Chapter 2

The Latter Rain and

the Loud Cry Soon to Come

Call for Preparation & Warning

Lest the Latter Rain be Condemned

During the 1880s, Ellen White began to express

more urgency in her statements concerning the
loud cry and latter rain. A real message was
coming that would lighten the earth with its glory.
She wrote of God’s plan to send simple men to do
this great work that would create a “religious
interest” far exceeding that of the sixteenth century
Reformation. The message would be more than just
a revival of the evangelical preaching of the day.
Ellen White also spoke of the “spurious loud cry”
that Satan was sending to try and divert minds from
the true message for “this” time. To her, these
manifestations were one of the “greatest
evidences” the loud cry was on its way:

1
 In the last solemn work few great men will be
engaged. … But it may be under a rough and
uninviting exterior the pure brightness of a genuine
Christian character will be revealed. …

God will work a work in our day that but few

anticipate. He will raise up and exalt among us
those who are taught rather by the unction of His
Spirit than by the outward training of scientific
institutions. … God will manifest that He is not
dependent on learned, self-important mortals. [1]

God is raising up a class to give the loud cry of

the third angel’s message. [Acts 20:30 quoted] It is
Satan’s object now to get up new theories to divert
the mind from the true work and genuine message
for this time. He stirs up minds to give false
interpretations of Scripture, a spurious loud cry,
that the real message may not have its effect when
it does come. This is one of the greatest evidences
that the loud cry will soon be heard and the earth
will be lightened with the glory of God. [2]

The angel who unites in the proclamation of the

2
third message is to lighten the whole earth with his
glory. A work of worldwide extent and unwonted
power is here brought to view. The Advent
movement of 1840-44 was a glorious manifestation
of the power of God … in this country there was
the greatest religious interest which has been
witnessed in any land since the Reformation of the
sixteenth century; but these are to be far exceeded
by the mighty movement under the loud cry of the
third message. The work will be similar to that of
the day of Pentecost. … By thousands of voices, all
over the earth, the message will be given. Miracles
are wrought, the sick are healed, and signs and
wonders follow the believers. Satan also works
with lying wonders, even bringing down fire from
heaven in the sight of men. Thus the inhabitants of
the earth are brought to take their stand. [3]

During the summer of 1885, through the

evangelistic efforts of E. P. Daniels, a revival
began in Healdsburg, California. Deep heart
searching and repentance had brought a wonderful
manifestation of the Spirit of God, which resulted
in love and unity among many members. Some of
3
the older workers (J. H. Waggoner and J. N.
Loughborough) stepped in and put a stop to the
meetings, branding them a “delusion” and
“fanaticism.” When Ellen White, who was
traveling in Sweden, heard what had happened she
sent several letters of warning. The work that had
begun at Healdsburg was the very work that every
church needed. Yes, Satan would always send a
counterfeit, but unless changes were made, while
fighting against fanaticism, men would “condemn
the work of the latter rain”:

From the letters written I have reason to judge a

good work was begun in Healdsburg. Those who
felt it was wrong, and condemned it, committed, I
believe, one of the greatest errors. …

Brethren, it is high time that revivals similar to

the one that has stirred the church in Healdsburg
should come to every Seventh-day Adventist
church in our land, else the church will not be
prepared to receive the latter rain. A work must be
done for the individual members of the church.
They will confess one to another. … And whenever
4
this work begins and wherever it is seen, there will
be the working of the power of Satan—envy,
jealousy, evil surmising will be in exercise. …

If there is a true, there will be, most assuredly,

a counterfeit. …

Why I dwell so much on this now is because

there will be most remarkable movements of the
Spirit of God in the churches, if we are the people
of God. And my brethren may arise and in their
sense of paring everything done after their style,
lay their hand upon God’s working and forbid it. I
know what I am talking about. …

We have limited faith and sinful hearts and

God cannot work in power for us for if He should
… [we] could not distinguish the work of God
from the counterfeit. [4]

[I]n reference to the revival at Healdsburg I am

not in harmony with your treatment of this matter.
That there were fanatical ones who pressed into
that work I would not deny. But if you move in the
5
future as you have done in this matter, you may be
assured of one thing, you will condemn the work of
the latter rain when it shall come. For you will see
at that time far greater evidences of fanaticism.

When an effort shall be made in the work of

God, Satan will be on the ground to urge himself to
notice, but shall it be the work of ministers to
stretch out the hand and say, This must go no
further, for it is not the work of God? …

I have not confidence in Elder J. H.

Waggoner’s judgment in these matters. … If this is
the way you manage when God sends good, be
assured the revivals will be rare. When the Spirit of
God comes it will be called fanaticism, as in the
day of Pentecost. …

God has chosen man to do a certain work. His

mental capacities may be weak, but then the
evidence is more apparent that God works. His
speech may not be eloquent but that is no evidence
that he has not a message from God. [5]*

6
 During this same time G. I. Butler, General
Conference President, took actions to “restrict the
work at the New York camp meeting” because of a
lack of funds. Ellen White responded in a similar
way as she had to the situation at Healdsburg.
Unless a change was made, men would bind up the
work of the Holy Spirit:

Never take action to narrow and circumscribe

the work unless you know that you are moved to
do so by the Spirit of the Lord. … Unless those
who can help in New York are aroused to a sense
of their duty, they will not recognize the work of
God when the loud cry of the third angel shall be
heard. When light goes forth to lighten the earth,
instead of coming up to the help of the Lord, they
will want to bind about His work to meet their
narrow ideas. Let me tell you that the Lord will
work in this last work in a manner very much out
of the common order of things, and in a way that
will be contrary to any human planning. There will
be those among us who will always want to control
the work of God, to dictate even what movements
shall be made when the work goes forward under
7
the direction of the angel who joins the third angel
in the message to be given to the world. God will
use ways and means by which it will be seen that
He is taking the reins in His own hands. The
workers will be surprised by the simple means that
He will use to bring about and perfect His work of
righteousness. [6]

