Grace on Trial

[Note: Statements quoted in this chapter can be verified in the four-volume set, The Ellen G. White 1888 Materials. Numbers in brackets refer to page numbers.]

What made the 1888 conference "epochal" and "crucial"?

It was both the character of the special message presented, and its strange reception. On the one hand, the message was profoundly unique, the most clear since the Midnight Cry of 1844; on the other, its reception was phenomenal, the most emphatic and determined resistance ever known within the Advent Movement.

Must we understand the history? Or can we merely content ourselves with an idea of the message and forget its story? The answer is important.

History is always interwoven with God's message. Both the Old and New Testaments are historical documents laced with salvation truth. We cannot properly appreciate the gospel of Christ without understanding the history of His humble life and ministry, His crucifixion and resurrection. Neither can we appreciate the 1888 message without understanding the history that accompanied it. One important reason why so many value the message so little is that they have misunderstood its history.

The gospel story touches every one's raw nerve of conscience because we see ourselves in those who rejected the Savior. Thus we are led to true repentance, knowing that their sin is our sin but for the grace of God.

In the same way we see ourselves in our brethren at odds with the Lord Jesus Christ in the 1888 story. The import is "that no flesh should glory in His presence."1 That of course is genuine justification by faith, for “it is the work of God in laying the glory of man in the dust, and doing for man that which it is not in his power to do for himself."2 Understanding history is a part of it.

And knowing our 1888 history is a positive, upbeat experience. In God's work, the real truth is always good news. It provides hope for the future because it illuminates the mysteries of the past and reveals the present strategies of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. Corrie Ten Boom says, “Memories are the key not to the past, but to the future."3

We definitely lost a battle in our 1888 experience, but not the war. In order to win at last, we must understand how the battle was lost. We might well paraphrase George Santayana, "lf the Seventh-day Adventist denomination does not know its history, it is fated to repeat it."4

In this present era of offshoots, heresies and weakened conviction, the full truth of 1888 establishes confidence in the ultimate triumph of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. When we correctly understand our past we shall be better prepared to understand the perplexing present and prepare for that perilous future.

The Story of What Happened

Very simply told, the main details are these:

(1) The Lord raised up two young men whom Ellen White said were His "delegated messengers," "whom God has commissioned," and gave them a clearer understanding of the gospel in the third angel's message than others had; then He sent them with this "most precious message" to the General Conference delegates gathered at Minneapolis in 1888.5

(2) A.T. Jones and E.J. Waggoner presented a concept of Christ's righteousness which she later identified as the "beginning" of the loud cry of Revelation 18:1-4. And since the loud cry can't come until first the latter rain is received, it was also the beginning of that.6

(3) At Minneapolis and for a decade following, Ellen White endorsed their message over 370 times, using the most enthusiastic language she could find. Nothing in her long lifetime ever made her so happy. Unless we give due regard to her testimony, we may accept counterfeit messages and cast ourselves adrift at sea without an anchor.

(4) The two delegates' manner of presenting their message was simple, clear, and even at times beautiful. She said they gave evidence that God gave them "heavenly credentials," and they conducted themselves in the face of opposition as "a Christian gentleman” should. She said they presented their message "with beauty and loveliness," and "with grace, and power."7 This does not mean that they were perfect or that they made no mistakes; but the overwhelming impact of their presentations was on the positive side—Christlike, she often said.8

(5) According to her testimony, the great majority of the delegates reacted negatively to the message. Her eyewitness accounts say: "The spirit and influence of the ministers generally who have come to this meeting is to discard light."9 "Our ministering brethren ... are here only to shut out the Spirit of God from the people."10 "Opposition rather than investigation is the order of the day."11 Two other eyewitnesses report:

In 1888 I was sent as a delegate from the Kansas Conference to the General Conference held that year in Minneapolis, Minnesota, that notable conference long to be remembered by many.... I am sorry for anyone who was at the Conference in Minneapolis in 1888 who does not recognize that there was opposition and rejection of the message that the Lord sent to His people at that time.12

The writer of this tract, then a young man, was present at that [1888] conference meeting, and saw and heard many of the various things that were done and said in opposition to the message then presented.... When Christ was lifted up as the only hope of the church and of all men, the speakers met a united opposition from nearly all the senior ministers. They tried to put a stop to this teaching by Elders Waggoner and Jones.13

Thirteen years later, a prominent speaker at the 1901 session reported:

There are many in this audience who can remember ... when, thirteen years ago at Minneapolis, God sent a message to his people.... For the past thirteen years this light has been rejected and turned against by many, and they are rejecting it and turning from it today.14

A former General Conference president, not present at the 1888 conference but close to the issues, adds: "The message has never been received, nor proclaimed, nor given free course as it should have been in order to convey to the church the measureless blessings that were wrapped within it."15

A. W. Spalding reports, "There was personal pique at the messengers," and "a tumult of clerical passions was let loose."16

A speaker at the 1893 General Conference session openly declared that "the brethren in that fearful position in which they stood ... at Minneapolis... rejected the latter rain—the loud cry—of the third angel's message."17 Those present very well knew he was telling the truth; no one challenged him.

(6) A few other delegates, notably Ellen White, S. N. Haskell and Willie White, were favorable. The rejection was not total, but our “long journey" and spiritual famine of more than a century stem from this experience. Heaven was forced to withdraw for” many more years” the blessings of the latter rain and the loud cry.18

In spite of the fact that the two messengers spoke at camp meetings and General Conference sessions, constant leadership rejection nullified or at least neutralized their best efforts. The brethren's persistent attitude as late as 1896 kept the message “from our people, in a great measure,” and "in a great degree ... from the world."19 Ellen White explains how this process operated:

The very men who need this work ... have themselves barred the way that it shall not come.... When the leaders get out of the way, the work will be progressive in Battle Creek.... The position taken at Battle Creek has been the pulse-beating of many churches.... The Lord God of Israel has opened the windows of heaven to send the earth rich floods of light, but in many cases there was no place made to receive it or give it room.... [By] ministers, pastors, and those who stand in responsible positions ... barriers have been thrown up, and the streams of salvation turned aside into another channel.20

(7) What happened at Minneapolis was more serious than mere human judgment could appreciate. The inspired prophet saw beneath the surface:"The spirit which prevailed ... [which] was a controlling power at that meeting ... was cruelty to the Spirit of God."21 Three years later she repeated this frightful statement,"! know that at the time the Spirit of God was insulted."22

(8) Ellen White, Jones, and Waggoner held meetings during the winter of 1888-1889 and even into 1890 where the Lord worked in an unusual manner. The people were ready to accept the message gladly, giving occasion for a superficial judgment prevalent today that claims the message was warmly accepted in the end. But the influence of the leaders at Battle Creek discouraged and hindered the confused but favorable laity. She wrote burning messages of reproof, pleading for the brethren to accept the message and stop hindering its impact on the people.

She said in 1890, "For nearly two years we have been urging the people to come up and accept the light and truth concerning the righteousness of Christ, and they do not know whether to come and take hold of this precious truth or not." Her article in the Review and Herald of a week later told the reason:

I have tried to present the message to you as I have understood it, but how long will those at the head of the work keep themselves aloof from the message of God? ... Our young men look to our older brethren, and ... they see that they do not accept the message, but treat it as though it were of no consequence.23

(9) So persistent was the opposition that Ellen White's support upset the General Conference leadership. Robert W.Olson of the White Estate declares that she was “publicly defied."24 She herself said, “Elder Butler presented the matter before me in a letter stating that my attitude at that Conference [1888] just about broke the hearts of some of our ministering brethren at that meeting."25

(10) So compelling was the evidence supporting the message that a number of brethren were virtually forced to confess that they had taken a wrong stand at and after Minneapolis. One after another asked for pardon, sometimes with tears. Review editor Uriah Smith and former General Conference president G. I. Butler had influenced many to reject the message and both in time confessed their wrong attitude.

However, these confessions could not undo the evil that the 1888 era rejection had caused. Their resistance of the latter rain and the loud cry, so far as that generation was concerned, was conclusive. The important factor is not the personal salvation of the erstwhile rejectors, but whether the loud cry of Revelation 18 was allowed to go to the world. "In a great degree" it wasn't.

Later on some of the most notable confessors returned to their previous stance of opposition, so that Ellen White was forced to say, "This blind warfare is continued.... They have never seen clearly since [Minneapolis], and they never will."26 In late 1892, after most of the "confessions" had come in, Ellen White said that "not one" of those who initially rejected the message ever recovered the blessing they had forfeited. History confirms her judgment:

Who of those that acted a part in the meeting at Minneapolis have come to the light and received the rich treasures of truth which the Lord sent them from heaven? Who have kept step with the Leader, Jesus Christ? Who have made full confession of their mistaken zeal, their blindness, their jealousies and evil surmisings, their defiance of truth? Not one.27

(11) But on the surface, all appeared to be well in the 1890s. Reports of the progress of "the cause” appeared in the Review week by week as though nothing were wrong. But something was wrong. Speaking at the 1901 session regarding those dark years of the 1890s, Ellen White said:

The brethren assented to the light given, but ... the light that was given was not acted upon. It was assented to but no special change was made to bring about such a condition of things that the power of God could be revealed among His people. Year after year the same acknowledgement was made.... It is a marvel to me that we stand in as much prosperity as we do today.28

A little later she added, “Many ... have been more or less out of line since the Minneapolis meeting."29 She hoped they would come into line.

(12) Even the new General Conference president elected in 1888 failed to stand on the right side, and he lent his influence against the message. He supported it initially, but eight years after Minneapolis Ellen White felt forced to write the following about him:

He is leading other minds to view matters in a perverted light. He has given unmistakable evidence that he does not regard the testimonies which the Lord has seen fit to give His people, as worthy of respect, or as of sufficient weight to influence his course of action.

I am distressed beyond any words my pen can trace. Unmistakably Elder Olsen has acted as did Aaron, in regard to these men [A. R. Henry and Harmon Lindsay, General Conference leaders] who have been opposed to the work of God ever since the Minneapolis meeting.30

A few months earlier she had written him personally, "I have been shown that the people at large do not know that the heart of the work is being diseased and corrupted at Battle Creek."31 In an 1897 letter she said, “The President of the General Conference ... went directly contrary to the cautions and warnings given him” concerning the 1888 aftermath.32

(13) The writer of the following is one of our most respected historians:

Ellen White presented the sublime beauty of Jesus Christ and then, in stark contrast, the evidence that leadership, laity, institutions, conferences, mission fields, and the church as a whole, were desperately in need of reformation. Over and over she stressed that "not a few, but many" (emphasis hers) have been losing their spiritual zeal and turning away from the light.... Leaders in Battle Creek have turned their backs to the Lord; many church members also have rejected His lordship and chosen Baal's instead. Conference presidents are behaving like medieval bishops, while "whole conferences" and "every institution" are being perverted with the same principles. Some leaders actually "boast" that they will not follow the testimonies. A "strange blindness!"has come upon the General Conference president so that even he is acting contrary to the light. So serious is the situation at the publishing house in Battle Creek that "all heaven is indignant." Indeed, the Lord "has a controversy with His people."33

(14) In 1891 the General Conference virtually exiled her to Australia, thus ensuring the final defeat of the "beginning" of the latter rain and the loud cry. She had no light from the Lord that she should go. In 1896 she wrote plaintively to the General Conference president:

The Lord was not in our leaving America. He did not reveal that it was His will that I should leave Battle Creek The Lord did not plan this, but He let you all move after your own imaginings. The Lord would have had [us] ... remain in America. We were needed at the heart of the work, and had your spiritual perception discerned the true situation, you would never have consented to the movement made.... There was so great a willingness to have us leave, that the Lord permitted this thing to take place. Those who were weary of the testimonies borne were left without the persons who bore them. Our separation from Battle Creek was to let men have their own will and way.... Had you stood in the right position the move would not have been made at that time. The Lord would have worked for Australia by other means, and a strong influence would have been held at Battle Creek, the great heart of the work.... It was not the Lord who devised this matter. ... When we left, relief was felt by many, but not so much by yourself, and the Lord was displeased, for He had set us to stand at the wheels of the moving machinery at Battle Creek.34

(15) Shortly after she was sent to Australia, E.J. Waggoner was packed off to England. According to Ellen White, there is evidence that this was also in the nature of an exile.35

(16) She finally returned to her homeland to attend the 1901 General Conference. She called for reformation, revival, and reorganization. The reorganization took place, and on the surface a reformation and revival seemed to be under way. But she was forced later to declare that the latter was not deep and thorough. On January 5,1903, she wrote her poignant "What Might Have Been," lamenting in "an agony of disappointment" that the spiritual revival/reformation "at the last General Conference" was only a dream, "not a reality."36

After the close of the session she wrote to Dr. Kellogg, “What a wonderful work could have been done for the vast company gathered in Battle Creek at the General Conference of 1901 ... but... the leaders closed and bolted the door against the Spirit's entrance."37

Whether "the leaders" she had in mind were Kellogg and his cohorts, or the total leadership including the General Conference, has been debated. But she wrote to a friend a few months later, indicating that the problem was indeed with the total leadership. At least it seems difficult to understand her in any other way:

The result of the last General Conference has been the greatest, the most terrible sorrow of my life. No change was made. The spirit that should have been brought into the whole work as the result of that meeting, was not brought in because men did not receive the testimonies of the Spirit of God. As they went to their several fields of labor, they did not walk in the light that the Lord had flashed upon their pathway, but carried into their work the wrong principles that had been prevailing in the work at Battle Creek.

The Lord has marked every movement made by the leading men in our institutions and conferences.38

A Question That Troubles Many Adventists

If the 1888 message was all that good, why did the two 1888 messengers lose their way? Was there error in the message that led them astray?

The safest way to answer is to let the lady speak. There was nothing wrong in their message itself:

If Satan can impress the mind and stir up the passions of those who claim to believe the truth, and ... get them to commit themselves to the wrong side, he has laid his plans to lead them on a long journey.... There seems to be no other course for them except to go on, believing they are right in their bitterness of feeling toward their brethren [Jones and Waggoner]. Will the Lord's messenger bear the pressure brought against him? If so, it is because God bids him stand in His strength and vindicate the truth that he is sent of God....

There has been a determined effort to make of no effect the message God has sent.... 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? 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.39

But why should the messengers "fall under temptation"? We must face reality: their losing their way was largely our fault, "ours" who constitute the body. For some important reason the Lord permitted the two to fail in their trial. Speaking of their opposers, she said:

To be suspicious, watching for a chance and greedily seizing upon it to prove that those brethren ... are not sound in the faith. There is danger that this course of action will produce the very result assumed; and to a great degree the guilt will rest upon those who are watching for evil.40

The same sad process worked in Dr. Kellogg's heart, weakening him spiritually so that he fell under temptations that came later.41 Satan had a field day. After leading “us" "to a great degree" to "produce" Jones and Waggoner's stumbling, he has now employed that very tragedy to induce us over a century later to suspect their message to be an insidious evil.42 This is one of the most skillful movements ever devised in history: the actual "beginning" of the latter rain and the loud cry must now be feared as dangerous!

But Ellen White made it very clear that this position is not only a minor historical error, but it is "a fatal delusion":

Some of our brethren ... are full of jealousy and evil surmising, and are ever ready to show in just what way they differ with Elder Jones or Waggoner. The same spirit that was manifested in the past manifests itself at every opportunity [this is after the confessions].... It is quite possible that Elder Jones or Waggoner may be overthrown by the temptations of the enemy; but if they should be, this would not prove that they had no message from God.... 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.43

Astounding as it may seem, this spirit of enmity was the same that moved the Duke of Alva and others to oppose the Protestants in an earlier age. Ellen White plainly called it "persecution,” and compared its spirit to that of the Papacy:

You have thought you could see inconsistencies in A.T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner.... It is the work of Satan to cause alienation. He knows that it will separate brethren from one another, and more than this, separate them from God... A fierce and determined spirit... will place the brother in a position that hurts his influence.... Upon whom does the hurt come? Upon the Son of the infinite God....

The hatred of evil against good exists as surely now as in the days of Christ when the multitudes cried, "Away with him!"... Cease to war against those of your own faith.... The first thing recorded in Scripture history after the fall was the persecution of Abel. And the last thing in Scripture prophecy is the persecution against those who refuse to receive the mark of the beast. We should be the last people on the earth to indulge in the slightest degree the spirit of persecution against those who are bearing the message of God to the world. This is the most terrible feature of unchristlikeness that has manifested itself among us since the Minneapolis meeting.44

I have been shown that [the Minneapolis opposition] was the same ruling spirit that was revealed in the condemnation of Christ. When the Papists were in controversy with men who took their stand on the Bible for proof of doctrines they considered it a matter that only death could settle. I could see a similar spirit cherished in the hearts of our brethren, and I would not give room to it for an hour.45

Martin Luther had it easy compared to our 1888 messengers. The pope's fulminations meant nothing to him so long as he could turn to Daniel 7 and recognize the papacy as "the little horn." But Jones and Waggoner had firm faith that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the true remnant church, the last among the "seven golden candlesticks." How could they understand this phenomenal enmity against the message of Christ's much more abounding grace? The strain was too much for their human nature to bear; evidence indicates that Jones lost the true balance of his mind.46

The Story of Christ's Unrequited Love

The true story of 1888 is one of deep-hearted unbelief as serious as that of the Jews who rejected Christ long ago.47 But there is good news in the story. "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable."48

Even if His people are not faithful, He must remain faithful. He must await the coming of a generation who will humble their hearts and believe Him. Christ has not abandoned Laodicea; He is still standing outside the door, knocking. Although His presence is not inside, it is a vast encouragement that He still wants in!

The story is most clearly seen as unrequited love. The language in Revelation 3:20 is a direct quotation from the Greek of the Septuagint Song of Solomon 5:2-6 where Christ ties in the experience of the remnant church with that "song" of the Disappointed Lover. He knocks at the gate but is selfishly denied entry by the one who is the only true object of His love. "She" was foolish not to let Him in when He knocked over a century ago; but she is honest in heart, and she must and will come to her time of repentance.

Thank God that Satan's victory was not total! The finishing of the gospel commission has been long delayed, but confrontation with truth gives us a new opportunity for repentance. The full story may humble our pride, but it will strengthen our faith.49

The honor and vindication of Christ require our repentance. The evidence indicates that the Lord gives a given generation only one chance to accept the precious gift of the latter rain, as He gave the generation of Israelites coming out of Egypt only one chance (Kadesh-Barnea) to enter their Promised Land. In both instances, rebellious unbelief conclusively delayed the work of God.

The Lord's servant has questioned "whether genuine rebellion is ever curable."50 History seems to say that repentance must be effected by a new generation, unless this one chooses to repent.

Before the new generation could enter Canaan under Joshua, they had to have their Book of Deuteronomy. They must thoroughly understand the preceding generation's rebellion and repent of it in a corporate sense. Only a repentant people could enter Canaan. It was not they who had rebelled at Kadesh-Barnea (they were too young); but they had to repent of their parents' rebellion, for Moses told them repeatedly that they were the ones who had rebelled. It doesn't make sense unless you see the corporate relationship.

Likewise, before modern Israel can again receive the outpouring of the latter rain and proclaim the loud cry message, they must thoroughly understand the truth of a previous generation's rejection of the same blessing they now seek—our new Deuteronomy experience. This is corporate and denominational repentance.

The Secret of the 1888 Opposition

The one who stands back in the shadows of the 1888 opposition is, of course, the great dragon of Revelation 12:17. This brings to view his last battle in the great controversy. His opposition from within centers on "the testimony of Jesus Christ, “the Spirit of Prophecy.51 From without, it's on the commandments of God.

Seventh-day Adventists have always recognized that "the spirit of prophecy" given to the apostolic church has been manifested in the ministry of Ellen White.52 The unreasonable, persistent opposition against her for all these years marks its source as from that “dragon."This reached a climax in our 1888 experience. The full reality of what she wrote must be appreciated (we quote several statements herewith):

"Again and again did I bear my testimony to those assembled [at Minneapolis] but that testimony was not received." "The Lord had [a blessing] for us at Minneapolis ... but there was no reception. Some received the light for the people and rejoiced in it. Then there were others that stood right back, and their position has given confidence to others to talk unbelief.""Leading men are giving a mold to the work that will result in a loss of many souls." "The Spirit of God has been present in power among His people, but it could not be bestowed upon them, because they did not open their hearts to receive it." "Those in responsible positions in Battle Creek... have rejected light.... They have interposed themselves between the heaven-sent light and the people."53

The special message the Lord Jesus addresses us (Revelation 3:14-21) indicates it is related to our history.54 The import of the original escaped the translators: "You say, I am rich and I have been enriched." The original language pinpoints our claims in our denominational history. We have been enriched by an acceptance of the message that was to illuminate the earth with glory and prepare that generation for translation! Yet no one has been translated, and the loud cry has not yet lighted the earth. This means either one of two things: the message was not what Ellen White said it was, or our acceptance of it was not what we have supposed it was.

Understanding Brings Hope For the Future

Only if we reject truth can good news become bad news. We can surrender all false ideas in exchange for truth like we exchange money for something we "buy." Maybe that's why the Lord says, "Buy of Me gold ... and white raiment."

If we will listen to Christ's voice and believe what He says, the long-awaited blessings of the latter rain and the loud cry can become reality in this generation. The power was inherent in the objective message itself, and thank God, we can recover it.

Doesn't the hungry world desperately need the spiritual food entrusted to us a century ago?

Notes:

1. 1 Corinthians 1:29.
2. E. G White, Re we w and Herald, September 16,1902.
3. John and Elizabeth Sherrill, The Hiding Place (Chosen Books).
4. Edith Hamilton in Saturday Evening Post, September 27,1958.
5. Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 91,97; 1896.
6. Early Writings, p. 271.
7. Review and Herald, March 18, May 27,1890; MS 15,1888; Letter 77, January 9,1893 [1126].
8. Cf. MS 24,1888; Selected Messages, Book Three, p. 174; Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 472; Letters 13,51 A, 1895 (A. V. Olson, Through Crisis to Victory, pp. 119,124).
9. Letter B21, 1888 [86].
10. MS9, 1888.
11. MS 15,1888.
12. C.C.McReynolds,D. File 189, Ellen G. White Estate.
13. R.T. Nash,"Eyewitness Report of the 1888 General Conference."
14. W. W. Prescott, General Conference Bulletin, 1901, p. 321.
15. A.G. Daniells, Christ Our Righteousness, p.47; 1926.
16. A. W. Spalding, Origin and History of Seventh-day Adventists, Vol. 2, pp. 295,297.
17. A.T. Jones, General Conference Bulletin, 1893, p. 183.
18. Letter 184,1901; Evangelism, p. 696; cf. "a long journey," Letter 019d, 1892 [1023].
19. Selected Messages, Book One, pp. 234,235; 1896.
20. Letter 043a, 1890 [752,753].
21. MS 30,1889 [360].
22. Letters C-14,1889 [314,320], S24, 1892 [1043].
23. Review and Herald, March 11,18,1890.
24. Adventist Review, October 30,1986.
25. Letter U3,1889 [252].
26. Letter 77,1893 [1122,1125].
27. Letter B2a, November 5,1892 [1067,1069]. Many statements Ellen White made subsequent to 1892 confirm that her expression "not one" is the truth.
28. General Conference Bulletin, p. 23.
29. Ibid., p. 205.
30. Letter to A. O.Tait, August 27,1896 [1608].
31. Letter, May 31,1896 [1568].
32. Letter E51,1897.
33. Mervyn Maxwell, Tell It to the World, pp. 246,247.
34. Letter 127,1896 [1622-1624].
35. W. C. White letter to A. G. Daniells, May 30,1902.
36. Cf. Testimonies, Vol. 8, pp. 104-106.
37. Letter, August 5,1902.
38. Letter to Judge Jesse Arthur, January 15,1903.
39. Letter 019d, 1892 [1022-1025].
40. Letter January 9,1893 (General Conference Bulletin, 1893, pp. 419-421 [1127]).
41. Letter B21,1888 [100-102]; MS 13,1901.
42. Cf. George Knight, From 1888 to Apostasy, passim (Review and Herald, 1987).
43. Letter S24,1892 [1042-1045].
44. Letter 25b, 1892 [1012,1013].See also MSI 3,1889 [516,517].
45. MS 13,1889 [516].
46. Letter 104,1911.
47. Cf. MS 9, 1888, Through Crisis to Victory, p. 292; MS 15,1888, ibid., pp. 297,300; MS 13,1889; Review and Herald, March 4, 11, August 26,1890; April 11,18,1893; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 64,75-80, etc.
48. Romans 11:29.
49. It is a humbling experience to read the full collection of Ellen White's writings concerning 1888, in the four volumes of 1821 pages.
50. Selected Messages, Book Two, p. 393.
51. Verse 17, last part; Revelation 19:10.
52. See 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:8-12.
53. See the Appendix of Through Crisis to Victory 1888-1901 for Ellen White's Minneapolis sermons; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 63-81,89-98; Selected Messages, Book One, pp. 234,235; ibid, Book Three, pp. 163-189.
54. Revelation 3:14-17.