XXXI - 6 (98)


what of the night?”

"The hour has come, the hour is striking and striking at you,
the hour and the end!" Eze. 7:6 (Moffatt)

(Part II)

                                                                                                    Page 2

An Alonzo T. Jones Letter

                                                                                                    Page 5

Editor's Preface

With this issue of WWN we conclude the series on the Eternal Verities. The discussion of the Atonement centers on the unique perception in Adventism of the significance of the typical Day of Atonement as assigned by God in the Hebrew sacrificial system. The reason why the pioneers of Adventism believed that the atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month was the only atonement, and that no atonement was involved with Calvary is discussed. Inasmuch as the "new" theology permeating the thinking in Adventism today rejects the atonement involving the final ministry of Christ as High Priest in the sanctuary above, and centers the atonement emphasis at the Cross, we do well to seek to understand just what the Scriptures reveal about the final atonement. The implications and demands implied in a final atonement have been the basis of various aberrant movements in our history. Either we jettison the sanctuary teaching with its implications, or we find an answer. In the process there will be things to learn and things to unlearn.

We had intended to continue our discussion of the break-a-way churches of a liberal hue from the main Seventh-day Adventist body, as well as begin a discussion of further developments in the dialogue involving Evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Hopefully with the next issue we can realize our intentions. During this past week, as our Librarian was cataloging various manuscripts and letters from an acquisition we had received previously, she discovered a letter written by Alonzo T. Jones which we have reproduced in its entirety in this issue. Inasmuch as the letter gives Jones' perception of events both prior to and following 1888, extending to the crisis involving Kellogg, any abridgment of the letter was out of the question. It was the whole letter or none at all. Jones was not hesitant to name names, and this is what gives this letter its importance. The two personal testimonies which he describes as to how both he and E. J. Waggoner thought and how they arrived at their positions independently of the other, gives pause for thought and evaluation of the message they brought as "messengers of the Lord."

Page 2


The concept of a final atonement is based in the typology of the sanctuary services associated with the tenth day of the seventh month - Yom Kippur. In the Old Testament this day is noted as the Day of Atonements, plural. Leviticus 23:27 reads - "On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonements." Actually, only one atonement was made on this day, an atonement for cleansing (Lev. 16:30).

The Septuagint in translating Leviticus 23:27 uses the singular, exilasomoV, for the Hebrew plural, which adds support to the position that the majestic plural was used to designate the typical Day of Atonement. This being the case, then the atonement of the tenth day of the seventh month was considered of greater significance than the atonement ministered by the common priests in the daily sin ofterings brought to the sanctuary.

This background also helps one to understand why our pioneers in their writings placed the emphasis as they did on the antitypical Day of Atonement, even denying that an atonement was ever made on Calvary. (See 0. R. L. Crosier, The Sanctuary, Day Star Extra, 1846; Reproduced in Facsimiles of the Two Earliest S. D.A. Periodicals). With the change of emphasis today in mainline Adventism, placing the atonement of the Cross as the one atonement, and the down-play of the final atonement, even to the point of denial, there needs to be a rebalancing of the study of the atonement which reflects the whole of Scripture. If it requires a learning process, or an unlearning process, so let it be. (See Testimonies to Ministers, p.30) A thoughtful rereading of Leviticus 16 would so indicate such a process.

Traditionally, we have perceived that the High Priest went only once into the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. A careful study of Leviticus 16 indicates that he entered three times on that day. First the High Priest took in a censer "full of burning coals from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense" (v.12). Next, he was instructed to take "the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat" (v.14). Finally, he was to kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail" (v.15).

Traditionally, we have pictured the ministry of Jesus in the Most Holy Place as a High Priest standing before the Ark of the Covenant, robed in the pontifical attire like that worn by the typical high priest. The clothing worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement in the typical services are described as "the holy linen coat" with "linen breeches upon his flesh," and "girded with a linen girdle," and wearing "the linen mitre." These are declared to be the "holy garments" (v.4). Conforming to the traditional concept, we have lost much in our perception of the vision of Ezekiel 9. Three times in the vision given to Ezekiel, the One with the "writer's inkhorn by his side" is described as "clothed in linen" (vs. 2, 3, 11). This links the sealing as associated with the work of Heaven in connection with the antitypical Day of Atonement.

