you nor Elder Waggoner be incautious now, and advance things that are not proper, and not in accordance with the very message God has given. Should you be led into any error, reflection would be cast upon the work God has given me to do, as well as upon the work you have both been doing which has always been held insuspicion and opposition by a certain class. Should you fall into any mistakes, they will [28]* feel justified in their past ideas and jealousies, their watching and suspicions.
A. T. Jones repented immediately, not even leaving the post office before he shared Ellen White's letter of reproof to him with O. A. Tait. The very next Sabbath Jones read to the congregation at the Battle Creek Tabernacle portions from the Testimony Ellen White had just sent him. He readily acknowledged, "'I am wrong, and I confess it.'"[29]* Writing to Ellen White a short time later, O. A. Olsen reported that he "was told that when Brother Jones received your communication, he wept like a child."[30] F. M. Wilcox also stated that "when Elder Jones received the letters he felt very bad indeed." [31]* '
But Jones didn't stop here, doing his best to personally correct the mistake he had made. After receiving the Testimony from Ellen White, he "began at once to stop the circulation of the Rice testimonies, asking that they be called in and burned."[32] Jones also went to a number of the leading brethren in the Battle Creek church, stating that "Sister White had condemned Sister Rice's work." He planned to make public the entire Testimony sent him by Ellen White, but thought it wise to first seek advice from leading brethren during the Spring Council, lest he "make a worse blunder in trying to remedy the matter than he did in advocating the testimonies" of Rice in the first place.[33]
W. W. Prescott responded the same way when a copy of Ellen White's letter was passed on to him while in Walla Walla, Washington, in late February. S. N. Haskell reported that Prescott "at once accepted the Testimony and said, 'Now I shall at once undo everything I have done in favor of them as far as I could.'"[34]* Both Jones and Prescott wrote Ellen White letters of apology for the problems they had caused, asking her for counsel and evidence in Rice's testimonies that should have alerted them to their dangers.[35]* Ellen White later recounted to Jones how he had expressed "deep regret over the part" he had taken in this unwise movement and had "appealed to [her] for instruction," that he "might ever avoid such mistakes."[36]
Ellen White answered in part the question about not finding "particularly objectionable sentiments" in Rice's testimonies by stating that there was "nothing so very apparent, in that which has been written." She went on to state that "deceptions will come, and of such a character that if it were possible they would mislead the very elect. If marked inconsistencies and untruthful utterances were apparent in these manifestations, the words from the lips of the Great Teacher would not be needed."[37] She also acknowledged to Jones that "many things in these visions and dreams seem to be all straight, a repetition of that which has been in the field for many years; but," she continued, "soon they introduce a jot here, a title of error there, just a little seed which takes root and flourishes, and many are defiled therewith." Thus Satan was seeking to bring his deceptions into the church, while undermining and discrediting the work of revival and reformation instigated through the genuine manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Jones and Prescott would now seek to backtrack and remove the confusion they had caused.
Unfortunately, not everything could be undone, including the reproach upon the work that Jones, Waggoner, and also Prescott had been given to do. Now, that "certain class" which had "always held their work in suspicion and opposition" would, according to Ellen White, "feel justified in their past ideas and jealousies, their watching and suspicions."[38] Yet some men, such as F. M. Wilcox and S. N. Haskell, were willing to admit they were just as liable to make mistakes.[39] Haskell even suggested that if Prescott and Jones, who were without the experience of the earlier years of Adventism, had been able to consult with Uriah Smith or other older brethren, they might not have made the mistake.[40] However, J. N. Loughborough had given the "testimonies" of Anna Rice his initial support, and he was one of the early pioneers. Uriah Smith, on the other hand, was one of the brethren who was still in such a state of opposition to Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott, that when he got word of the situation, and Ellen White's reproof, he rejoiced, stating that he "'was glad to see that Jones element getting a whack in the snout.'"[41] These same feelings were held by not a few in Battle Creek.