Preparation Needed

While Ellen White was writing letters of

warning against making moves that would hinder
the work of the Holy Spirit, she was also
expressing in many letters and articles the great
need for preparation in order to receive the latter
rain. As described in her earlier writings, this
involved the cleansing of the soul temple in
connection with Christ’s work in the heavenly
Sanctuary (Dan. 8:14). When the latter rain came,
it would bring light, and those who were prepared
and received the light, would proclaim the
commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus
Christ. This third angel’s message was not to be
given by debate, but by the deep movings of the
8
Holy Spirit. Notice several Ellen White statements:

The third angel, flying in the midst of heaven

and heralding the commandments of God and the
testimony of Jesus, represents our work. The
message loses none of its force in the angel’s
onward flight, for John sees it increasing in
strength and power until the whole earth is
lightened with its glory. … Soon it will go with a
loud voice, and the earth will be lightened with its
glory. Are we preparing for this great outpouring of
the Spirit of God? [7]

It is with an earnest longing that I look forward

to the time when the events of the day of Pentecost
shall be repeated with even greater power than on
that occasion. John says, “I saw another angel
come down from heaven, having great power; and
the earth was lightened with his glory.” …
Thousands of voices will be imbued with the
power to speak forth the wonderful truths of God’s
word. The stammering tongue will be unloosed,
and the timid will be made strong to bear
courageous testimony to the truth. May the Lord
9
help his people to cleanse the soul temple from
every defilement, and to maintain such a close
connection with him that they may be partakers of
the latter rain when it shall be poured out. [8]

When the latter rain comes upon the people of

God you must have a preparation to press right on,
because those whose vessels are clean, whose
hands are free just when that latter rain comes get
the light that comes from on high and their voices
are lifted every one to proclaim the commandments
of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. [9]

The Lord appoints and sends forth ministers not

only to preach, for this is a small part of His work,
but to minister, to educate the people not to be
fighters but to be examples of piety. … Some have
… educated themselves as debaters, and the
churches under their care show the character of
their work. … The great issue so near at hand will
weed out those whom God has not appointed, and
He will have a pure, true, sanctified ministry
prepared for the latter rain. [10]

10
 Is this indifference to continue from year to
year? Is Satan always to triumph, and Christ to be
disappointed in the servants whom he has
redeemed at an infinite price? We are looking
forward to the time when the latter rain will be
poured out, confidently hoping for a better day,
when the church shall be endued with power from
on high, and thus fitted to do more efficient work
for God. But the latter rain will never refresh and
invigorate indolent souls, that are not using the
power God has already given them. [11]

Law in Galatians

While Ellen White was counseling church

leaders and members to prepare for the latter rain,
admonishing them to be careful lest moves be
made that would hinder the needed work, a
controversy arose in Battle Creek. On the surface,
the controversy was over the law in Galatians, but
it involved much more than that. It was really a
controversy over justification by faith, the gospel
itself. How did this controversy begin, and what
did it involve? The rest of this chapter will be
11
devoted to answering these questions. [12]*

In Galatians 3:19, The apostle Paul wrote of the

“added Law,” and in verse 24, of the “schoolmaster
to bring us unto Christ.” To which law did these
verses refer; the ceremonial law or moral law—the
ten commandments? Adventists pioneers during
the 1850s, including James White, J. N. Andrews,
Uriah Smith, and Joseph Bates, had held that the
law Paul referred to in Galatians chapter 3 was the
ten commandments. This however, had changed.

Protestant dispensationalists of that day were

proclaiming emphatically that men were now
living in the New Testament dispensation of grace,
using texts such as Galatians 3:19 and 3:24 to
prove that the ten commandments were done away
with altogether. This had brought about a shift in
the thinking of many Adventists, who hoped to
counter such arguments by explaining that
Galatians chapter 3 referred to the ceremonial law.
However, in 1854, J. H. Waggoner (father of E. J.
Waggoner) published a pamphlet entitled: “The
Law of God: An Examination of the Testimony of
12
Both Testaments.” When this pamphlet presented
the view that the law in Galatians chapter 3
referred to the ten commandments only, other
Adventists took exception, and a controversy
developed.

Several days of meetings were held in Battle

Creek in which the position of J. H. Waggoner
was, according to Uriah Smith, proven wrong.
James and Ellen White attended these meetings,
and soon after the meetings convened Ellen White
had a vision about the law issue. She immediately
wrote to J. H. Waggoner stating his position was
not to be pressed to the front. James White, as a
result of this vision, withdrew J. H. Waggoner’s
book from the market. According to Uriah Smith,
J. H. Waggoner repeatedly solicited to have the
pamphlet reprinted, but James White replied,
“‘NOT until you revise your position on the law.’”
[13]

The controversy over the law in Galatians

remained dormant for almost 30 years until the mid
1880s when A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner came
13
on the scene. On October 1, 1883, one year after
his campmeeting experience, Waggoner began
sharing his newfound faith by teaching Bible
classes at Healdsburg College, which had opened
on April 11, 1882. Somehow, he also found time to
pastor the Oakland Seventh-day Adventist church
and help his father in editing The Signs of the
Times. A. T. Jones came to California in 1884,
relieving Waggoner of his teaching responsibilities
in the fall of 1885 and also helping as assistant
editor of the Signs. [14]* In addition to his other
duties, Jones pastored one of the local churches.
[15]* When J. H. Waggoner left for Europe in
1886, A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner became the
chief editors of the Signs, a position that Jones held
until 1889, and E. J. Waggoner held until 1891,
when he was sent to England. Both men also took
over as chief editors of the American Sentinel, a
position Waggoner held until 1890, and Jones held
till 1897 when he was placed on the General
Conference Executive committee.