Traditionally, we have literalized the offering of the bullock as an atonement made by the High Priest for his immediate family, failing to consider that the High Priest typified the coming great High Priest in all aspects of the services on the typical day. In fact, the introduction in the book of Hebrews to the sanctuary typology is based on this concept of the house of Moses, of which Aaron was High Priest, and the house of Christ, of which He Himself is the High Priest. (See Heb. 3:1-6) The contrast of the two houses is prefaced with the admonition - "Consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus" (v.1). As the bullock was provided by the High Priest, so Christ offered Himself, as well as being the "Lord's goat" taken from the congregation (Deut, 18:15, 18), as the offering of God. For the bullock no confession was made, and its blood was taken first into the most holy place following the pouring of the incense upon the coals of fire. While in the Old Testament, the ministry of the sanctuary was limited to the tribe of Levi, and the priesthood to the house of Aaron, the New Testament pictures the ones who believe in Jesus "as lively stones" "being built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood" even "a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people" (I Peter 2:5, 9). In its entirety, the new Israel was to be a kingdom of priests. This is the "house" of Christ, "whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end" (Heb. 3:6).

Traditionally, we have limited the ministry of Jesus as High Priest on the antitypical Day of Atonement and restricted it to the Most Holy Place. The type does not warrant such a conclusion. In the services as outlined in Leviticus 16, there is a progression beginning in the Most Holy (called "the holy"), and passing to the Holy Place (called "the tabernacle"), and then to the Altar of the Court, noted as "the altar before the Lord." [There is also implied movement in the vision of Ezekiel 9, from "the cherub, where upon He was" to the "threshold of the house" to give commands to those standing "beside the brazen altar," among whom was "the man clothed with linen"].

In the outline of the typical service of the Day of Atonement, it is stated that the atonement was necessary for two reasons: 1) "the uncleanness of the children of Israel" and 2) "because of their transgressions in all their sins" (Lev. 16:16). These reasons could be summarized as the record of sin, and the cause for the record of the sins - "their uncleanness." The record is kept in "books" (Daniel 7:10); the confession of those sins were recorded typically on the altars of the sanctuary (Leviticus 4). In the services of the typical Day of Atonements, the uncleanness is not noted as cleansed until the third phase, the cleansing at the brazen altar (16:19). For that phase, the blood of the

Page 3

bullock and the blood of the Lord's goat were mingled (v. 18). This gives some suggestion of how Heaven views the final atonement, and the magnitude of what God purposes to accomplish through the "Surety" of the better covenant.

How can this be related to the prophetic picture of Daniel 7? First, one must recognize a basic premise. Sin began with a covering cherub in the very presence of God (Eze. 28:14-15). The first point of reference for the final eradication of sin must be where sin began and the issue involved which sparked the rebellion. At this point, the statements of Scripture and the revelation found in the Writings must be combined. Man, created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), was to be only "a little while inferior to the angels" (Heb. 2:7, margin).

[The Greek of this verse is bracu ti. Thayer observes that here Paul "transfers to time what the LXX in Ps. 8:6 says of rank" (p.105.) In the context of this verse, the same wording is used of Jesus (2:9). In His condescension, time not rank was the factor. (See Heb. 1:4; Phil. 2:9)]

From the Writings we learn that "human beings were a new and distinct order" (Review & Herald, Feb. 11, 1902), and "designed to be a counterpart of God" (Review & Herald, June 18, 1895). Further, we are informed that "when God said to His Son, Let us make man in our image, Satan was jealous of Jesus. He wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man" (Spiritual Gifts, Vol.1, p. 17). This sparked the rebellion in Heaven. The whole angelic host became involved, and each made a decision.