F. M. Wilcox expressed concern that the mistake of Jones and Prescott would be misused as an excuse to continue the "fight" against the principles of righteousness by faith and religious liberty that Jones had taught. Wilcox declared that many were already reasoning this way only a couple weeks after Jones received Ellen White's letter of reproof. [42] O. A. Olsen conveyed comparable concerns to W. C. White, stating that "any mistakes that [Jones and Prescott] make are made the most of by some on the other side. ... And of course the enemy is bound to make all that he can out of all such things.[43] Olsen also informed Ellen White that it seemed to him that "nothing would please Satan more at this present point than to destroy the force" of Jones and Prescott's powerful witness.[44]
S. N. Haskell expressed similar thoughts to Ellen White, stating: "I do not think that there are any two individuals that more deeply regret the move than Brethren Jones and Prescott. I believe they have sincerely repented and done all in their power to retract their influence according to their judgment. And I sincerely hope from the depths of my soul that our brethren will not be let loose on those two brethren."[45] Ellen White responded to such concerns by writing a fifteen-page response to S. N. Haskell to try and stop such a backlash:
I have nothing but tender feelings toward [Anna Rice]. I am indeed sorry both for brother Prescott and brother Jones. ... I have more confidence in them today than I have had in the past, and fully believe that God will be their helper, their comfort and their hope. ...
I have the most tender feelings toward our brethren who have made this mistake, and I would say that those who depreciate the ones who have accepted reproof, will be permitted to pass through trial which will make manifest their own individual weakness and defects of character. Bro. Jones and Prescott are the Lord's chosen messengers, beloved of God. They have co-operated with God in the work for this time. While I cannot endorse their mistakes, I am in sympathy and union with them in their general work. ... These brethren are God's ambassadors. They have been quick to catch the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness, and have responded by imparting the heavenly light to others. If they have felt afraid to refuse that which bore the appearance of being light, if they have grasped too eagerly that which has been misleading, believing it to be the counsel of God, should anyone be disposed to find fault, to criticize or complain, when they now acknowledge that they have not been as careful as they should have been to distinguish the tendency of a testimony that had an appearance of being divine?[46]
Ellen White also suggested that the experience might prove to be a great benefit to Jones and Prescott and to others who had placed them "where only God should be." Some people had too easily accepted everything they said without studying and carefully seeking God's counsel for themselves. But when Ellen White compared Jones' and Prescott's actions to those who had been fighting against truth for so long, she gave no excuse for their continued rebellion:
Shall those who have been manifestly refusing to accept real light, refusing to accept the power of the Holy Spirit, strengthen themselves in their resistance of light, and apologize for their hardness of heart, which has brought to them only darkness and the displeasure of God, because some other brethren who have receive the light of God's Holy Spirit, have made a misstep? ...
Every inch of the ground had to be fought in presenting the present message, and some have not been reconciled with the providence of God in selecting the very men whom he did select to bear this special message. They ask, why it is that he has not chosen the men who have been long in the work? The reason is that he knew that these men who had had long experience would not do the work in God's way, and after God's order. God has chosen the very men he wanted, and we have reason to thank him that these men have carried forward the work with faithfulness, and have been the mouth-piece for God. Now because they have not seen all things distinctly, because they were in danger, the Lord sent them a warning, ... thank the Lord that they did not resist the message of warning that the Lord saw fit to give them, and thus they did not repeat the grave error that some have made for years in resisting the Spirit of God. ...
Let not those who have neglected to receive light and truth take advantage of the mistake of their brethren, and put forth their finger, and speak words of vanity, because the chosen of God have been too ardent in their ideas, and have carried certain matters in too strong a manner. We have need of these ardent elements; for our work is not a passive work; our work is aggressive. ...
The chosen agents of God would have been rejoiced to link up with the men who held aloof from them, questioning, criticizing, and opposing. If the union had existed between these brethren, which Christ in his lessons has enjoined upon his disciples, some mistakes and errors which have occurred would have been avoided. But if the men who should have used their experience in furthering the work, have labored to hinder it, and mistakes have occurred that would not have occurred if they had stood in their allotted place, whom will God hold accountable for these late errors? He will hold the very men accountable who should have been gathering light and united with the faithful watchmen in these days of peril. But where were they?--They were holding themselves in the position of those who were non-receivers of the light for themselves, and intercepting the light that God would send to others.[47]
Thus the blame was laid at the feet of those who had been fighting against the truth for so long, who otherwise would have been able to benefit Jones and Prescott with their past experience. One issue concerned Ellen White more than any other, however--that of identifying the true manifestations of the Holy Spirit as fanaticism and trying to excuse such a stance because of the mistake of Jones and Prescott:
That which is essential for the promulgation of truth is the gift of the Holy Spirit, which is to guide and lead and to keep the soul from Satan's deceptive power in these last days of snare and delusion. The Holy Spirit must do a work for human intelligences that is scarcely yet comprehended by human minds. New aspects of truth are to be opened to our view. O the riches of the word of God are but dimly appreciated. Unless the Holy Spirit shall do its office work upon the human heart, the character will not be developed after the divine similitude. ...
