Recognized by Contemporaries

Contemporaries are of three kinds—those interested in the subject who approve or accept it, those interested in the subject who disapprove and reject it, and those not interested but who may accept or reject it. Mrs. E. G. White had all three kinds of contemporaries during the seventy years of her ministry, and it is only reasonable that we should get all three kinds of reactions or recognition.BHP 136.3

Now for a very short life and for a very short period of work, it might be difficult to use the testimony of contemporaries. But in a long life of service and in such an abundance of material as that which came from her pen, there seems to be no lack of evidence upon which to base a judgment.BHP 137.1

Those Interested Who Approved.—If I wanted to know something about W. H. Branson, former president of the General Conference, it is only reasonable that I would go to his very closest associates and to his most intimate friends. I suggest that they should be able to make an appraisal of him and his work. If I would know the facts about Ellen G. White I would certainly not think of going to D. M. Canright or any other man who has much to say against Ellen G. White. I would not go to her avowed opponents to get my first and most intimate appraisal of Ellen G. White. Would you? Would that be fair?BHP 137.2

It is only reasonable that we should go to a man’s friends with whom he has been most closely associated, to those who know him best and most intimately. For this reason I want to begin with that group of people—the friends, those who knew Ellen G. White best and worked most closely with her.BHP 137.3

The president of the General Conference in 1883 was George I. Butler, who stood in a unique relationship ship between Mrs. White and the people. He had very intimate relationships with both God’s people and God’s messenger, and we shall let him speak for those who approved of her call and work. He knew whereof he spoke when he said:BHP 137.4

“We believe these visions because the Bible teaches them. We use the rules given in that holy book and are forced to the conclusion that these manifestations are the work of the Spirit of God. Instead of our setting up these visions above and outside of the Scriptures as another rule of authority, as our opponents pretend, we claim that none can really take the Bible and fairly apply its teachings without accepting these visions as from God. The Bible is the supreme authority in deciding this as well as other questions. When it tells us to ‘try the spirits,’ to ‘prove all things,’ and ‘hold fast that which is good’ it is our duty to do this. We find by so doing that these visions harmonize perfectly with the Scripture, and that they in no case contradict themselves or the Bible. They everywhere teach the purest doctrine, and even their bitterest enemies admit that a person will be saved if he will obey them.BHP 138.1

“We have tested them as a people for nearly a quarter of a century, and we find we prosper spiritually when we heed them, and suffer a great loss when we neglect them. We have found their guidance to be our safety. They never have led us into fanaticism in a single instance, but they have ever rebuked fanatical and unreasonable men. They everywhere direct us to the Scriptures as the great source of true instruction, and to the example of Jesus Christ as the true pattern. They never claim to be given to take the place of the Bible, but simply to be a manifestation of one of those spiritual gifts set in the church by its divine Lord, and as such, should have their proper weight.BHP 138.2

“We admit that their influence upon S. D. Adventists during their past history has been weighty, but it has always been for good, and always had a tendency to make us a better people. Having been in exercise for so many years among us, we are certainly prepared to judge by this time in regard to the nature of their teachings.”—The Review and Herald, June 9, 1874.BHP 139.1

J. N. Loughborough, a close associate, testifies:BHP 139.2

“It is now over fifty-eight years since the writer first saw Mrs. E. G. White in prophetic vision. During these years many prophetic statements have been made by her relative to things that would take place. Some of these predictions relate to events already fulfilled, and some are in process of fulfillment, while others are still future. As to those relating to the past or present events, I know not of a single instance of failure.”—The Prophetic Gift in the Gospel Church, p. 72.BHP 139.3

“We find that the continual instruction given through Mrs. White has been in the line of unity and harmony, admonishing to ‘counsel together’ and ‘press together,’ to be in union with Christ, thus insuring true fellowship and union with one another.”—Ibid., p. 99.BHP 139.4