It is with the angelic host that the scene of judgment in Daniel 7 begins. All are assembled. God who changes not desires that His original plan be activated. Will the angels of heaven accept the exaltation of the redeemed? The picture is far different now than when first suggested. The books are opened, and there is recorded the dark history of man's continual transgression and uncleanness. Will the angels consent that these who have sinned be placed above themselves who have never sinned? What plea can God make? Here the significance of the service of the Day of Atonement enters. First, Jesus who gave Himself, typified as the high priest who provided his own bullock, asks, "Did I give enough?" Across the minds of the angelic hosts races the recall of the agonies of Gethsemane and Calvary. Then God, who placed His co-Equal in the channel of human inheritance, and gave Him for the fallen race, asks, "Have I given enough?" The angels recall those hours of darkness when God Himself suffered in inexplicable anguish at the Cross. Yes, they assent, the purpose of God may proceed, and they will join in the final work for man.

Three angels go forth with the final call of the Everlasting Gospel, announcing first the setting in which it is being given - "The hour of the judgment of Him is come" (Lit.). Worship Him; "Be ye reconciled to God." Cease in rebellion; keep His commandments. The man "clothed in linen" completes His work, and returns to the Throne, declaring, "I have done as thou has commanded me" (Eze. 9:11). This is the second time He has uttered these words. Once before He prayed - "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do" (John 17:4). But this time instead of from the cross the cry, "It is finished," there will come from the temple of heaven, from the throne "a great voice" declaring, "It is done" (Rev. 16:17). In the symbolism of Daniel, the Son of man comes to the Ancient of days to receive His kingdom - His "house" for which He has given so much. The at-one-ment is completed. "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ" (Rev. 11:15).

While the "house" is not limited to the last generation, but includes all who have availed themselves of "the redemption in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24), there is a uniqueness in regard to the last generation which one dares not overlook. This distinction is clearly defined in Paul's discussion of the resurrection in I Corinthians 15. All the redeemed "shall be changed" (v.51). While those who have been corrupted by death, are raised to incorruption (afqarsia), those alive at the event put on immortality (aqanasia) (v.53). It is this latter word, which emphasizes the uniqueness of the final generation. It is used three times in the New Testament, all in the writings of Paul; twice in I Corinthians 15:53, and once in I Timothy 6:16. In this latter reference, it declares that "the King of kings and Lord of lords ... only hath immortality." It is evident that to the victors who do not taste death, God shares a unique part of Himself, they in reality become a "counterpart of God."

This then raises the question of when the commission of sin ceases. Those who go to the grave can by faith in the Surety, who is still interceding in the sanctuary above, claim the promise of victory (I Cor. 15:57). But what about those who are alive when the intercession of the One "clothed in linen" ceases? Sin will also have had to cease in their lives. When and how will this be realized?

[The book of Revelation is clear that there is a period of time between the cessation of the priestly ministry of Jesus Christ, and His coming as King of kings and Lord of lords. (15:8, 19:11)]

Seeking the answer to this question has been the basis of various aberrant movements within Adventism as well as divisions of thought resulting from the introduction of what is called "the new theology." One movement at the turn of the last century received encouragement from the preaching of A. F. Ballenger at the campmeetings of 1898.

He said - "You and I can afford to resist unto blood, striving against sin; but we cannot afford to sin. It is too late to sin in thought, word, or action; for it is time to receive the Holy Ghost in all of its fullness, - time to receive the seal of God." (Review & Herald, October 18,1898, p.671; emphasis his) He couched his message in the motif of the typical Day of Atonement. In another report on a campmeet-

Page 4

ing in Indiana, Ballenger wrote:

When I am conscious that I am not clean, I cannot preach with power, neither can I preach with "unwonted power" when I know my people are not clean. Cleanse the Seventh-day Adventist Church of all uncleanness, I will promise the loudest cry of the loud cry the same day. (ibid., Nov. 8, 1898, p.720)

The next year the Holy Flesh Movement began in Indiana. While the excesses of the Movement were unacceptable, and some of its major theological positions untenable, one cannot condemn the sincerity of the men of Indiana who sought to realize the "vision" of what the end will be. The illusive "how" escaped them. They wanted "trans-lation faith." They did not want to go to heaven on "the under-ground railroad" - the grave. The message preached they termed the "cleansing message."

In the 1960s another Movement began in Adventism led by Robert Brinsmead. In his "constitutional" publication, God's Eternal Purpose, he sets forth his perceptions and the basis for them, as well as the objective which he believed was the purpose of the final atonement. He wrote:

Through Christ's ministry in the holy of holies, humanity is to be fully united (married) to divinity. Hence the significance of the final atonement - at-one-ment. ... When his faith reaches to the last supreme act of the atonement, he will be fully united (married) to divinity for eternity. Then he will be as sinless in the flesh as Christ was sinless in the flesh.