The baptism of the Holy Ghost as on the day of Pentecost will lead to a revival of true religion, and to the visitation of angels and the performance of many wonderful works. Heavenly intelligences will come among us, and men will speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Spirit of God. But should the Lord work upon men as he did on, and after the day of Pentecost, many who now claim to believe the truth, would know so very little of the operation of the Holy Spirit, that they would cry, "Beware of fanaticism." They would say of those who were filled with the Spirit, "These men are drunk with new wine." ... The great sin of those who profess to be Christians is that they do not open the heart to receive the Holy Spirit. When souls long after Christ, and seek to become one with him, then those who are content with the form of godliness, exclaim "Be careful, do not go to extremes." ...
I know that the Lord has wrought by his own power in Battle Creek. Let no one attempt to deny this; for in so doing they will sin against the Holy Ghost. Because there may be need to warn and caution everyone to walk carefully and prayerfully, in order that the deceptive influence of the enemy shall not lead men away from the Bible, let no one suppose that God will not manifest his power among his believing people; ... "After these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory." Some souls will see and receive the light; but those who have stood long in resistance of light, because it did not come just in accordance with their ideas, will be in danger of calling light darkness, and darkness light.[48]
Sadly, nothing Ellen White said at the time stopped some from continuing to express the opinion that the 1892 and 1893 revivals, with the manifestations of the Holy Spirit, were simply the results of fanaticism and excitement. Unfortunately, the same notion is still expressed and promoted today.[49]*
4. The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit Is Fanaticism!
Of all the tactics Satan used to derail the beginning of the latter rain and the loud cry, his inciting of those in responsible positions to identify the 1892 week of prayer and 1893 General Conference session revivals as merely the results of fanatical excitement, extremism, and fanaticism brought his devilish plans the most success. Identifying the work of the Holy Spirit with fanaticism at Minneapolis in 1888 had brought four years of struggle, conflict, rebellion, and delay. Now the call for Laodicean repentance had been visited with manifestations of the Holy Spirit, especially during 1892 and 1893. To respond to such manifestations with the same accusations of excitement, extremism, and fanaticism would prove detrimental to God's remnant movement.
Uriah Smith, J. H. Kellogg, and many others leveled such charges against the revivals.[50] A few likely shared such a viewpoint, because certain ones, such as Stanton and Caldwell, had carried matters to an extreme in calling the Church Babylon in 1893. Some were led to adopt the fanaticism charge because of the worldliness that followed the 1892-1893 revivals. Others were led to make such accusations in 1894, because of the mistake of A. T. Jones and W. W. Prescott in promoting the visions of Anna Rice. However, many others were simply continuing to sanction such charges long held in their sustained rebellion against Jones, Waggoner, and now Prescott, and the message of righteousness by faith taught since 1888. To all of these excuses, Ellen White gave a response.
In July of 1893, J. H. Kellogg complained to W. C. White about the events before and during the 1893 General Conference, along with his continued concerns regarding Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott. He stated that for "a short time prior to the Conference there was a very exciting and sensational time among the students at the College, and things were carried on under very high pressure for some time." Of course, Kellogg "did not encourage the same effort" at the Sanitarium, because he had "never seen any good results from this sort of work, and the results at the College were no better than usual." In response to the declining spiritual condition at the college, Kellogg offered White his own view of the cause: "I feel sure that when an iron has been heated to a white heat by turning on the full force of the furnace and bellows, it is very difficult to make it very much hotter. It is impossible to keep up a religious interest at fever heat perpetually. There must be a reaction." In reality, Kellogg considered the movements of the past few months the result of excitement and fanaticism.[51]
But the stimulus for Kellogg's view was partly due to the ongoing tension between him and his ministerial brethren in regard to medical missionary work. He took the opportunity, in his letter to W. C. White, to also express his displeasure with some of the content in recent letters he had received from both W. C. and his mother, which had cautioned him for his negative attitude toward Jones, Waggoner, and Prescott. For example, in January, 1893, Ellen White had plainly expressed her concerns to Kellogg: "My brother, I am not pleased to have you feel as you do in regard to Brethren Waggoner, Jones, and Prescott. Had these men had the cooperation of our ministering brethren, and had they drawn in even cords, the work would be years in advance of what it is now. It is not pleasing to the Lord for you to retain the feelings you do in these matters. You have a special branch of the work, which is your part of the vineyard to cultivate according to your ability. And to these men the Lord has given their work."[52]