Although Jones and Waggoner worked together

as editors of the Signs, they studied separately,
14
coming to many of the same conclusions.
Consequently, in their articles in the Signs, their
classes at the college, and in their preaching in
local churches, their underlying message was the
same. Jones describes it this way:

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: On Sabbath Bro. Waggoner was
away from Oakland in a campmeeting, 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 illustration?” He replied, “The same that you
15
did.” [16]

During the summer of 1884, E. J. Waggoner

wrote ten articles on the law and the gospel and
their relation to one another. In his September 11,
1884 Signs article he dealt more specifically with
the law in Galatians and departed from the
accepted Adventist position that the law in
Galatians chapter 3 referred to the ceremonial law.
[17] It was during the 1884-85 school year that E.
J. Waggoner began to present the same views at
Healdsburg College. [18] Although some were
pleased with Waggoner’s writing and teaching,
others became very concerned. Uriah Smith, Chief
Editor of the Review, and G. I. Butler, President of
the General Conference, were the most outspoken
in their concerns.

In the spring of 1885, before Ellen White and

W. C. White left for England, E. J. Waggoner
talked with W. C. White about the concerns he had
regarding his writing for the Signs and his teaching
at the college. His first concern was about writing
articles that “would be in conflict with Eld.
16
Canright’s writing.” [19] D. M. Canright was one
of the most prominent evangelists of the time who
had successfully debated many Adventist
opponents. He had also written many books
including, The Two Laws which was first
published in 1876. In this book Canright took the
same position on the law in Galatians as Uriah
Smith and G. I. Butler.

The second concern Waggoner shared with W.

C. White was in reference to the controversy
regarding the law in Galatians, which his father had
been involved in years before. W. C. White
expressed his “opinion freely that he [E. J.
Waggoner] and the editors of the Signs should
teach what they believed to be truth” even if it did
“conflict with some things written by Eld. Canright
and others,” but regarding the old controversy, he
should “avoid it if possible.” W. C. White also
advised Waggoner to publish “articles on the
subjects he had presented at the college.” [20]* E.
J. Waggoner took his advice and continued to
present the law and gospel through the pages of the
Signs and adult Sabbath School quarterly, and in
17
college classes and local campmeetings.

It was not long before A. T. Jones’ and E. J.

Waggoner’s teaching and writing came under fire.
In early 1886, G. I. Butler visited Healdsburg
College and was informed that “strenuous efforts”
had been made by Jones and Waggoner to “impress
upon the minds of theological students” that the
“added law” of Galatians was the “moral law of the
commandments.” Butler expressed great concern
over the situation since, in his mind, the issue had
been settled years before. Besides, E. J.
Waggoner’s view was contrary to that of James
White, Uriah Smith, D. M. Canright and himself.
In a letter to Ellen White, he reminded her that she
had received light on the subject years before “to
the effect that it [the law in Galatians] related to the
remedial system rather than the moral law.” [21]

In response to Butler’s letter, Ellen White

immediately sent off a letter to Jones and
Waggoner “protesting against them doing contrary
to the light which God had given us in regard to all
differences of opinion.” This letter, however,
18
would never arrive (and has not been found to this
day). Consequently, Jones and Waggoner
continued presenting their views. [22]* During the
summer, Waggoner even published a nine-part
series in the Signs specifically on Galatians chapter
3. In these articles, Waggoner took the position in
regard to the “schoolmaster” of Galatians 3:24, that
“by no possibility can this refer to the ceremonial
law.” [23]

After reading Waggoner’s new series in the

Signs and having heard nothing from Ellen White
personally, Butler once again sent a letter to her,
protesting against Waggoner’s work. According to
Butler, Waggoner was causing a “great debate” by
presenting views which “three-fourths of the
denomination” did not believe. Butler pressed
Ellen White once again to settle the matter, stating
that he was “impressed to write a brief comment on
the Epistle to the Galatians,” and implied that he
believed the law referred to in Galatians chapter 3
was the ceremonial law only. [24]

On November 16, 1886, Butler again wrote to

19
Ellen White, telling her that he expected “to call
our good Signs brethren to an account” at the
upcoming General Conference, “for the way they
have done in reference to some of the disputed
points of our faith; the law in Galatians.” This
Butler readily did.

1886 General Conference

As soon as the Conference opened on

November 18, Butler gave the delegates his “brief
comment” on the Epistle of Galatians in the form
of an eighty-five page pamphlet entitled; The Law
in the Book of Galatians: Is It the Moral Law, or
Does It Refer to that System of Laws Peculiarly
Jewish? Although not mentioning them by name,
the pamphlet was nothing more than a rebuttal
written against Jones and Waggoner; taking many
shots at them personally, their “minority” views,
and their “much vaunted doctrine of justification
by faith.” [25]

Butler also brought the matter to the attention

of the Theological Committee at the General
20
Conference. He wrote several resolutions with the
intent to suppress the publication of views contrary
to the position “held by a fair majority of our
people” unless these views had first been
“examined and approved by the leading brethren of
experience.” [26] All but one of Butler’s
resolutions were approved by a majority vote of the
committee. However, Butler reported all his
resolutions in an article in the Review, including
the resolution that was voted down, which
censured Jones and Waggoner for the course they
had taken. [27]* As W. C. White would later put it:
“There has been a desire on the part of some, that
Elds. Waggoner and Jones should be condemned
unheard.” [28]*