[A diagram of the relationship between Christ and the Christian is inserted at this point]

Christ's perfect humanity is the standard which His true followers must possess to pass through the last scenes of earth's history. God must have, and will have a people to reveal the full stature of Christ. All those who work in harmony with Christ in the cleansing of the sanctuary will reach this standard. (p.199)

In this, Brinsmead was simply trying to answer the same question which concerned the men of Indiana, albeit in a different setting, and free from the emotional extravaganza which marked the Holy Flesh Movement. His appeal was directly related to the study of the sanctuary. The typical service of the sanctuary on the Day of Atonement demands that the question involving the cleansing - both from the record of sin, and the uncleanness of the individual which is the source of sinning - be answered. The answer is not in the abandonment of the sanctuary teaching, for if done, as is being done, Adventism loses its uniqueness.

Actually, the position of Brinsmead as noted above is basically the position of most of those who perceive of themselves as "historic" Adventists. The fact remains; we are still here and the evidences of fulfilling prophecy tells us that God is not going to delay the end much longer. The answer must be found. The answers being set forth focus on "the latter rain." This is a nebulous concept from the Judean harvest but with significance in the light of Peter's call to repentance to those assembled on Solomon's porch of the Temple area (Acts 3:19). [This text, Brinsmead used with emphasis]

The Writings indicate that the objective of "the latter rain" is to bring "the seed to perfection" (Testimonies to Ministers, p.506). In the same chapter, "Pray for the Latter Rain," is found the suggestion that this experience is involved with the reception of the advancing light of truth: - "Only those who are living up to the light they have, will receive greater light" (p.507). The result is clearly written - "We are to be wholly transformed into the likeness of Christ" (p.506.) The "how" is also defined - "It is God who began the work, and He will finish His work, making man complete in Jesus Christ" (p.507). Paul wrote that in Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him" (Col. 2:9-10). This returns us again to the "in Him" concept of the Pauline epistles, and that Christ is the "Surety of a better covenant." We are His "house," the new house of Israel, a people of the covenant, and the promise is - "He shall save His people from their sins."

With all the failures of the past century to find the answer which the typical service of the Day of Atonement demands, one hesitates to even offer a suggestion as to what the answer might be. However, we would do well to consider a suggestion found in the Writings which reads - "Zechariah's vision of Joshua and the Angel [Chapter 3] applies with peculiar force to the experience of God's people in the closing of the great day of atonement" (Testimonies for the Church, Vol. V, p.472).

In analyzing this vision, the first revelation is that Satan will resist every effort not only to understand the final atonement, but also its realization. Joshua, the ministering high priest in the days of Zechariah, is seen standing before the Lord, and "Satan standing at his right hand to resist Him" (v.1). Satan is just as envious and just as set in his opposition to the plan of God for man as when God first suggested it in the beginning. He seeks to set himself at "the right hand" for power and control. In the vision the Lord first rebukes Satan before turning His attention to Joshua. "Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire," He asks. Joshua has no means to escape - his clothes are flammable - "filthy garments" ripe for the fire. Then the Lord commands those who stood before Him - those who have assented for God to carry out His original intent for man - "Take away the filthy garments from him" (v.4).

Here is the first test to those who would be cleansed. They can either yield their "filthy" garments, and become naked before whom they stand, or they can hold to them so as to cover their nakedness. This is the critical test –

Page 5

self is involved. It is embarrassing to have to admit that all the "righteousnesses" which sustain our egos are nothing but "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6). But unless we are willing for this to happen, the next step cannot be taken. The Lord will not put His righteousness over our righteousnesses. He alone is righteous and He does not intend to share that righteousness in which there is not a thread of human devising with the fig-leaf devisings of men.