The testimony of one who was in a strategic point for observation should be most helpful. Uriah Smith, for many years the editor of the church paper, The Review and Herald, in constant touch with Mrs. White and her work, and sometimes the recipient of her testimonies and counsels, should be able to judge her work by the fruit or results of that work.BHP 139.5

“The Bible, and the Bible alone, ‘The Bible in its purity,’ ‘The Bible a sufficient and only reliable rule of life,’ etc., etc., is now the great cry of those who are giving vent to their opposition to the visions, and are working with their might to prejudice others against them. This course reminds us of the low tricks and maneuvers resorted to by political demagogues to gain their nefarious ends…. Such are unworthy weapons in the hands of Christians; yet some, we are sorry to say, who profess that name, do not hesitate to use them.BHP 139.6

“The Protestant principle, of ‘The Bible and the Bible alone,’ is of itself good and true; and we stand upon it as firmly as any one can; but when re-iterated in connection with outspoken denunciations of the visions, it has a specious appearance for evil. So used it contains a covert insinuation, most effectually calculated to warp the judgment of the unguarded, that to believe the visions is to leave the Bible, and to cling to the Bible, is to discard the visions….BHP 140.1

“1. When we claim to stand on the Bible and the Bible alone, we bind ourselves to receive, unequivocally and fully, all that the Bible teaches. This being a self-evident proposition, we pass on to inquire what the Bible teaches concerning the outpouring of the Spirit, its operations, the gift of prophecy, visions, etc. …BHP 140.2

“In view of all these considerations, what shall we conclude? Those who reject these manifestations, do so not only without evidence, but against all evidence. Those who profess to stand on the Bible and the Bible alone are bound to receive what the Bible tells them will exist, and commands them to respect.BHP 140.3

“One illustration may help to set this matter in a still clearer light. Suppose we are about to start upon a voyage. The owner of the vessel gives us a book of directions, telling us that it contains instructions sufficient for our whole journey, and that if we will heed them, we shall reach in safety our port of destination. Setting sail we open our book to learn its contents. We find that its author lays down general principles to govern us in our voyage, and instructs us as far as practicable, touching the various contingencies that may arise, till the end; but he also tells us that the latter part of our journey will be especially perilous; that the features of the coast are ever changing by reason of quicksands and tempests; ‘but for this part of the journey,’ says he, ‘I have provided you a pilot, who will meet you, and give you such directions as the surrounding circumstances and dangers may require; and to him you must give heed.’ With these directions we reach the perilous time specified, and the pilot, according to promise, appears. But some of the crew, as he offers his services, rise up against him. ‘We have the original book of directions,’ say they, ‘and that is enough for us. We stand upon that, and that alone; we want nothing of you.’ Who now heed that original book of directions? those who reject the pilot, or those who receive him, as that book instructs them? Judge ye.BHP 140.4

“But some, through lack of perception, or lack of principle, or the ebullitions of an unconquerable prejudice, one, or all combined, may meet us at this point like this: ‘Then you would have us take sister White as our pilot, would you?’ It is to forestall any efforts in this direction, that this sentence is penned. We say no such thing. What we do say is distinctly this: that the gifts of the Spirit are given for our pilot through these perilous times, and wherever and in whomsoever we find genuine manifestations of these, we are bound to respect them, nor can we do otherwise without in so far rejecting the word of God, which directs us to receive them. Who now stand upon the Bible, and the Bible alone?”—“Do We Discard the Bible by Endorsing the Visions?” in The Review and Herald, January 13, 1863.BHP 141.1

Those Interested Who Disapproved.—One of Mrs. White’s most severe and unrelenting critics was D. M. Can right, one-time preacher for the Seventh-day Adventist people. Look at Canright’s attitude toward Mrs. White from three angles: first, as a Seventh-day Adventist; second, as an opposer of the messages; finally as an old man, too proud to admit a mistake, too weak to take his stand for the truth.BHP 142.1

We wish, therefore, to give you the story of D. M. Canright, and show how he came to disagree with the Spirit of prophecy and with the Advent Movement. D. M. Canright was a very capable man. He had remarkable talents. He was a very fine speaker. He was a keen debater. He was one who could bring fear and trembling into any opponent; and then he began to think himself to be very good, an expert in his field, too good for such a small denomination. Now, friends, it is dangerous for a man to think highly of himself and of his qualifications and ability, for sometimes it turns his head and causes him to feel a bit superior. We call it an inflated ego.BHP 142.2

D. M. Canright’s failure was due to the fact that he thought himself too big and too good for such a little denomination. And when the brethren did not accept him according to his own estimate of himself, he turned against the denomination and began to write against this people.BHP 142.3

But let us first go back to the time when D. M. Canright was an interested friend of the movement, and read a few words from his pen. In 1885, just two years before he left the Seventh-day Adventist Church, he wrote in the Review and Herald for all to read the following words concerning Ellen G. White’s books:BHP 142.4

“While I have carefully read the first, second, and third volumes of ‘Spirit of Prophecy,’ heaven has seemed very near to me. If the Spirit of God does not speak to us in these writings, then I should despair of ever discerning it. Oh, how precious the dear Saviour looks! How infinitely valuable the salvation of one soul! How hateful and inexcusable sin appears! God is good, and the sweetest thing on this earth is to love and serve Him.”—Jan. 6, 1885, p. 16.BHP 143.1

“I have read many books, but never one which has interested me so intensely and impressed me so profoundly as Vol. IV. of ‘The Great Controversy,’ by Sr. White. Perhaps it may be partly because I see things differently; but I am sure that is not wholly the reason. The historical part is good, but that which was of the most intense interest to me, was the last part, beginning with the ‘Origin of Evil.’ The ideas concerning the nature and attributes of God, the character of Christ, and the rebellion of Lucifer in heaven, carry with them their own proof of inspiration. They moved the depths of my soul as nothing else ever did. I feel that I have a new and higher conception of the goodness and forbearance of God, the awful wickedness of Satan, and the tender love of Christ. I wish everybody could read it whether of our people or not. Get it, brethren, and read it carefully.”—Ibid., p. 9.BHP 143.2

In 1877, ten years before he finally turned his back on the Adventist Church and Ellen G. White, he wrote:BHP 143.3

“As to the Christian character of Sr. White, I beg leave to say that I think I know something about it. I have been acquainted with Sr. White for eighteen years, more than half the history of our people. I have been in their family time and again, sometimes weeks at a time. They have been in our house and family many times. I have traveled with them almost everywhere; have been with them in private and in public, in meeting and out of meeting, and have had the very best chances to know something of the life, character, and spirit of Bro. and Sr. White. As a minister, I have had to deal with all kinds of persons, and all kinds of character, till I think I can judge something of what a person is, at least after years of intimate acquaintance.BHP 144.1

“I know Sr. White to be an unassuming, modest, kindhearted, noble woman. These traits in her character are not simply put on and cultivated, but they spring gracefully and easily from her natural disposition. She is not self-conceited, self-righteous, and self-important, as fanatics always are. I have frequently come in contact with fanatical persons, and I have always found them to be full of pretentions, full of pride, ready to give their opinion, boastful of their holiness, etc. But I have ever found Sr. White the reverse of all this. Any one, the poorest and the humblest, can go to her freely for advice and comfort without being repulsed. She is ever looking after the needy, the destitute, and the suffering, providing for them, and pleading their cause. I have never formed an acquaintance with any persons who so constantly have the fear of God before them.”—The Review and Herald, April 26, 1877, p. 132.BHP 144.2

It is strange how quickly the mental machinery of some people can go into reverse. We believe D. M. Canright to have been an honest man and to have meant what he said, at least when he was saying it.BHP 144.3

Either he told the truth or he told lies. Now read some words written some time later by the same man and judge for yourself which Canright was telling the truth:BHP 145.1

“I have been well acquainted with Mrs. White for nearly thirty years; have been in her family for weeks at a time, and she has often been in my family. I am familiar with all her work and all her books. I am satisfied that the whole thing is a delusion. Her visions have been a constant source of quarrels and divisions among themselves. Many of their ablest men, and thousands of others, have left them on this account. There is a strong anti-vision party now….BHP 145.2

“Mrs. White’s trances are simply the result of disease and religious excitement—hysteria. At the age of nine she received a blow upon her head which broke her nose and nearly killed her. It shattered her nervous system beyond recovery, and affected her mind to melancholy and even to insanity. She was weakly, sickly, often fainted, and did not expect to live. In this condition she was carried away with the Millerite fanaticism, and went into trances with others. All this she tells herself, in Spiritual Gifts, Volume II, pages 7-48….BHP 145.3

“What harm does she do? Much every way. She teaches a false doctrine, writes a new Bible, leads her people to be narrow, clannish, and bigoted, to oppose the work of all other churches and needed Sunday and temperance laws. She has divided families, broken up churches, driven some to infidelity and others into despair. It leads her advocates to deceive. Being afraid that it will hurt them if it is known in what light they really hold her visions, they deny that it is a matter of importance with them. This is false and deceptive, for they hold her visions to be as sacred as the Bible. To defend her mistakes and errors, both she and her apologists have to deny the plainest facts and resort to untruthful statements. Fear of her authority compels many to profess faith in her when they have none, and thus become hypocrites.”—D. M. Canright, “No. 4, Mrs. White and Her Visions,” in Adventism Refuted in a Nutshell (1889), pp. 2-7.BHP 145.4

Many years went by, and D. M. Canright became the pastor emeritus of the Berean Baptist church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1919 he published a book, Life of Mrs. E. G. White, in which he took one full page to make clear his “present standing“:BHP 146.1

“Since I withdrew from the Adventists, over thirty years ago, they have continued to report that I have regretted leaving them, have tried to get back again, have repudiated my book which I wrote and have confessed that I am now a lost man. There has never been a word of truth in any of these reports. I expect them to report that I recanted on my deathbed. All this is done to hinder the influence of my books. I now reaffirm all that I have written in my books and tracts against that doctrine.BHP 146.2

“Several Adventist ministers have rendered valuable aid in preparing these pages. Once they were believers in Mrs. White’s divine inspiration, but plain facts finally compelled them to renounce faith in her dreams.”—Page 15.BHP 146.3

We come now to the question, Did D. M. Canright ever show any signs of regret for his own course of action? Did he ever indicate that he was sorry for the active and open warfare he conducted against Ellen G. White? In his book published in 1919 he declared that he had not. But in 1915 when Mrs. White rested in her casket in Battle Creek, after the funeral service was ended the people passed quietly by to pay a final tribute to a great, noble, but humble servant of God, and D. M. Canright was among them. He and his brother passed by once, and then came by a second time. He rested his hand upon the side of the casket, and with warm tears trickling down his cheeks, he said, “There is a noble Christian woman gone.”—W. A. Spicer, The Spirit of Prophecy in the Advent Movement, p. 127.BHP 146.4

This statement is the closest we have to anything that might indicate a regret. No, he never relented; he never recanted from his strong opposition. His chief antagonism was against Ellen G. White. But his nephew, at a Lynwood, California, camp meeting in June, 1953, gave a very interesting side light into D. M. Canright’s own thinking during the years after he left the church.BHP 147.1

This nephew, who at one time had lived in D. M. Canright’s home, and at whose home D. M. Canright used to visit, was able to give firsthand information, which is passed on to you because of the interest it has in connection with this story. At one time a Methodist minister wanted to challenge a Seventh-day Adventist minister to debate regarding the Sabbath. He thought if he could only get to D. M. Canright, he certainly could get the material he needed, and then he would squash that Adventist minister with D. M. Canright’s own thunder.BHP 147.2