On December 16 Butler again wrote to Ellen

White, more emphatically than before. He
reminded her that he never received a reply on the
issue of the law in Galatians, and that the church
had been waiting “for years to hear from [her] on
the subject.” Again on December 28, Butler wrote
to Ellen White mentioning the subject of the Signs
articles, which in his words, “were opposed to the
21
principles of our faith.” The issue was obviously
becoming immensely important in his mind as time
went on. Perhaps in a final attempt to make Ellen
White speak to the matter, Uriah Smith, editor of
the Review, ran an old article where Ellen White
explicitly stated: “Let individual judgment submit
to the authority of the church.” [29]*

Ellen White Responds

Finally, early in 1887 (and after badgering from

Butler for nearly a year), Ellen White wrote once
again to Jones and Waggoner and sent copies to
Smith and Butler. In her letter she told them she
hadn’t read any of the material written by either
party representing the different views on the law in
Galatians. She mentioned several times her
frustration over not being able to find what she had
written years before on the subject. [30]* She felt
she had been shown that J. H. Waggoner’s
“position in regard to the law was incorrect,” And
now, not being able to find this material, her mind
was not “clear” on the issue and she could “not
grasp the matter.” She expressed her great concern
22
over seeing the “two leading papers in contention.”
She even stated that Jones and Waggoner were too
“self-confident and less cautious than they should
be,” and that she feared E. J. Waggoner had
“cultivated” a love for “discussions and
contention” like his father. “Especially at this time
should everything like differences be repressed”
and unity be sought. Many discourses and articles
in the Church papers were “on argumentative
subjects” and “were like Cain’s offering;
Christless.” Ellen White was also concerned that
those “who are not Bible students” would take a
stand on the issue without sufficient study; “yet it
may not be truth.” If “these things” were to come
into a General Conference she would “refuse to
attend”:

We have a worldwide message. The

commandments of God and the testimonies of
Jesus Christ are the burden of our work. To have
unity and love for one another is the great work
now to be carried on. …

From the Holy of Holies, there goes on the

23
grand work of instruction. Christ officiates in the
sanctuary. We do not follow Him into the
sanctuary as we should. There must be a purifying
of the soul here upon the earth, in harmony with
Christ’s cleansing of the sanctuary in heaven.
There we shall see more clearly as we are seen. We
shall know as we are known.

It is the deep movings of the Spirit of God that

is needed to operate upon the heart to mold
character. … The little knowledge imparted might
be a hundred fold greater if the mind and character
were balanced by the holy enlightenment of the
Spirit of God. Altogether too little meekness and
humility are brought into the work of searching for
the truth as for hidden treasures, and if the truth
were taught as it is in Jesus, there would be a
hundred fold greater power … but everything is so
mingled with self that the wisdom from above
cannot be imparted. [31]*

Ellen White’s letter seemed to catch Jones and

Waggoner by surprise, but it did serve a good
purpose. Jones thanked Ellen White for her letter,
24
stating that he would “try earnestly to profit by the
testimony,” and that he was “sorry indeed” that he
had “any part in anything that would tend to create
division or do harm in any way to the cause of
God.” He also shared his side of the story, giving
the background into the controversy over the law in
Galatians. He had never heard of the letter sent to
them before, nor of the testimony sent to J. H.
Waggoner years earlier. He offered gladly to print
any light that Ellen White had on the subject in the
Signs. He also made it plain that he had not
allowed the subject to come up in his classes at the
College, telling the students that he “would not
attempt to say which [view] is right. …”:

I have told them to look for the gospel of Christ

in Galatians, rather than to discuss the law there. …
I thought that if they would keep Christ and the
gospel before their minds they would be sure to be
on the right side whichever way the question of the
law should be finally decided. With Christ before
them I could not see how they could possibly go
astray. I think however that I have told them that I
thought they would find both laws there, and the
25
gospel— justification by faith—underlying the
whole of it. [32]

Waggoner expressed similar views. He had not

taught in the College since the summer of 1885,
therefore he had not been presenting his views to
college students. He had never heard of any
testimony to his father, nor that Ellen White had
ever “spoken on the subject.” If he had known that,
“the case would have been different.” Besides, the
views he had taught were “different” from his
father’s views. He had felt he was helping the
advancement of truth but now lamented that he had
“been too hasty in putting forth views which could
arouse controversy.” He had learned a lesson he
would not forget:

I do desire most earnestly that the time may

soon come when all our people shall see eye to eye.
… I am truly sorry for the feeling that has existed
and does exist between the two offices. I think it is
but the simple truth to say that it did not originate
here, and that much of what is felt in the east is due
to misunderstanding on their part, of the real state
26
of things here, and of the motives of those here; but
I do not wish you to consider this as a shirking of
blame. I know full well that a feeling of criticism
has been allowed to creep in here, as I think in no
one more than me. As I now view this spirit of
criticism, which springs from the meanest kind of
pride, I hate it, and want no more of it. I am
determined that henceforth no word of mine, either
in public or in private, shall tend to the detraction
of any worker in the cause of God. [33]

Not only did Jones and Waggoner search their

own hearts and repent, Waggoner lived up to his
word of not wanting to detract “any worker in the
cause of God.” The Gospel in the Book of
Galatians—Waggoner’s seventyone page response
to Butler’s pamphlet—although dated February 10,
1887, was not printed until the 1888 General
Conference, and only after Ellen White’s
recommendation for fair play. [34]*

G. I. Butler’s response was quite different,

however. Having received a copy of the letter to
Jones and Waggoner, he “rejoiced,” thinking that
27
Ellen White had finally sided with him and Uriah
Smith. He hoped that Ellen White would now make
a public statement on the added law, because “the
added law is either the moral or the ceremonial law
systems.” Butler opened himself up for later
problems by stating that if his position was ever
proven wrong he would “have no confidence” in
his “own judgement,” would not know the “leading
of the Spirit,” and it would “perfectly unfit [him]
for acting any leading part” in the work. Butler let
his true feelings toward Waggoner slip out as well.
He saw E. J. as inheriting “some of his father’s
qualities,” stating that the “Waggoner stamp
appears in all their editorials.” [35]*

Butler claimed that contrary to Waggoner

publishing his articles in the Signs, he had refused
to “publish [his own] views on the Law in
Galatians in the Review,” forgetting perhaps that
he had just published an aggressive article in the
March 22 issue. [36] It did not take long, however,
for Butler’s rejoicing to be turned to bitter
disappointment.