Now Kellogg's response to W. C. White was anything but accepting: "I was sorry to see by your letter that you had somehow gotten a wrong impression of my influence. ... I have not been an opposer of the work of Eld. Jones and Prof. Prescott. ... I have never been on the side of opposition. It seems evident from what you wrote me, and from your mother's letter that someone has communicated to you a false impression respecting my position. ... I do not like to be put in the attitude of an opposer and a bitter and jealous disturber of the peace when this is not my attitude at all. I may be so blind that I cannot see the facts. If I am, I shall be glad to have the facts pointed out to me." But the problem was that both W. C. and Ellen White had pointed out the "facts" to Kellogg, and he was not adequately interested in listening.[53]*
Others were suffering from a similar condition. If Ellen White's articles in the Review a month after the General Conference were any indication of the real cause of the problems in Battle Creek, Kellogg and others did not have a foot to stand on. Ellen White was concerned for the churches in America but especially in Battle Creek, where "rich feasts have been provided for the people." People had been convicted they needed to be laborers for God but they were not necessarily converted to the idea. The truth of that very time had been presented and "witnessed by the power of the Holy Spirit. It has been clearly shown that in the righteousness of Christ is our only hope of gaining access to the Father. How simple, how plain has the way of life been made to those who have a disposition to walk therein." Yet, would any more evidence make a difference? Had more evidence made a difference with the Jews?
Would greater evidence, more powerful manifestations, break down the barriers that have been interposed between the truth and the soul?--No. I have been shown that sufficient evidence has been given. Those who reject the evidence already presented would not be convinced by more abundant proof. They are like the Jews. ... There is less excuse in our day for stubbornness and unbelief than there was for the Jews in the days of Christ. They did not have before them the example of a nation that had suffered retribution of their unbelief and disobedience. But we have before us the history of the chosen people of God, who separated themselves from him, and rejected the Prince of life. ...
Many say, "If I had only lived in the days of Christ, I would not have wrested his words, or falsely interpreted his instruction. I would not have rejected and crucified him as did the Jews;" but that will be proved by the way in which you deal with his message and his messengers today. The Lord is testing the people of today as much as he tested the Jews in their day. When he sends his messages of mercy, the light of his truth, he is sending the spirit of truth to you, and if you accept the message, you accept of Jesus. Those who declare that if they had lived in the days of Christ, they would not do as did the rejectors of his mercy, will today be tested. Those who live in this day are not accountable for the deeds of those who crucified the Son of God; but if with all the light that shone upon his ancient people, delineated before us, we travel over the same ground, cherish the same spirit, refuse to receive reproof and warning, then our guilt will be greatly augmented, and the condemnation that fell upon them will fall upon us, only it will be as much greater as our light is greater in this age than was their light in their age.[54]
One week later, Ellen White's article concluded, comparing the history of the Jews to the modern treatment of His message and messengers. She quoted largely from Christ's plea to the Jews as He stood on the brow of the hill overlooking Jerusalem. Yet Christ's pleading went unheeded by the unbelieving Jews, who only saw Him as an impostor. But how was it with God's remnant people?
Those who are filled with unbelief can discern the least thing that has an objectionable appearance, and by beholding the objectionable feature, they can lose sight of all the evidence that God has given in manifesting his abundant grace and power, in revealing precious gems of truth from the inexhaustible mine of his word. They can hold the objectionable atom under the magnifying glasses of their imagination until the atom looks like a world, and shuts out from their view the precious light of heaven. But instead of placing that which appears objectionable beneath the eyes, why not bring before the soul the precious things of God? Why make the things of priceless value of little esteem, while the worthless things are made much of? Why take so much account of that which may appear to you as objectionable in the messenger, and sweep away all the evidences that God has given to balance the mind in regard to the truth?