So he went to D. M. Canright’s home and said, “I have a debate coming up with a Seventh-day Adventist minister on the question of the Sabbath. I thought you would certainly be the man to give me all the material I need to squash him. Now here I am. I can spend three days!” D. M. Canright, in the presence of his nephew, told the Methodist minister, “Brother, I advise you not to debate with the Adventists on the Sabbath. They have all the facts on their side of the question!” It did not take him three days to tell that man that he had better be careful in a debate on the Sabbath. No, it does not take three days to give anyone the facts of church history regarding the Sabbath or Sunday.BHP 147.3

D. M. Canright, we are informed, frequently expressed the thought that Adventists were right in their general doctrines and teachings of the church. He disagreed primarily on the question of visions, revelations, and the relation of Ellen G. White to the church and the Bible.BHP 148.1

Those Disinterested Who Approved.—The last group of contemporaries to speak their mind concerning Ellen G. White are those non-Adventists who were neither friend nor foe, but merely onlookers or bystanders, who observed much but said little. They saw her as a woman, a neighbor, a citizen, a busy worker going here and there. They had no special reason for saying anything either good or bad about her.BHP 148.2

Yet come with me to Battle Creek, where Ellen G. White lived for many years. The town leaders were preparing for a big mass meeting. They were anxious to make a good impression and to reach a certain objective in something of interest to all the citizens of Battle Creek. They wanted a public speaker with persuasive power, a gift of oratory, and a personality that would draw and hold the crowds.BHP 148.3

To whom did they turn? None other than one of their own citizens in the West End—Ellen G. White. Mayor Austin, W. H. Skinner, cashier of the First National Bank, and C. C. Peavey were the committee on arrangements. They invited Mrs. White because they knew her and her work. Mrs. White, in writing of that occasion, says:BHP 149.1

“I spoke in the mammoth tent, Sunday evening, July 1 [1877], upon the subject of Christian Temperance. God helped me that evening; and although I spoke ninety minutes, the crowd of fully five thousand persons listened in almost breathless silence.”—Testimonies for the Church 4:275.BHP 149.2

The following year (1878) a book was published entitled American Biographical History of Eminent and Self-Made Men of the State of Michigan, Third Congressional District. The authors of this book evidently observed and thought independently relative to Mrs. White:BHP 149.3

“Mrs. White is a woman of singularly well-balanced mental organization. Benevolence, spirituality, conscientiousness, and ideality are the predominating traits. Her personal qualities are such to win for her the warmest friendship of all with whom she comes in contact, and to inspire them with the utmost confidence…. Notwithstanding her many years of public labor, she has retained all the simplicity and honesty which characterized her early life.BHP 149.4

“As a speaker, Mrs. White is one of the most successful of the few ladies who have become noteworthy as lecturers, in this country, during the last twenty years. Constant use has so strengthened her vocal organs as to give her voice rare depth and power. Her clearness and strength of articulation are so great that, when speaking in the open air, she has frequently been distinctly heard at the distance of a mile. Her language, though simple, is always forcible and elegant. When inspired with her subject, she is often marvelously eloquent, holding the largest audiences spellbound for hours without a sign of impatience or weariness.BHP 150.1

“The subject matter of her discourses is always of a practical character, bearing chiefly on fireside duties, the religious education of children, temperance, and kindred topics. On revival occasions, she is always the most effective speaker. She has frequently spoken to immense audiences, in the large cities, on her favorite themes, and has always been received with great favor.”—Page 108.BHP 150.2

That is a wonderful testimony. Very few people can have such a testimony borne concerning them and their work.BHP 150.3

D. M. Canright speaks of Ellen G. White as a sickly person, rather weak and frail; but if she had a voice that could be heard distinctly at the distance of a mile, without a public-address system, she had something that very few speakers have today.BHP 150.4

We like to think of this testimonial in the book as coming from those who had no special interest in her, who made no special claims for her, but who simply knew her as a public speaker, one of the most effective speakers of the day.BHP 150.5