When Joshua yielded up his filthy garments - the angels of the Lord will remove them if we permit - the Lord declares - "Behold I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment" (v.4). The emphasis is on what God can and will do, not on what man can do, for his is only to surrender so that it can be done for him. On the typical Day of Atonement, it was the high priest alone who accomplished the atonement. The recipients were to afflict their souls and do no work (Ex. 23; 29-30). Soul affliction - how few understand what this is all about. Self denial - and this does not mean in material things of life - but the actual emptying of self even as He did, whose mind we are suppose to accept (Phil. 2:5-7 RSV). How painful to those who profess they can keep the commandments of God, and tell the Lord, "All these have I kept from my youth up, what lack I yet?"

After being clothed with the garments provided and a fair mitre being set on his head, the messenger of the Lord solemnly affirmed the intent of the Lord of hosts - "Thus saith the Lord of hosts: If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by" (v.7).

The result - "Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at" (Heb. "men of wonder"). Through the bestowal of the final outpouring of God's grace,* human beings still clothed in flesh of sin, will fully reflect the image of Christ, for God will bring forth His servant, the BRANCH in each - "Christ in you the hope of glory." The final atonement will have been accomplished. "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith" (Gal. 5:5).

* "Divine grace is needed at the beginning, divine grace at every step of advance, and divine grace alone can complete the work." (Testimonies to Ministers, p.508)


In cataloguing an acquisition of a group of manuscripts, letters, etc., we discovered a letter written by A. T. Jones which gave his perspective on details both prior to, and following the 1888 General Conference session. We believe that the contents of this letter will be enlightening to our readers and to all those who are deeply interested In the 1888 Message. The letter is being reproduced just as written by Jones.

An A. T. Jones Letter:


925 E St. & Md. Ave. N.E.

Washington, D.C.

May 12, 1921

Dear Brother ----------,

My answer to your letter of inquiry of April 12 has been delayed by many things. And now I do not think that I can do justice to it in the time that I have. That Minneapolis meeting and conference embraced much more and meant much more than what occurred in the meeting and conference. In a way it was the culmination of a number of things before it, and it was also the origin of a lot of things after it.

From 1885 to 1888 Bro. Waggoner and I both worked on the "Signs of the Times" and the "American Sentinel" at Oakland, Calif. Each of us taught in Healdsburg College, and preached in the churches: mostly I in San Francisco and he in Oakland. Each of us pursued his own individual study of the Bible and teaching and preaching. Never in our lives did we spend an hour in study together on any subject or upon all subjects. Yet we were led in perfect agreement in the truths of the Bible all the way. To illustrate: One Sabbath Bro. Waggoner was away from Oakland in a camp meeting, and I preached in his place in Oakland church. My subject was "Righteousness by Faith." The next Sabbath he was home and preached in his own place in Oakland church, and I in San Francisco. Sunday morning when I came into the "Signs" office and began to work, I said to Bro. Bollman, What did Bro. Waggoner preach on yesterday? He replied, The same that you did last Sabbath. I asked him, What was his text? He replied, Same one that you had. I said, What line did he follow? What illustrations? He replied, The same as you did.

And that was the way all the time. Oh! yes, another illustration proves this. Bro. Prescott and his wife went to England, starting from Battle Creek. They left, as I remember it, the evening after Sabbath. That Sabbath I preached in the Tabernacle. They arrived in London the next Sabbath, and went to the meeting in London arriving there in the midst of the sermon, and Bro. Waggoner was preaching. And he was preaching on the same subject on which I had preached the Sabbath before in Battle Creek. And he preached so entirely parallel with me, that Mrs. Prescott herself told me afterward that when Bro. Waggoner had finished his sermon and the meeting was closed, and they spoke to him they told him that, We appreciated your sermon Bro. Waggoner. But it would have been a little newer if we had not heard it from Bro. Jones last Sabbath in the Tabernacle in Battle Creek.

To the General Conference of 1887 in Battle Creek, Bro. Waggoner went as a delegate from Calif.: or possibly it was 1886. At any rate at that conference Eld. Geo. I. Butler opposed his preaching of "Righteousness by Faith," and issued a pamphlet in opposition to what he called "the much vaunted doctrine of jus-

Page 6

tification by faith." As I remember it, his pamphlet was entitled, "The Law in Galatians."

By their known agreement of Bro. Waggoner and me in the Gospel of Righteousness by Faith, which included of course both Galatians and Romans; and that did not agree at all with the views of Butler and the other General Conference heads; Butler and the others had framed in their imagination that "these two young men" - Bro. Waggoner and me - had concocted a scheme to revolutionize the doctrine of the denomination and to carry the denomination into new, and of course "heretical" fields. For along with the truth and "heresy" of righteousness by faith for which Bro. Waggoner was held as the leader, I had carried through the Signs of the Times a study of the four beasts and the ten kingdoms as in Daniel 7. In tracing the ten kingdoms to know exactly what they were in the history, I found that the old traditional list of those kingdoms as held by the denomination, was not correct. When I began the study Bro. Uriah Smith wrote to me that he was glad that I was going to search that out, for it had never been done: but that the list that was used in the 1844 movement had been simply carried along by the denomination without any attempt having been made to verify it. But when I brought out the truth that that list was not correct, Bro. Smith was not a bit glad; and opposed it, and defended the old list. This made me the head of that new "heresy" as Bro. Waggoner was of the other; and this was a double proof to the other men that Bro. Waggoner and I had got up a new doctrine for the denomination which at the Minneapolis Conference we were going to have settled as the orthodox denominational doctrine. But neither Bro. Waggoner nor I alone or together ever in our lives thought of any such thing. All that we were doing any of the time was studying the Scripture to know the truth.

An institute of three or four weeks duration had been appointed to precede the actual General Conference that was to come at Minneapolis. Some time before starting to that institute, C.H. Jones, general manager of Pacific Press, W.C. White and some others, asked Bro. Waggoner and me to go with them for a few days outing and we all study together the Scriptures on these "heretical" questions that were certain to come up in the institute and conference. Wind of this innocent little thing wafted to the brethren in Battle Creek, further confirmation of their settled view that Bro. Waggoner and I in furtherance of our scheme to revolutionize the doctrine of the denomination were working other brethren into our scheme so as to come to the institute and general conference at Minneapolis so strongly fortified as to carry our scheme. We did not know till after the institute and conference were all over that the general conference men in Battle Creek held these things concerning us, and we never in our lives having thought of any such thing came to the institute and conference as unknowing of what the other men were thinking as we were ourselves of what they thought that we were thinking. And so in all innocence we came to the meeting expecting just nothing but plain Bible study to know the truth. Eld. Butler was sick and did not get to the institute or conference at all. But he had men instructed, and by correspondence and by telegraph he kept his hand upon things there.

When the institute opened I was invited or appointed to lead out in the study of the prophecies, and this brought in the ten kingdoms of course. But there was nobody to give any historical studies in opposition to this for none of them knew the history well enough; so all that they could do on that was to appeal to tradition. And Eld. Butler telegraphed from Battle Creek, "Stand by the land marks."

Thus the real fight in the institute and conference came over "Righteousness by Faith." Bro. Waggoner led in the studies on that. Eld. J.H. Morrison was chosen by the General Conference folks to lead the opposition. And he did it: and it was righteousness by anything and everything else than faith.

I cannot now name anyone who definitely and openly accepted there the truth of righteousness by faith. But in the times following I could not name the numbers who told that their true Christian experience in the Gospel began with the study on righteousness by faith in that meeting. In that meeting and conference the tide of things was indicated by what one of the Battle Creek leaders said one day to a cluster of men after one of Bro. Waggoner's studies. He said, "Now we could say Amen to all of that if that is all there were to it. But away down yonder there is still something to come. And this is to lead us to that. And if we say Amen to this we will have to say Amen to that and then we are caught." Thus they would not say Amen to what they knew was true for fear of what was to come after, to which they would not say Amen anyhow - and which never came either, for there was no such thing, and so they robbed themselves of what their own hearts told them was the truth; and by fighting what they only imagined, they fastened themselves in opposition to what they knew that they should have said Amen to.

The opposers were Geo. I. Butler, J.H. Morrison and all who could be swung by General Conference influence.