With the history of the children of Israel before us, let us take heed, and not be found committing the same sins, following in the same way of unbelief and rebellion.[55]
Such unbelief in the message that God had sent was often accompanied with accusations of excitement and fanaticism, which only resulted in a deepening Laodicean state. By October 1893, Ellen White wrote to W. W. Prescott in response to concerns about the declining condition of the college and the work in Battle Creek. Addressing the question of the genuineness of the outpouring of Holy Spirit at the 1893 General Conference, she unhesitatingly stated that "all the revelations of God at the Conference, I acknowledge as from Him. I dare not say that work was excitement, and unwarranted enthusiasm. No, no. God drew near to you, and His Holy Spirit revealed to you that He had a heaven full of blessings, even light to lighten the world."[56]* Yet Ellen White explained how worldliness had come in and now "a reaction came, and in the minds of many there was left a feeling of contempt, an impression that they might have been deceived, that they were too ardent." Of course these ideas were amplified by those who had been questioning the movement all along:
Had the manifestation of the Holy Spirit been rightly appreciated, it would have accomplished for the receiver that which God designed it should,--a good work in the perfecting of the character in the likeness of Christ. But there was a want of consecration to God, a lack of self-denial and humiliation, and through misapplication and misappropriation the work has given rise to doubt and unbelief. It is even questioned whether it was the work of God, or a wave of fanaticism. And O how Satan exults![57]
Writing to Uriah Smith a short time later, who himself had been instrumental in laying the charge of fanaticism against the 1892-1893 revivals, Ellen White strictly cautioned him from taking such a stance: "There have been things written to me in regard to the movings of the Spirit of God at the last Conference, and at the College, which clearly indicate that because these blessings were not lived up to, minds have been confused, and that which was light from heaven has been called excitement. I have been made sad to have this matter viewed in this light. We must be very careful not to grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in pronouncing the ministration of His Holy Spirit a species of fanaticism." Ellen White knew that "God had wrought in a marked manner" and warned that no one should "venture to say this is not the Spirit of God." In fact, she counseled that "it is just that which we are authorized to believe and pray for, for God is more willing to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him than parents are to give good gifts unto their children."
Ellen White explained to Smith that Satan had led many to fall to temptation, that he "could make his suggestions to many minds, that the light sent from heaven was only fanaticism, excitement." But the deteriorating conditions in Battle Creek were "not because of fanaticism, but because those who were blessed did not show forth the praises of Him who called them out of darkness into His marvelous light." Ellen White was now concerned that when God sends His Holy Spirit "there are those who do not understand its operations and how to appreciate the glory of God shining upon them, and unless they do discern the movings of the Spirit of God, they will call light darkness, and darkness will be chosen rather than light." To such a condition Ellen White bemoaned, "I have been afraid, terribly afraid that those who felt the bright beams of the Sun of righteousness--for I have not one doubt but that they did receive the Holy Spirit--will come to the conclusion that God's heaven-sent blessings are a delusion."[58]
In several Review articles published in early 1894, Ellen White's counsel was printed in regard to the education work in Battle Creek. In this series of articles, obviously written in 1893, Ellen White continued to share God's counsel on the danger of identifying the true workings of the Holy Spirit as fanaticism, but now that counsel was directed to the entire church. She indicated that the "world" was looking to see what would be "the after influence of the work of revival that came to the College, the Sanitarium, the Office of publication, and to the members of the church in Battle Creek" in 1892 and 1893. She indicated that some were "already questioning the work that was so good, and that should have been most highly appreciated. They are looking upon it as a certain species of fanaticism." She admitted that it wouldn't be surprising if there was not some fanaticism that the devil would try to work in, "for whenever and wherever the Lord works in giving a genuine blessing, a counterfeit is also revealed."[59]
But the fact of the matter was that God had "given the Holy Spirit to those who have opened the door of their hearts to receive the heavenly gift." Now was not the time to "yield to the temptation afterward to believe that they have been deceived." Ellen White was deeply concerned how some would look back on the wonderful manifestations of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the church in 1892 and 1893:
The sin for which Christ reproved Chorazin and Bethsaida was the sin of rejecting evidence that would have convinced them of the truth, had they yielded to its power. The sin of the scribes and Pharisees was the sin of placing the heavenly work which had been wrought before them in the darkness of unbelief, so that the evidence which should have led them into a settled faith was questioned, and the sacred things which should have been cherished were regarded as of no value.