28
 1886 in Retrospect

Before Butler’s letter of rejoicing made its way

to Ellen White in Switzerland, the Lord opened
before her the truth about the events of the previous
year. Not only did she have some “impressive
dreams,” but she had also taken the time to read
Butler’s material, and she was not impressed. She
wrote to Butler indicating that perhaps her
Testimony to J. H. Waggoner years before, was in
regard to making the issue prominent at that time
(1856), and not in regard to condemning his
position. Adventists were not to feel that they knew
“all the truth the Bible proclaims.” If a point could
not be supported, they should not be “too proud to
yield it.” Instead of an admonishment that
Waggoner submit his views to those in authority,
Ellen White stated that it was now only fair for him
to have equal time:

Now, I do not wish the letters that I have sent

to you should be used in a way that you will take it
29
for granted that your ideas are all correct and Dr.
Waggoner’s and Elder Jones’s are all wrong. … I
think you are too sharp. And then when this is
followed by a pamphlet published of your own
views, be assured I cannot feel that you are just
right at this point to do this unless you give the
same liberty to Dr. Waggoner. … I have had some
impressive dreams that have led me to feel that you
are not altogether in the light. … I want to see no
Phariseeism among us. The matter now has been
brought so fully before the people by yourself as
well as Dr. Waggoner, that it must be met fairly
and squarely in open discussion. … You circulated
your pamphlet; now it is only fair that Dr.
Waggoner should have just as fair a chance as you
have had. … I believe we will have to have far
more of the Spirit of God in order to escape the
perils of these last days. [37]*

The “impressive dreams” which Ellen White

spoke of were set before her in “figures and
symbols, but the explanation was given [her]
afterwards …” [38] Thus as time went on, Ellen
White’s counsel adjusted to the varying
30
circumstances as she understood more definitely
what had taken place, and had been revealed to her
while she was in Switzerland in 1887. Clearly the
Lord was seeking to warn the church of the great
dangers that lay ahead. The very light that was to
lighten the earth with its glory was ready to be
imparted, but the spirit of the Jews was coming
into the church. In the latter part of 1888, Ellen
White shared what had been revealed to her:

That conference [1886] was presented to me in

the night season. My guide said, “Follow me; I
have some things to show you.” He led me where I
was a spectator of the scenes that transpired at that
meeting. I was shown the attitude of some of the
ministers, yourself [Butler] in particular, at that
meeting, and I can say with you, my brother, it was
a terrible conference.

My guide then had many things to say which

left an indelible impression upon my mind. His
words were solemn and earnest. He opened before
me the condition of the church at Battle Creek. …
[they] needed the “energy of Christ.” … A time of
31
trial was before us, and great evils would be the
result of the Phariseeism which has in a large
degree taken possession of those who occupy
important positions in the work of God. …

He [then] stretched out his arms toward Dr.

Waggoner, and to you, Elder Butler, and said in
substance as follows: “Neither have all the light
upon the law, neither position is perfect.” [39]*

During the Conference at Battle Creek [1886],

when the question of the law in Galatians was
being examined, I was taken to a number of
houses, and heard the unchristian remarks and
criticisms made by the delegates. Then these words
were spoken: “They must have the truth as it is in
Jesus, else it will not be a saving truth to them. …”
When finite men shall cease to put themselves in
the way … then God will work in our midst as
never before. … The Jews, in Christ’s day, in the
exercise of their own spirit, of self- exaltation,
brought in rigid rules and exactions, and so took
away all chance for God to work upon minds, …
Do not follow in their track. Leave God a chance to
32
do something for those who love him, and do not
impose upon them rules and regulations, which, if
followed, will leave them destitute of the grace of
God as were the hills of Gilboa, without dew or
rain. [40]

Two years ago, while in Switzerland, I was

addressed in the night season. … I seemed to be in
the Tabernacle at Battle Creek, and my guide gave
instructions in regard to many things at the [1886]
conference …: “The Spirit of God has not had a
controlling influence in this meeting. The spirit that
controlled the Pharisees is coming in among this
people, who have been greatly favored of God. …
There are but few, even of those who claim to
believe it, that comprehend the third angel’s
message, and yet this is the message for this time.
It is present truth. …”

Said my guide, “There is much light yet to

shine forth from the law of God and the gospel of
righteousness. This message, understood in its true
character, and proclaimed in the Spirit, will lighten
the earth with its glory. … The closing work of the
33
third angel’s message will be attended with a
power that will send the rays of the Sun of
Righteousness into all the highways and byways of
life, …” [41]

Two years ago [1886] Jesus was grieved and

bruised in the person of His saints. The rebuke of
God is upon everything of the character of
harshness, of disrespect, and the want of
sympathetic love in brother toward brother. If this
lack is seen in the men who are guardians of our
conferences, guardians of our institutions, the sin is
greater in them than in those who have not been
entrusted with so large responsibilities. [42]

The monumental year of 1888, and the

Minneapolis General Conference, was rapidly
approaching. Truly the Lord was seeking, through
these visions in 1886, to warn and prepare His
church for what lay ahead. In the context of the
dreams Ellen White had in Switzerland, she would
write very earnestly of Satan’s “greatest fear.” That
fear was that God’s people would “clear the way”
so He could pour out the latter rain. Satan would
34
seek to hold back this blessing by working from
within the church, but he could not stop the latter
rain if God’s people were ready to receive it:

A revival of true godliness among us is the

greatest and most urgent of all our needs. … There
must be earnest effort to obtain the blessing of the
Lord, not because God is not willing to bestow His
blessing upon us, but because we are unprepared to
receive it. …

We have far more to fear from within than from

without. The hindrances to strength and success are
far greater from the church itself than from the
world. … The unbelief indulged, the doubts
expressed, the darkness cherished, encourage the
presence of evil angels, and open the way for the
accomplishment of Satan’s devices. …

There is nothing that Satan fears so much as

that the people of God shall clear the way by
removing every hindrance, so that the Lord can
pour out his Spirit upon a languishing church and
an impenitent congregation. If Satan had his way,
35
there would never be another awakening, great or
small, to the end of time. But we are not ignorant
of his devices. It is possible to resist his power.
When the way is prepared for the Spirit of God, the
blessing will come. Satan can no more hinder a
shower of blessing from descending upon God’s
people than he can close the windows of heaven
that rain cannot come upon the earth. Wicked men
and devils cannot hinder the work of God, or shut
out his presence from the assemblies of his people,
if they will, with subdued, contrite hearts, confess
and put away their sins, and in faith claim his
promises. [43]

In an earlier sermon, published in Review of

May 10, 1887, Ellen White expressed the similar
thoughts. It was time to get ready for the latter rain;
time to prepare for the loud cry:

My brethren and sisters, let us remember here

is the evidence that God will work. You are not to
trust in any power but that of the Lord God of
Israel. But if you have enmity in your hearts, you
cannot expect that God will let his blessing rest
36
upon you. No one will enter the city of God with
anything that defiles. We must get ready for the
latter rain. The earth is to be lighted with the glory
of the third angel,—not a little corner only, but the
whole earth. You may think that the work you are
doing now is lost; but I tell you it is not lost. When
the message shall go with a loud cry, those who
hear the truth now will spring to the front and work
with mighty power. [44]

Would God’s people get ready for the latter

rain? Would they be able to stand? We will seek to
answer these questions as we take a look at the
Minneapolis General Conference in the chapters
ahead.

Notes:

1. Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, pp. 80, 82,

written 1882.

2. Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 20, July

27, 1884; in Manuscript Releases, vol. 9
(Washington, D.C.: Ellen G. White Estate,
37
 1990), p. 27.

3. Ellen G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4

(Battle Creek, MI: Review and Herald Pub.
Co., 1884), p. 429, written between 1878 and
1884.

4. Ellen G. White to W. C. White, Letter 35, Nov.

17, 1885, unpublished.

5. Ellen G. White to J. N. Loughborough, J. H.

Waggoner, E. J. Waggoner, A. T. Jones, Letter
76, April, 1886; in Manuscript Releases, vol.
21, pp. 147-149, emphasis in original. A. T.
Jones and E. J. Waggoner (J. H. Waggoner’s
son), worked as assistant editors of the Signs of
the Times under J. H. Waggoner. Ellen White
assumed that E. J. Waggoner would “naturally
take his [fathers] view” and thus addressed the
letter to him as well.

6. Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler, Letter 5, Oct. 31,

1885; in Testimonies to Ministers, p. 300.

38
 7. Ellen G. White, Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 383,
emphasis supplied, written in 1886.

8. Ellen G. White, “Among the Churches of

Switzerland,” Review and Herald, July 20,
1886, p. 450.

9. Ellen G. White Manuscript 81, Sept. 21, 1886,

“Morning Talk”; in Sermons and Talks, vol. 1,
p. 50, emphasis supplied.

10. Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler and S. N.

Haskell, Letter 55, Dec. 8, 1886; Manuscript
Releases, vol. 12, p. 327.

11. Ellen G. White, “The Standard of Christian

Excellence,” The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9,
1886, p. 737.

12. The Law in Galatians was by far not Jones’ and

Waggoner’s primary concern. This point
cannot be overlooked. They were interested in
presenting the everlasting gospel, which in their
understanding included a different perspective
39
 on the law in Galatians. This became a
stumbling block for most of the leading
brethren and was at the heart of the controversy
at the 1888 Minneapolis General Conference.
Yet, the underlying dispute was over
justification by faith.

13. Uriah Smith to W. A. McCutchen, Aug. 8,

1901; in Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 305-
306. See also: G. I. Butler to Ellen G. White,
Oct 1, 1888, and Uriah Smith to Ellen G.
White, Feb. 17, 1890; in Manuscripts and
Memories, pp. 85-86, 152-157.

14. Clinton Wahlen, Selected Aspects of Ellet J.

Waggoner’s Eschatology and Their Relation to
His Understanding of Righteousness by Faith,
pp. 3-4. See also: R. W. Schwarz, Light Bearers
to the Remnant, p. 185; SDA Bible
Encyclopedia, p. 707; George R. Knight, From
1888 To Apostasy, p. 22. Schwarz claims Jones
came in 1882, the SDA Bible Commentary
states May 1885, and Knight claims the
summer of 1884. Wahlen’s research seems to
40
 be the most accurate. E. J. Waggoner’s name
first appeared on the masthead as “Assistant
Editor,” in Signs of the Times, May 10, 1883.
p. 210.

15. George Knight states that Jones pastored the

Healdsburg church while Jones himself states it
was the San Francisco church (Knight, op. cit.,
p. 22; and A. T. Jones to C. E. Holmes, May
12, 1921; in Manuscripts and Memories, p.
327).

16. A. T. Jones to C. E. Holmes, May 12, 1921; in

Manuscripts and Memories, p. 347.

17. E. J. Waggoner, “Under the Law (continued),”

The Signs of the Times, Sept. 11, 1884, pp.
553-554.

18. G. I. Butler to Ellen G. White, Oct. 1, 1888; in

Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 90-91.