But as you know Sr. White stood out openly and strongly all the way for righteousness by faith; and after the conference was over, the preaching of righteousness by faith was followed up by her and Bro. Waggoner and me through the winter following, and by her and me in Battle Creek direct, and it was given the greater force by the message of religious liberty that was endorsed in that General Conference, and which by resolution of the Conference, I was directed to carry to the Senate Committee in Washington in opposition to the Blair Sunday Bill. This went on through the winter and spring. Then when camp meeting time came we all three visited the camp meetings with the message of righteousness by faith and religious liberty; sometimes all three of us being in the same meeting. This turned the tide with the people, and apparently with most of the leading men. But this latter was only apparent: it was never real, for all the time in the General Conference Committee, and amongst others, there was a secret antagonism always carried on; and which finally in Daniells, Spicer and Co. gained the day in the denomination, and gave to the Minneapolis spirit and contention and men the supremacy as the accompanying leaflet will demonstrate to you.

Please read this leaflet through carefully, and when you get to the marked place on page 31, you will appreciate along with this letter what is there said. For as you will see, what is there said is a

Page 7

synopsis of what I have here written.

And I personally know that if a testimony that was written in 1902 and was read to me by Sr. White herself, that was addressed to Daniells and Prescott, had ever been published as other testimonies were published, those two men with that gang never could have run the course that they did run. But so far as I know no copy of that testimony was ever allowed to get out of her house; and I know that for this W.C. White was in no small measure responsible. I do not know whether even Daniells or Prescott ever saw a copy. Even if copies of it ever did get out, I very seriously doubt that they ever got out as that testimony was originally written and read to me: for it is morally certain, and practically physically certain, that if it had been made public as important testimonies usually were, as it was originally written, it would have put a quietus on their campaign against Dr. Kellogg as they began it in Battle Creek in Nov. 1902.

When I returned from that meeting in Battle Creek to California, she asked me to come to her house. I went: she asked me, "What was done in that meeting in Battle Creek?" I said, "Don't you know? If you don't I am not going to tell you." She said, "That is just what Knox said." Then she started in and told me what had passed in the meeting, just as well as I could have told it myself. Then she read to me the testimony to Daniells and Prescott. And both what she told me of what occurred there, and the testimony she wrote to Daniells and Prescott, set out Daniells and Prescott in their true light just as they were in that meeting and as they were in themselves.

In justice to Bro. J. H. Morrison, he should be given credit by name for the truth and fact that some time after the Minneapolis Conference was all over, I cannot state definitely just what year, he cleared himself of all connection with that opposition, and put himself body, soul and spirit into the truth and blessing of righteousness by faith by one of the finest and noblest confessions that I ever heard.

Wishing you only all blessing always, I remain,

(Signed) Truly, Alonzo T. Jones

Let's Talk It Over

The letter written by A.T. Jones which we have reproduced in full, written as a result of an inquiry, merits more than a casual reading. In this brief editorial, we intend to call your attention to certain convictions of A.T. Jones for your further contemplation. He wrote - "That Minneapolis meeting and conference embraced much more and meant much more than what occurred in the meeting and conference." Could it be that the emphasis given which focuses primarily on the session and what the men taught has short changed us in understanding all that was involved?

Jones' testimony of how he and E.J. Waggoner studied needs thoughtful consideration. Note again - "Each of us pursued his own individual study of the Bible and teaching and preaching. Never in our lives did we spend an hour in study together on any subject or upon all subjects. Yet we were led in perfect agreement in the truths of the Bible all the way." After thinking the implication through again read the illustrations Jones gives. The conclusion is inescapable. Jones and Waggoner were men commissioned by God with a message regardless of what the detractors both in their life time and now have said and written.

A.T. Jones' comments on the opposition led by J.H. Morrison against the message of "Righteousness by Faith" is apropos for today - "it was righteousness by anything and everything else than faith.”

In reading the letter one dare not overlook the implications and far reaching effect of the charge Jones leveled at W.C. White. However, it is interesting, that one of the men - Prescott - whom Willie's action sought to protect, actually wrote to him - "The way your mother's writings have been handled ... have brought great perplexity and trial to me." One is left to wonder if Prescott did know about the testimony and knowing of Willie's action kept his mouth shut at the time in 1902, and only expressed his convictions in retrospect in the private letter to W.C. White in 1915 - so private he would not even dictate it through a secretary.

It is our conviction that the past should speak, and we shall continue to share other letters that come to light.