I fear that the people have permitted the enemy to work along these very lines, so that the good which emanated from God, the rich blessing which He has given, have come to be regarded by some as fanaticism. If this attitude is preserved, then when the Lord shall again let His light shine upon the people, they will turn from the heavenly illumination, saying, 'I felt the same in 1893, and some in whom I have had confidence, said that the work was fanaticism.' Will not those who have received the rich grace of God, and who take the position that the working of the Holy Spirit was fanaticism, be ready to denounce the operations of the Spirit of God in the future? ...[60]
Continuing along the same line the following week, Ellen White explained how Satan would lead those who had experienced the power of the Holy Spirit in their lives to fall away in their experience. Then he would declare to them that it was no use to try "living a Christian life." Furthermore Satan would suggest that "'the experience you thought was of God was only the result of undue emotion and impulse.'" As soon as these ideas where entertained, Ellen White mused, they would "begin to appear plausible, and then those who ought to know better, who have had a longer experience in the work of God, second the suggestions of Satan, and the Holy Spirit is grieved from the soul." She now sounded a warning that is applicable even to our very day:
Let not one ray of light from heaven be held in questioning and doubt. In great power the Lord has revealed to you his grace, his mercy, and his love; and he who charges the work of God to undue excitement, and calls it fanaticism, is certainly standing on dangerous ground. If such do not retrieve their steps, their consciences will become less and less sensitive, and they will have less and less appreciation of the Spirit of God. It will become harder and harder for them to understand the message of God. Why?--Because they are sinning against the Holy Ghost; and as a result of their resistance, they place themselves where they cannot recognize the Spirit of God, but set themselves against every instrumentality that God might use to save them from ruin. ...
It is a dangerous thing to doubt the manifestations of the Holy Spirit; for if this agency is doubted, there is no reserve power left by which to operate on the human heart. Those who attribute the work of the Holy Spirit to human agencies, saying that an undue influence was brought to bear upon them, are cutting their souls off from the fountain of blessing. Whatever may be the sin, if the soul repents and believes, guilt may be washed away by the atoning blood of Christ; but he who rejects the revealings of the Spirit of God, and charges the work of God to human instrumentalities, is in danger of placing himself where repentance and faith will not come to him.
He refuses to permit the Holy Spirit to melt his heart into tenderness and contrition, and that which should have softened him is looked upon as fanaticism; thus he is led to refuse the heavenly gift. Whatever plan God may devise by which to impress his heart, will be thwarted through this suggestion of Satan. The evil one casts his hellish shadow between the soul and God, and the work of God is looked upon as excitement and delusion. The Spirit strives in vain; for all the sufficiency of the gospel is inefficient to subdue the soul and correct the error. The habit of resistance is so fixed, he has so long interpreted light to be darkness and fanaticism, that the most manifest working of God's Holy Spirit becomes to him not a savor of life unto life, but through his unbelief, a savor of death unto death. ...
I have a burden upon my soul that does not seem to grow lighter, but heavier, as I converse with responsible men and women in Battle Creek. In the night season I am engaged in giving the most earnest appeals to those who ought to be far in advance of what they are at the present time, because of the mercy and grace that the Lord has bestowed upon them.[61]
Ellen White's counsel, sent from heaven, could not have arrived at a better time, as the Adventist church, particularly at the headquarters in Battle Creek, would once again be challenged in regard to the genuine message sent from heaven. It is no wonder Ellen White's burden was growing heavier.
Burden Growing Heavier
Ellen White's concern for those in Battle Creek, the very heart of the work, did not grow lighter with each passing month. During the 1893 week of prayer revival, which had ended in the reading of the "unpublished testimony" from Anna Rice on December 30, a large offering had been given as people took off their extravagant belongings, donating them to help forward the work around the world. The revival meetings also culminated with 142 being led into the baptismal tank in the Tabernacle the following Sabbath; for most, this was their very first time.[62]
After counsel arrived from Ellen White that Jones and Prescott had been too quick to support the "testimonies" of Anna Rice, some decided that the whole week of prayer revival was the result of fanaticism and therefore wanted their donations returned. As F. M. Wilcox explained in a letter to O. A. Olsen, others were then being led to question the legitimacy of their conversion experience, which had resulted in the large number of baptisms:
A good many are beginning to reason in this way: that the large donation [taken up at the end of the week of prayer] was the result of Sister Rice's testimony, and now if the testimony was a fraud, they were wrongly influenced to donate, and should take back the donations they gave. Some, acting on this principle, have already called for a return of the articles they donated.