19. W. C. White to Dan T. Jones, April 8, 1890; in

Manuscripts and Memories, p. 165.
41
20. W. C. White to Dan T. Jones, April 8, 1890,
and W. C. White to E. J. Waggoner, Jan. 9,
1887; in Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 166,
49. It is interesting to note that W. C. White
evidently did not know the extent of the
controversy over the law in Galatians, nor all of
what E. J. Waggoner had been presenting at the
college. W. C. White had counseled Waggoner
to write articles on what he had presented at the
college, and to write what he thought was truth
even if it disagreed with others. But when he
was later blamed for being “largely
responsible” for Waggoner’s articles on the law
in Galatians, he could honestly say he “did not
remember” advising Waggoner to write “any
such articles” (Ibid., p. 49).

21. G. I. Butler to Ellen G. White, June 20, 1886;

in Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 18-19.

22. See: Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones and E. J.

Waggoner, Feb. 18, 1887; in 1888 Materials, p.
21, and E. J. Waggoner to Ellen G. White,
42
 April 1, 1887; in Manuscripts and Memories, p.
71. Not only did Ellen White’s letter never
arrive but the Testimony she had written to J.
H. Waggoner years before could not be located,
a fact that is true to this very day. On the other
hand, W. C. White’s letter to E. J. Waggoner
did arrive. In his letter, W. C. White quoted
from Butler’s June 20 letter to his mother--that
Waggoner had “vigorously” taught his views at
the college—and then simply stated: “I wish
our brethren might give this matter a thorough,
candid explanation, and agree on some
common ground” (W. C. White to E. J.
Waggoner, Aug. 15, 1886; in Manuscripts and
Memories, p. 20). See also Chapter 3, endnote
26.

23. E. J. Waggoner, “Comments on Galatians 3.

No. 9,” The Signs of the Times, Sept. 2, 1886,
p. 534.

24. G. I. Butler to Ellen G. White, Aug. 23, 1886;

in Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 21-23.

43
25. G. I. Butler to Ellen G. White, Nov. 16, 1886;
in Manuscripts and Memories, p. 30; and G. I.
Butler, The Law in the Book of Galatians
(Battle Creek, MI.: Review and Herald Pub.
House, 1886), p. 78.

26. “General Conference Proceedings,” Review

and Herald, Dec. 14, 1886, p. 779; and The
Seventh-Day Adventist Year Book, 1887
(Battle Creek, Mich.: Review and Herald Pub.
House, 1887), pp. 45-46.

27. G. I. Butler to Ellen G. White, Dec. 16, 1886;

in Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 4243. Those
committee members in favor of Jones and
Waggoner’s position were S. N. Haskell, B. L.
Whitney, M. C. Wilcox, and E. J. Waggoner.
Those committee members opposed: G. I.
Butler, D. M. Canright, W. Covert, J. H.
Morrison and Uriah Smith. Butler felt that all
the resolutions should have passed.

28. W. C. White to Dan T. Jones, April 8, 1890; in

Manuscripts and Memories, p. 166. W. C.
44
White wrote of another possible cause of
prejudice against E. J. Waggoner: “[T]he
present unfortunate position of his father [J. H.
Waggoner] will make it very easy for prejudice
to arise and interfere with a candid hearing”
(W. C. White to C. H. Jones, Aug. 24, 1886; in
Manuscripts and Memories, p. 26). J. H.
Waggoner was involved in an inappropriate
friendship with a married woman, which Ellen
White called, “secret sin.” Ellen White had
seen this in vision and sent several letters to J.
H. Waggoner, one via G. I. Butler (Ellen G.
White to G. I. Butler, Letter 51, Aug. 6, 1886;
in Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, pp. 378-387).
Butler responded by coming down hard on J.
H. Waggoner, not giving him “a chance for his
life,” and deciding “how much feeling the
erring one should manifest to be pardoned.”
Butler had J. H. Waggoner removed from his
position as editor of the Signs and revoked his
newly appointed assignment to Europe. Ellen
White had a second vision “which showed [J.
H. Waggoner] restored with the blessing of
God resting upon him,” but he was not
45
 “brought to this position” by the help of Butler.
As a result of this situation Ellen White had
“about come to the conclusion” that when a
grievous sin was presented to her that others
knew nothing about, she would say nothing but
labor personally for them herself. She declared:
“I am now becoming convicted that I have
made a mistake in specifying wrong existing in
my brethren. Many … will take these wrongs
and deal so severely with the wrongdoer that he
will have no courage or hope to set himself
right. … Hereafter I must exercise more
caution. I will not trust my brethren to deal
with souls, if God will forgive me where I have
erred” (Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler, Letter
42, April 13, and Letter 16, April 21, 1887).

29. Ellen G. White, “The Unity of the Church,”

Review and Herald, Jan. 25, 1887, p. 49. This
same article was first published in the Feb. 19,
1880 Review, and run a second time, June 16,
1885. It is also found in Testimonies, vol. 4, pp.
16-20. The idea of submitting to the judgment
of the brethren had also been expressed in a
46
 Testimony written to William L. Raymond in
1884 (Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 293). See also
Chapter 5, endnote 23.

30. This fact, along with the fact that she had
already sent Jones and Waggoner one letter
(which they never received), could explain the
long delay in her writing again on the subject.

31. Ellen G. White to A. T. Jones and E. J.

Waggoner, Letter 37, Feb. 18, 1887; in 1888
Materials pp. 26-31. In his book on 1888
message, Steve Wohlberg dedicates an entire
chapter to this letter; chapter 22, “The
Forgotten Manuscript That Shaped
Minneapolis.” From this encounter “both E. J.
Waggoner and A. T. Jones experienced the
practical application of the Laodicean message,
and this prepared them to give the third angel’s
message.” Making that experience practical for
us, Wohlberg states: “These experiences are
extremely important for us. … We must
understand the message, and also be
messengers prepared to give that message. That
47
February 18, 1887, letter is for us. It is for you”
(The 1888 Message for the Year 2000, pp. 123,
132). A. Leroy Moore, in describing the Law in
Galatians controversy, suggests that it was
caused primarily by Jones’ and Waggoner’s
“violation of the principles of the priesthood of
believers.” Thus, before they could “proclaim
Christ our righteousness with power, Waggoner
and Jones had to set self aside and humble
themselves in a personal focus upon Christ and
His atoning sacrifice.” But Moore goes on to
suggest that even with the repentance of Jones
and Waggoner “permanent damage had already
resulted,” and “would long bear its evil fruit.”
The “heavy mortgage payments the controversy
[caused by Jones and Waggoner], imposed
upon the church have yet to be met”
(Adventism in Conflict, pp. 93-95). Yet, as
Ellen White herself soon found out, there was
much more to the story than what Butler had
been sharing with her. It was the background
and the context of the controversy, both before
and after her February 18 letter was written,
that shaped the events of 1888. Thus, her letter
48
 to Jones and Waggoner can be rightly
understood only when read in the context of
what God revealed to her after it was written,
and in the context of the calling that Waggoner
had received in 1882 and Jones before the
Minneapolis conference. God was preparing
Jones and Waggoner for their special mission,
and Ellen White’s letter served a valuable
purpose. But God also had His hand over the
first letter Ellen White sent Jones and
Waggoner the summer of 1886, which never
arrived, and in Ellen White not being able to
find her Testimony from the 1850s on the
Galatians topic. We must also remember that
Ellen White herself never referred back to her
February 18 letter, nor did she ever place the
blame for the rebellion at Minneapolis on Jones
and Waggoner, or the continued conflict to this
day as Leroy Moore suggests!

32. A. T. Jones to Ellen G. White, March 13, 1887;

in Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 66-67.

33. E. J. Waggoner to Ellen G. White, April 1,

49
 1887; in Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 71-72.

34. The added “Explanatory Note” in Waggoner’s

response demonstrates he had taken Ellen
White’s refroof to heart: “The delay of nearly
two years has given ample time to carefully
review the subject again and again, and to
avoid any appearance of heated controversy. …
It should also be stated that this little book is
not published for general circulation. It is
designed only for those in whose hands Elder
Butler’s pamphlet on Galatians was placed. …
That this letter may tend to allay controversy,
to help to bring the household of God into the
unity of faith … is the only desire of the writer”
(E. J. Waggoner, The Gospel in the Book of
Galatians [Oakland, Cal.: 1888], p. 1).

35. G. I. Butler to Ellen G. White, March 31, 1887;

Manuscripts and Memories, pp. 6870. The
reader would do well to read both A. T. Jones’
and E. J. Waggoner’s letters to Ellen White,
and compare their spirit with the spirit manifest
throughout Butler’s letter.
50
36. Ibid., and G. I. Butler, “Laws Which Are
‘Contrary to us,’A‘Yoke of Bondage,’and ‘Not
Good,’” Review and Herald, March 22, 1887,
pp. 182-184. It is interesting to note that this
was the same issue of the Review that Ellen
White’s “The Church’s Great Need,” was also
published.

37. Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler, Letter 13, April

5, 1887; in 1888 Materials, pp. 3237 Butler’s
response to Ellen White’s letter was one of
profound disappointment and anger. It was not
until the 1888 General Conference that he
wrote to her blaming her for the sickness he
had suffered for over eighteen months, due in
part to her April 5, 1887 letter to himself and
Smith.

38. Ellen G. White Manuscript 24, Dec. 1888,

“Looking Back at Minneapolis”; in 1888
Materials, p. 223. Ellen White’s counsel to
Jones and Waggoner in her letter of February
18, must be read and understood in light of
51
 what the Lord revealed to her in her
“impressive dreams.” The letter served its
purpose in confronting Jones and Waggoner
with what was in their own hearts and warning
them against publishing points of controversy
for all to see. But as soon as the Lord revealed
to Ellen White the bigger picture of what was
taking place, her counsel took on a new
direction. Although not ideal, Jones and
Waggoner must now be heard even if it meant
publishing differences of opinions.

39. Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler, Letter 21, Oct.

14, 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 92-93,
emphasis supplied. Some have used this
statement as a blank check to condemn
different aspects of Jones’ and Waggoner’s
teachings they disagree with, the nature of
Christ being one of the primary ones. (see,
George Knight, A User-Friendly Guide to the
1888 Message, pp. 73, 75). However, it is clear
from the background presented here that
“neither [Butler or Waggoner] had all the light
upon the law” because neither had accepted
52
 both the ceremonial and moral law as that
which was referred to in Galatians 3. Both
Butler and Waggoner had singled out only one
of the laws as being the correct view, and it was
this that Ellen White was referred to in her
dream. The position that Galatians 3 referred to
both laws was later confirmed by Ellen White
(Ellen G. White to Uriah Smith, Letter 96, June
6, 1896; 1888 Materials, p. 1575).

40. Ellen G. White to G. I. Butler, Letter 21a, Oct.

15, 1888; in 1888 Materials, pp. 113-115.

41. Ellen G. White Manuscript 15, Nov. 1888, “To

Brethren Assembled at General Conference”; in
1888 Materials, pp. 165-166.

42. Ellen G. White Manuscript 21, Nov. 1888,

“Distressing Experiences of 1888”; in 1888
Materials, pp. 179-180.

43. Ellen G. White, “The Church’s Great Need,”

Review and Herald, March, 22, 1887, pp. 177-
178.
53
44. Ellen G. White, “Importance of Trust in God,”
Sermon, Sept 18, 1886, Review and Herald,
May 10, 1887, p. 290.

54