The worst feature of this argument is that by the same logic, and on the same basis, those who made a start to serve the Lord at that time, will have thrown over their religious experience a cloud, and be led to doubt the call of the Lord to them. It seems to me that we should stand very stiffly with reference to this matter, and while we maintain that the work wrought here was of God, the credit should not be given to the testimonies of Sister Rice. The movement of the last Sabbath was but a combination of the whole Week of Prayer. The people were ready for a forward movement, and I do not believe that the testimonies of Sister Rice should be given credit for what doubtless would have been accomplished just the same, if they had not been read.[63]
L. T. Nicola agreed that the week of prayer meetings were already resulting in a work of revival, even before Anna Rice's testimony was read: "The week of prayer progressed very nicely, all the leaders of the different departments of the work engaging heartily in the effort that was made to get nearer the Lord. Special meetings had been held for the young people, visiting had been carried on from house to house, many of the young were under conviction, backsliders were being reclaimed, and everything was in readiness for a successful revival meeting."[64] O. A. Olsen alerted Ellen White of the desire of some to "recall their contributions." But he assured her that "nothing of the kind has been done," for through the work of some of the brethren "the matter has been hushed."[65]
Even before Ellen White got word that some were questioning the contributions made and conversions experienced following the week of prayer, she was led to write counsel that would answer such reactions. In her series of Review articles, written at the close of 1893, Ellen White warned those who might question the good work of the Holy Spirit in Battle Creek over the past year and attribute it to fanaticism. Although, she allowed that "it would not be surprising if there were not some" who might speak or act indiscreetly; "for whenever and wherever the Lord works in giving a genuine blessing, a counterfeit is also revealed, in order to make of none effect the true work of God."[66]
When Ellen White was made more aware of the Anna Rice situation during the following weeks, she repeated the same counsel, stating that if possible Satan would seek to "mingle the counterfeit with the genuine so that, in an effort to separate the two, souls will be imperiled. Whenever and wherever God works," she declared, "Satan and his angels are on the ground."[67] Writing to Jones several weeks later, Ellen White described the "severe ordeal of mental suffering" she had been going through as she was "impressed with the advantage some will take, and thus imperil their souls, because they will take a false position in reference to the operation of the Holy Spirit upon the human agent," on account of the mistake Jones and Prescott had made.[68]
In a letter to S. N. Haskell the same week, defending the repentant Jones and Prescott, Ellen White unhesitatingly affirmed, "I know that the Lord has wrought by His own power in Battle Creek. Let no one attempt to deny this; for in so doing they will sin against the Holy Ghost." Because there had been a need "to warn and caution everyone to walk carefully and prayerfully, in order that the deceptive influence of the enemy shall not lead men away from the Bible," there was no reason to "suppose that God will not manifest His power among His believing people." Ellen White admonished that "not one ray of light be resisted, let no operation of the Spirit of God be interpreted as darkness."[69]
When Ellen White received word that some were seeking the return of their donated items from the offering collected at the conclusion of the week of prayer, she responded in a letter to those in Battle Creek. She first addressed the extravagance being displayed in the "bicycle craze" that had now come into Battle Creek, suggesting that even "the notices given in our papers extolling bicycles might better be cut out and in their place the destitute foreign fields be represented." She then took up the issue of the large offering collected during the week of prayer. She didn't question the true movements of the Holy Spirit that had prompted people to give sacrificially for the cause, nor attribute such movements to fanaticism:
America, and especially Battle Creek, where the greatest light from heaven has been shining upon the people, can become the place of greatest peril and darkness because the people do not continue to practice the truth and walk in the light. What was the meaning of the movement last winter [1893-94] in giving up jewelry and ornaments? Was it to teach our people a lesson? Were they prompted by the Holy Spirit to do those things, and to use the avail in the advancement of the work of God in foreign countries? And has Satan been counteracting the movement of the Holy Spirit upon human hearts, that reaction shall be allowed to take place, and another evil exist? The present manifestation [of the bicycle craze] is strikingly inconsistent with that movement of stripping off the ornaments and giving up selfish indulgences which absorb the means, the mind, and the affections, diverting them into false channels. ...
It is time that there was a different order of things in Battle Creek, else the judgments of God will surely fall upon the people. His blessing has rested upon you in large measure; has it made you laborers together with him? Are not our people in Battle Creek demonstrating to unbelievers that they do not believe the truth which they claim to advocate? God has been calling them away from every species of self-indulgence, and all manner of extravagance. When the church has had great light, then is her peril if she does not walk in the light, and put on her beautiful garments, and arise and shine; darkness will becloud the vision, so that light will be regarded as darkness, and darkness as light.[70]*
Notes: