The reader will readily perceive that those two statements cannot both be true, and whatever of falsehood will attach to Elder White in making these contradictory statements will also involve his wife, for she was present and assented to his statement to me; and it is but reasonable to believe that she assented to his statement in the book.  He stated to me that at the time of her first vision she was a believer in the shut door view, whilst in the book he affirms that at that time she was not, although he admits she had previously been one, and the vision was given to bring her and others back upon the same position, which it accomplished.  Now, Elder and Mrs. White, or their apologist, Uriah Smith, may take whichever horn of this dilemma they please.  In regard to this shut door error I will speak more fully in another part of this work.

Elder and Mrs. White having failed to fulfill their pledge given at the Conference, the minds of the brethren and sisters were left in a unsettled and dissatisfied state after their departure from this State, and a very unkind, contemptuous thrust of Elder White's against Eld. Snook just on the eve of departure being communicated to the latter, again aroused his opposition.  The circumstance was this:  The evening before they left, being at the house of Bro. Hare, Eld. White, in the midst of a room full of the brethren and sisters, in a contemptuous manner stigmatized Eld. Snook as nothing but a "church pauper."  This remark, unkind and unjust as all the church then knew it to be, was by some one reported to Eld. Snook, and convinced him that Eld. White's pretended reconciliation and friendship was not real, but assumed; and of course this did not tend to calm the still troubled mind of the church.  Brother Hinton, of Toledo, who was present, afterwards remarked that it made his blood run cold to hear Eld. White speak so of Eld. Snook.

All this time, however, the brethren were firm believers in the S. D. Adventist view of the Three [Angels'] Messages, &c., and consequently felt no disposition to leave a church built upon that theory; but the expectation began to gain ground that the church would be relieved of the vision incubus that had fastened upon it, and thus freed go on in increasing prosperity and influence, till the consummation of our hope at the Lord's coming.  This expectation, however, was doomed to a disappointment, for it was not long till Eld. Brinkerhoff, who had been investigating the Message and Two-horned Beast theory, came out in opposition to it.  This, of course, caused quite a commotion amongst us, which resulted in a public discussion between Eld. B., who was supported by Eld. Snook, and Eld. W. S. Ingraham, supported by Elders Sanborn and R. F. Andrews.  The discussion, which elicited much interest outside as well as inside the church, was abruptly terminated by Elder Ingraham refusing to continue it any longer, notwithstanding the almost unanimous request of a crowded audience that he should do so.  Instead of this he called for a private meeting of all who were in sympathy with the views as held by them, when a new church was organized, leaving a majority of the old church out; and this is the way we became a distinct church.

Since that time my personal experience in regard to the visions has been slight, until January 1868, when a correspondence on that subject commenced between Bro. W. H. Ball, of Washington, N.H., and myself, the substance and result of which I will relate.  In order to understand the matter, however, it will necessary for me to state briefly the circumstances leading to it.  In the spring of 1863, my wife, in a dream, saw a company of people wearing short dresses and pants, and was impressed with the idea that the S. D. Adventist sisters (of which she was one) would have to wear such a style to distinguish them from the world.  This dream she related among the sisters, not however with the least expectation of ever seeing it realized in fact, as nothing of the kind was thought of in the church, but merely as a singular dream.  When Mrs. White was here in the summer of 1865, my wife related it to her, remarking that she thought in her dream that if such a style of dress should be adopted she could go no farther with them.  This brought out the remark from Mrs. W. that she need not give herself the least uneasiness, that the short dress would never be adopted by them, that they despised it at Battle Creek.  This remark was in substance repeated by Eld. White, at the same time that the remark was made about Eld. Snook, already related.  I wish those facts kept in mind, as I shall have further use for them hereafter.

When the present style of dress was adopted and worn by our
S. D. Adventist sisters, upon the authority and direction of Mrs. White, the dream was so clearly and perfectly realized I related it in the columns of the Hope [of Israel], not however to gain any credit for my wife as a visionist, but to bring out the contradictory statements and actions of Eld. White and wife, which will more fully appear as I proceed.

In the winter of 1867-8 Eld. and Mrs. White, Eld. Andrews, and others, held a series of meetings at the place of Bro. Ball's residence, Washington, N.H., and, upon calling for those who objections to the visions to present them, Bro. Ball read my account of my wife's dream as contradicting their present position.  Bro. B. reports Mrs. White as seeming "very much surprised," and saying that "she never heard any thing about Sr. Carver's having a dream concerning this matter before" -- said she had some conversation with Sr. C. upon this subject -- said there was a sister living near us who had adopted a style of dress that did not reach the knee by some six inches -- said this was the dress Sr. C. was speaking against, and the one of which she said "we'll never put it on, we despise it in Battle Creek."  She also stated that Sister Carver and daughter had, at the time of this conversation, short dresses, similar to those now worn by S. D. Adventists, in which they did their dirty work.  Little did Mrs. W. suppose that her assertions made away in New Hampshire would ever reach our ears out here in Iowa, else she would have been more careful how she uttered such gross misstatements, especially that relating to my wife's dress, which does not contain a shade even of truth.  Upon receiving this letter I applied to some of my S. D. Adventist friends here to correct this false statement, and they gave me the following certificate:

This is to certify that we have known Mr. H. E. Carver and wife for more than three years past, and we have not known or heard of Mrs. Carver having ever worn, or having a short dress, or one in any wise similar to the style now worn by Seventh Day Adventists.

            Thos. Hare,
            D. T. Shireman,
            Amelia Shi
            J. C. Tomlinson.

I immediately wrote to Bro. B. correcting Mrs. White's misstatements, and also wrote to Mrs. W. and to Eld. Andrews in regard to the matter.  I did not hear from Mrs. W. directly, but Eld. Andrews wrote to me, enclosing a copy of a letter from Mrs. W. to Bro. Ball, explaining and correcting his statements.  In regard to my wife wearing a short dress, she said she thought my wife told her so.  In regard to the dream she says she will not deny that the dream may have been related to her, but if so she forgot it, as she had no recollection of it.  I might enlarge on these two points, and show the discrepancies in her attempted explanations, but perhaps it is not necessary.  I will merely remark that a person who can so distinctly remember language that she never heard, and not recollect remarks that she actually did hear, must have a remarkably eccentric memory, and the more so as Mrs. White's assertions were made in public, and were adapted, if not designed, to discredit my wife's statements, and destroy the influence of the facts involved.

In regard to a sister near us wearing a dress six inches above the knee, she says Bro. Ball is mistaken, as she referred to Miss Harriet N. Austin, of Dansville.  Her language is as follows:

I said Miss Austin of Dansville wore her dress very short, and pointed to my own person to show how short.  My husband spoke, "Six inches above the knee."  I said I think it is about that.

Bro. Ball, commenting on this correction, in his second letter, remarks as follows:

I am generally considered very cautious in making statements, and cannot conceive how it is possible that I should mistake Sr. W. concerning Sr. H.'s dress.  Had I relied wholly upon memory in stating the matter to you, it would not have appeared so strange had I mistaken Sr. W.'s testimony.  But having paper and pencil in hand when the statement was made, I immediately noted it down.  For this reason I can hardly be made to believe but that she said it was Sr. H. that wore her dress six inches above the knee, even if Miss Austin was meant.

Having requested Bro. Ball to procure other testimony corroborative of his statements of what Mrs. White said, he replied,

You must excuse me, dear brother, from complying with your request.  Not but that I think such testimony might be obtained, but you know it would be very unpleasant to ask the brethren to bear a testimony that would tell against Sister White.  I do not say but that I might have misunderstood Sr. W., but can hardly see how it could have been.

Elder J. N. Andrews, however, who was also present, has given me his certificate that Mrs. White's correction of Bro. Ball's statement is correct.  Subsequently I endeavored to unravel the mystery of these contradictory statements, but Bro. B., who was at that time inclined in favor of the visions (and which he now endorses) did not respond to my inquiries, hence I must leave it in its present shape, merely remarking that as Mrs. White's and Eld. Andrews' statements agree, I think Bro. B. must be mistaken.

According then to their statements, Elder White and wife are both involved in this matter; they agree in representing Miss H. N. Austin, Editor of the Laws of Life, and one of the physicians at Dr. Jackson's Institute at Dansville, N.Y., as wearing address that does not extend to the knee by some six inches.  Having already detected them in making misstatements, I thought that possibly this might be one; hence I wrote to Miss Austin, calling her attention to the statement of Mr. and Mrs. White, and asking for the facts in the case.  In response I received the following:

Dansville, N.Y., March 26th, 1868.
   
Mr. Henry E. Carver:
  
Dear Sir: -- I very cheerfully reply to your inquiries, for I would always gladly lend my aid to the vindication of truth.   What motive has induced Elder and Mrs. White to make such reports as you mention, and which I had before heard they were making, I know not; but if in their so called divine revelations they do not get nearer to the truth than they have in the statements in regard to the dress I wear, they never will lead any soul to Heaven, but rather toward the darkness.  I have always worn, and in my descriptions and advice to others, have recommended a dress which covers the knee in walking, and which therefore reaches six or eight inches below the knee in sitting.  Neither Mr. nor Mrs. White ever saw me in a dress which in standing or walking did not fully cover the bend of the knee.  You are at liberty to use this statement in any way you choose.
                                 Very respectfully,
                                            Harriet N. Austin, M. D.

I confess I was startled at the receipt of this note, and shocked at the depth of iniquity to which Eld. White and wife had descended, if Dr. Austin had told me the truth; and the tone of the note was such as to assure me of this.  I thought of applying to her for some means of demonstrating the correctness of her statement, and really wished that I had her photograph.  While contemplating this, however, I wrote to Eld. Andrews, giving him a copy of Miss A.'s note, and commenting in severe terms on the conduct of Mr. and Mrs. White.  To this he replied with the evidence purpose of helping them out of the difficulty in which they were involved; and enclosed in his letter I was surprised and pleased to find a full length photograph likeness of Miss Austin in her short dress and pants, and which the Elder had taken the pains to have copied for me from one he received from the physicians at Dansville, in 1864, when he with Eld. White and wife were there.  I could not help thanking Bro. Andrews for his favor, for when I am interested in a subject, I like to investigate it clear through; and here was an exact representation of the dress she wore when Elder White and wife were there.

I also received a similar one from Eld. J. H. Waggoner, with a request to measure the figure and mark the proportions of the person.  This I did, and the result demonstrated that the dress reaches below the knee.  I will give my mode of examination, that others may judge for themselves.  From the heel to the bottom of the dress is just one-fourth the entire height of the person.  Now let anyone take a cord and double it twice, making four double, and it will be found that it will not reach from the floor to the knee by several inches.

Thus it is demonstrated that Elder White and wife have been circulating what I have feel compelled to regard as a "malicious falsehood."  This has been objected to as harsh, and the question will naturally arise, What evil object can they have in making such a statement?  I think the facts below will answer that question, but leave all to judge for themselves.

At the time Eld. White and wife, and Eld. Andrews, were at Dr. Jackson's "Home" in 1864, at a Health Convention held there, Elder White made this remark in substance:  "If we cannot produce a better style of dress reform than that worn here, you may expect to see my wife dressed in your style."  My authority for making this statement is Elder J. N. Andrews, who was present, and who related it to me at the Iowa Conference in the spring of 1868.  This remark of Eld. W., made in a public meeting, shows that it was his design at that time to get up a health reform, unless, indeed, we credit him with imbecility of mind, in making such a statement, which no one who knows him will do.

At the termination of that same visit, when about to leave Dr. Jackson's, Mrs. White stated to the Dr. and family "that she wished him to understand she did not consider herself indebted to him for what she knew of the Health Reform, for she received it from a higher source."  This was stated by Mrs. White herself, before the brethren and sisters at a Conference at Pilot Grove, Iowa, and it proves that she, in connection with her husband, had determined to get up a new Health Reform, based on the claim of divine inspiration; and subsequent events prove that such was the intention.  Such being the case, and a rival Health Institute established, to what other motive than that of building up their own establishment by depreciating that of Dr. Jackson's would induce the Elder and wife to make such false statements about Miss Austin's dress, for it would be enough to disgust any sensible person who could be made to believe that such a style of dress as six inches above the knee was tolerated at the Dr.'s Institute.

I now call attention particularly to the following facts.  Eld. and Mrs. White represent Miss Austin's dress as six inches above the knee, and yet, according to Eld. Andrews Eld. W. pledged himself that upon certain contingencies his wife would wear that style.  That was in 1864.  Eight or nine months afterwards, in the summer of 1865, Elder White and wife, here in Iowa, when questioned by the brethren and sisters, utterly repudiated any style of short dress as being despised in Battle Creek.  Mrs. White was wearing a dress of ordinary length, and represented it as being in accordance with their faith, while her husband remarked that a few of the sisters at Battle Creek had made their dresses an inch or two shorter than usual to do their dirty work in, but if they saw any one coming they would send off up stairs and change, for they would not be seen in it -- they despised it.  Now, if they expressed their real intention at Dansville, in 1864, as events since prove they did, then they used gross deception and duplicity here amongst the brethren and sisters in repudiating all styles of short dress in 1865.

There were other objections that Bro. B. presented against the visions, one of which was their contradictory teachings concerning pork eating.  In my response I gave him a copy of an extract from a letter of instructions from Mrs. White to a sister in Iowa.  It is as follows:

Dear Sister Curtis: -- I felt sorry for you as I read your letter.  I believe you to be in error.  The Lord showed me two or three years since that the use of swine's flesh was no test.  Dear sister, if it is your husband's wish to use swine's flesh you should be perfectly clear to use it.

The letter from which this is an extract, was written a number of years ago and corresponds with what Mrs. White professed in Testimony No. 5 to have seen.  She says:

I saw that you had mistaken notions about afflicting your bodies, depriving yourselves of nourishing food.  Some have gone too far in the eating question.  They have taken a rigid course, and lived so very plain that their health has suffered.  I saw that God did not require any one to take a course of such rigid economy as to weaken or injure the temple of God.  All this is outside of the word of God.  If this is a duty of the church to abstain from swine's flesh God will discover it to more than two or three.  A fanatical spirit is with you.  You are deceived.

Brother and Sister Curtis were among my most intimate friends for many years, and as we lived side by side a portion of the time, I knew some of the circumstances connected with the vision instruction given above.  Sister Curtis was a very conscientious woman, and becoming satisfied (long before any movement was made in that direction by Eld. and Mrs. White) that pork-eating was injurious, she tried to banish it from the table.  This produced trouble.  Sister C. was a sincere believer in Mrs. White's divine inspiration, and from the extract given above, it appears that she must have written to her for instructions, which she received as above; and that professedly through vision.  At the time of the Conference in 1865, Bro. Curtis had the original letter, and promised it to Eld. Snook; but when Eld. White learned that it was in existence, he demanded and obtained possession of it, but not without Bro. C. promising Elder S. a copy of that part relating to the pork question.  Bro. Curtis also stated that Eld. White had endorsed on the back of the letter the following in substance:

That you may know how we stand on this question, I would say that we have just put down a two hundred pound porker.

To show that these professed visions were in perfect harmony with the views and practice of the church at that time, I will present the following from the pen of Uriah Smith in 1858:

To your query concerning the lawfulness of eating pork, we have not time nor space to give an extended reply.  We will only refer to one declaration of Paul's, which in our opinion is sufficient, so far as the Bible is concerned, to demolish completely all distinction which people may endeavor to raise between meats.  (I Tim. 4.)  He speaks of some commanding to abstain from meats, &c., and then says, "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it be received with thanksgiving." -- Review, Vol. xiii, No. 3.

From the evidence before us it will be perceived that twelve years ago the teachings and practice of S. D. Adventists were decidedly in favor of pork eating, and this practice was justified by the professedly divine inspiration of Mrs. White.  The present teachings may be briefly summed up in the following assertion of Mrs. White: "God never designed the swine to be eaten under any circumstances."  Mrs. White claims to be divinely inspired in banishing swine's flesh from use as an article of food, and yet twelve years ago if not later, she claimed divine inspiration in justifying its use, and moreover, used it herself.

We have no objection to any one advancing in knowledge in any laudable direction, and we especially commend our S.D.A. brethren for repudiating the use of swine's flesh as not being a very healthy article of food; but when we see a person like Mrs. White claiming divine inspiration on a subject that had been most clearly elucidated in the writings of Graham, Fowler and Wells, Drs. Trall, Jackson, and others, many years before she ever adopted the Health Reform, and at a time when she, professedly by divine inspiration, was pursuing a directly opposite course, we should feel condemned if we should charge such absurd and contradictory teachings upon the God of heaven; hence we must reject the claims of Mrs. White as spurious.  As we have already stated, Mrs. White claimed in Dr. Jackson's presence divine inspiration as the source of her knowledge on the Health Reform.  What then must have been the Doctor's estimate of her divine inspiration, when a few months afterwards she took her prostrated husband to his Institute for treatment!  The Elder and his wife, while enjoying the hospitality of Dr. Jackson's Home, had been concocting a rival Health Reform, and upon departing had indulged in an attempted triumph over him, and then in a short time were completely humiliated at the Dr.'s feet.

I wish now to present to the reader another item brought out in Bro. Ball's letter to me.  He states that one objection which he presented at that meeting against her divine inspiration, was the "Camden Vision."  In response to this he represents her as saying that "she knew nothing about it, and could not say whether it was genuine or not unless she saw it in her own handwriting."  It is not my purpose here to discuss the doctrines of that vision: this I shall do when the "Shut Door" error is under consideration; but my object is to bring out the stubborn facts in the case that prove that Mrs. White is guilty of dishonesty in making statements.  The above statement of Mrs. White, that she knew nothing about the "Camden Vision," was made at Washington, N.H., in 1867.  Two years pervious to that time, in 1865, the church here at Marion were very much troubled in regard to a printed document that had been sent here from the East, called the "Camden Vision," and one of the brethren wrote to Eld. Loughborough, who was then with Eld. and Mrs. White, at Rochester, N.Y., inquiring in reference to its genuineness.  Eld. L. wrote in reply:

Dear Bro. Hare:   
            I have had some conversation with Sister White concerning the document Elds. Snook and Brinkerhoff have called the "Camden vision."  She says there are a very few things in that vision that she saw, but that there is much in that document she has no recollection of ever seeing; says it is just as new to her as it is to any of us.  The probabilities are, as near as I can learn, that document is badly garbled.
                                      Yours, truly,
                                                  J. N. Loughborough.
Rochester, N.Y., Dec. 19th, 1865.

Here we see that in 1865 she admitted to Eld. L. and through him to us that there were a few things in that vision which she saw, and yet afterwards, when replying to Bro. Ball, she professed entire ignorance of it.  But this is not all.  The "Camden Vision," among others of the earlier publications of Elder White, Bates, &c., bearing on the "shut door" question, had been sent to Elders S. and B. to prepare them for their defense at the Conference held in June of the same year; and after their surrender at that time, when at a private conference between Eld. White and wife and Eld. Snook, the subject of the "Camden Vision" was under consideration, Elder White and wife admitted its genuineness, but claimed that it had only a local application.  Here, then, in the summer of 1865, the genuineness of that vision is fully conceded, in the winter following it is partially admitted, and in 1867 utterly repudiated.  How, I ask, can any confidence be placed in the truthfulness of any persona acting in this way, especially one who claims so near a relation to Almighty God?

I wish here to notice another point in Bro. Ball's communication.  The opinion had gained ground among us that the original practice among the brethren of observing the Sabbath from 6 o'clock to 6 o'clock instead of from sunset to sunset had been confirmed by a vision; and this was stated in some of our publications.  Bro. Ball raised this as an objection, but the statements and explanations given satisfied him it was an error, and he so stated to me.  I told him if he would furnish me with the evidence I would correct the mistake through our paper, and I subsequently gave the following statements in its columns:

There has been a belief in the minds of some, including ourself, that by means of a clock face with the hands pointing to six o'clock, seen by Mrs. E. G. White in vision, the former practice of our brethren in keeping the Sabbath from six to six o'clock, instead of from sunset to sunset, was confirmed.  We are satisfied now from the evidence we have that this is a mistake; and that Mrs. White never had any such vision, and we cheerfully proceed to correct the error by a statement of the facts in the case.

In 1846 the Sabbath was first brought to the notice of Eld. White and wife by Eld. Joseph Bates.  (See Spir. Gifts, Vol. II., p. 82.)   Elder Bates was a strong advocate for commencing the Sabbath at six o'clock, and his view was adopted by those who affiliated with Eld. White and wife; and this practice was kept up for nine years until the fall of 1855.  As early, however, as 1847, a portion of Sabbath-keepers called in question the six o'clock time some adopting sunrise, and some sunset.  In the same year, Mrs. W. professedly had a vision, in which she was shown that sunrise was the wrong time to begin the Sabbath but was not shown that sunset was the right time.  She merely heard these words repeated: "From even to even shall ye celebrate your sabbaths."  Eld. Bates was present, and succeeded in satisfying all present that "even" was six o'clock.

Satisfied on the point, they continued the practice as before, from six to six.  About two years later however, in 1849, the subject was against agitated at a Conference at Rocky Hill, Conn., at which Eld. White and wife, and Eld. Bates were present.  At that time a brother by the name of Chamberlain, in whose spiritual exercises or "gifts" there was great confidence, seemed to be very powerfully exercised, and amid groans and tears he called for chalk, and marked out upon the floor the figure of a clock face, the hands pointing out six o'clock; and a general impression prevailed that this was the work of the spirit of God.  By reference to Spir. Gifts, Vol. II., pp. 94, 96, and 98, it will be perceived that this Bro. Chamberlain was at that time a leading one among them, and it was by his arrangement that that Conference was held.  Here then, the question was a second time settled that six o'clock was the right time to commence the Sabbath, and the last time by divine inspiration, as was supposed, and the practice was kept up for six years longer, till 1855. 

During all this time however, the subject was more or less discussed, until finally the agitation became such, that fears were entertained of a division among the adherents of Eld. White and wife, and Eld. Andrews finally decided, at Elder White's request, to devote his time to the subject, till he ascertained what the Bible taught in regard to it.  The result was, a general belief that the Bible taught sunset time.  Eld. Bates, and some others, however, were not satisfied, it seems, with the evidence, and then Mrs. White had a vision for their benefit, to save them from being lost, or, at least, out of harmony with the body, and that vision was that sunset time was the right time.

These are the facts in the case, so far as they have come to light; and now we wish to offer a few comments.  Let us in imagination, take our position in the midst of the Conference at Rocky Hill in 1849.  Looking back from this standpoint two years, we see Mrs. White claiming to have been shown in a heavenly vision that it was wrong to commence the Sabbath at sunrise, but that it should be from "even to even."  From this is seems that the subject was deemed sufficiently important to induce the God of Heaven to divinely and miraculously instruct his people in regard to duty, else the vision would not have been given.  These instructions, however, were perverted and frustrated by Eld. Bates.  The subject has been agitated, and a diversity of opinion prevails among Sabbath-keepers up to the time of this Conference at Rocky Hill.  Here are about fifty gathered on this occasion.  Among them Eld. White and wife, Eld. Bates, who misled them in this matter two years ago, and others.  They are generally believers in Spiritual Gifts, and two present claim to possess them.  The subject is again agitated, which is right, six o'clock time, or sunset?  Under all the circumstances, have we not a right to expect that Elder Bates' mistake will be corrected, and sunset time be established?  When the prophet Daniel made a mistake as to what the angel of God told him, an angel was commissioned to "fly swiftly" in order to correct that misunderstanding; but here, some two years had elapsed, and surely the mistake will be corrected now.  What do we see?  Does Mrs. White have any vision?  Not any!  But we see Bro. Chamberlain in whose spiritual exercises there is great confidence,   powerfully exercised, and amid groans and tears calling for the chalk with which he makes some marks on the floor.  Let us approach and see what he is doing.  Is he writing that "from even to even" means from sunset to sunset?  If so, it will be a step in the right direction, even if we doubt his divine inspiration; but instead of this we see him chalk out a likeness of a clock face with the hands indicating six o'clock.  Thus Eld. Bates' mistake of two years previous was confirmed, and as was generally supposed, by divine inspiration; and Mrs. White was just as much under the delusion for the next six years as any one else.

In addition to the authority cited above, we are indebted to an article in a late number of the Review from the pen of Eld. White; also a letter from Eld. Ransom Hicks, kindly furnished us by Bro. W. H. Ball, of Washington, N.H. -- Hope of Israel, Vol. II., No. 24.

In commenting on this account of that affair, Eld. Waggoner, in the Review, raises two points of objection, one in reference to a matter of fact, and the other of application.  He says that the vision given to Mrs. White in 1855 was not that sunset time was the right time to commence the Sabbath, but was precisely similar to her first one with the additional injunction to search the Scriptures to learn what it means.  It was not my intention to misrepresent Mrs. White in the slightest particular, and I can only account for my inadvertent expression in this way.  Eld. White, in giving his statement of the matter, had claimed credit for the vision as the means of bringing "Eld. Bates and some others (who were not satisfied with the Bible argument) into harmony with the body who were satisfied with the evidence."  This was the idea in my mind, and would have been more clearly expressed and more exactly correct, and harmonized perfectly with the entire account had I said "that vision satisfied them that sunset time was the right time."  One singular feature of this circumstance is that the same identical vision of Mrs. White's, which in 1847 confirmed Eld. Bates in his six o'clock theory, served upon its repetition in 1855 to change him to a sunset advocate.  Eld. W. seems to think I was unfortunate in my reference to the prophet Daniel being so speedily corrected when he made a mistake, from the fact that a period of fifteen years elapsed between the vision of the eighth chapter and that of the ninth.  A slight examination will serve to show that the Eld. has missed his aim, which was to destroy the striking contrast between the case of Daniel and that of the S. D. Adventist prophetess.  At the close of the eighth chapter the prophet says that "none understood it."

In the ninth chapter he tells us that he understood by books the prophecy of Jeremiah regarding the time of Jerusalem's desolations.  During the interval of fifteen years between these two chapters the Babylonian Empire had been subverted, and that of the Medo-Persian established; and as in the prophecy these events are intimately associated with the return of the captivity, he expected the speedy enlargement of the nation, and I think his mistake consisted in supposing that their final deliverance under Messiah, or the Prince of princes, as shown to him in the vision of chapter 8, was included in the series of events about to transpire; hence he engaged with all the zeal of a prophet of God in earnest supplication in behalf of his people.  And what was the result?  Why, before he had finished his prayer an angelic messenger who had been commissioned to give him the needed instructions being caused to fly swiftly appears to him to communicate to him an understanding of the matter.  The point I make is this:  The prophet of God was not left to plead and plead under a mistaken idea, call conferences of his brethren, have them solicit instruction at the hand of God, who later making two or three efforts to enlighten them, but failing in consequence of the ignorance or obstinacy of one of their number, refers them at last to the written word.

Now the facts in the case of this modern prophetess are these:  When Mrs. White received the Sabbath truth through Eld. Bates, she also, notwithstanding her asserted divine inspiration, received from him his erroneous six o'clock time.  According to their own showing, God attempted in 1847 to correct the error, but the effort was frustrated by Eld. Bates.  Again, two years later, when the subject was again under consideration, God again interfered in behalf of his truth (as they then thought); but the result was only to confirm them in their error for the next six years; and then in the third and last effort, and after the most of the church had renounced their error, all that was done was to refer them to the Bible for light from which the Seventh Day Baptists had many years before learned that sunset was the proper time to commence the Sabbath.  This is another and striking illustration of the fact before alluded to that the prophetess of the S. D. Adventist church has failed to give the necessary instructions at some important crisis in their history.

Another point in connection with this correspondence with Bro. Ball seems to demand attention before we leave the subject, tho' it is not intimately connected with the vision question.  Bro. B. says, "Bro. and Sr. White spoke very highly of you and Sr. C.  Bro. W. said they regretted your loss more than all the rest that had left their ranks.  Said that you was too good a man to be engaged in such dirty work.  Said also that Sr. Carver was a woman of very fine feelings, &c., &c.  They spoke highly in your praise, and seemed to feel very bad for the course you had taken."  I quote this to show the estimation in which Mrs. and Mrs. White professed to hold us at the time Bro. B. opened this correspondence, and to contrast it with a later expression contained in our correspondence; but before doing so I wish to say a word about "dirty work."  Unpleasant and disagreeable as it unquestionably is, every one knows that it is necessary at times to engage in dirty work.  The housekeeper, if she would appear tidy about the house, must occasionally engage in the "dirty work" of house cleaning.  The mechanic, the farmer &c., must each have their seasons of dirty employment in the prosecution of their business; and it may be well considered the dirtiest and most unpleasant employment of one who considers himself a Christian, to expose the errors and dishonesty of his professed Christian brother or sister; but sometimes it is necessary to be done, and then the duty should not be evaded.  Were Eld. White and wife occupying a humble, secluded position in the Christian church, I should consider it entirely outside of my line of duty to thus hold up their faults to the public gaze; but they claim to be not only the chosen leaders of the Lord's hosts, but also to stand in some sense between God and His people.

The other expression alluded to is this:  Bro. Ball says, "One of our correspondents in a letter of a recent date remarks as follows; 'H. E. Carver is a man I have always respected.  He is naturally a kind, fine, smart man.  He has fallen, and is now employing his talents and influence in the low cunning of Satan.'"  I allude to this for the reason that our S. D. Adventist brethren generally consider that those who give up their theories of the Three Messages, Two Horned Beast, &c., the visions and their connection with their church, are actually enlisted under the banner of Satan, no matter how faithful they may be to all the practical duties involved in the Christian life.  Believing as they do that the Seventh Day Adventist church is preeminently if not exclusively the church of the living God, they must, to be consistent, consider those who leave them as being engaged in the enemy's work.  It is perhaps as much their misfortune as their fault that they occupy such a selfish and exclusive position; it is but a modified though chronic form of that fanatical spirit that fastened upon a portion of the Advent people after our disappointment in 1844, in the "shut door" delusion.

Who this writer is I do not know, as Bro. Ball has not informed me; but he refers of course to my recent investigation into Elder and Mrs. White's course as developed in the correspondence, and in this he thinks I am doing the "low cunning work of Satan."  As a reply to this I will give an extract from my reply to Bro. Ball.

Now what have I done in the case that is susceptible of such a charge?  You called my attention to certain contradictions (i.e., between Mrs. White's statements and mine), and invited explanations.  I complied with your request, and moreover notified Mrs. White of what I had heard.  In her attempts to escape from her dilemma she has involved herself in a question of pure unmistakable veracity with Miss H. N. Austin.  One or the other must have told a deliberate falsehood.  This matter is not of my own seeking, neither have I acted underhandedly or cunningly, but openly and aboveboard, willing and desirous to disseminate the truth, and the whole truth in the case to any and all interested.  If I had wished to act cunningly would I have promptly put within Mrs. White's reach Miss Austin's letter?  Would I have informed them of what you wrote to me, and thus give them the opportunity to counteract the influence of my letter?  No, my brother; if their efforts to get out of one difficulty only sinks them deeper in another, it is their fault and not mine.

We now come to the "shut door" error, and the first question that naturally arises is what is meant by the "shut door"?  Uriah Smith, in treating on this subject, asserts and attempts to prove that the shut door doctrine as held by them and sustained by vision, does not and never did preclude the conversion and salvation of sinners.  To those who are thoroughly acquainted with this subject from first to last, Editor Smith's lack of candor will be a striking feature of his late pamphlet put forth in behalf of the divine inspiration of Mrs. White.  In that part relating to the "shut door" he writes in such a way as to leave a doubt upon the mind of the reader whether any person among the Adventists ever believed that the time for the salvation of sinners was past.  This want of candor will appear more striking as we learn from indubitable evidence that not only did "some entertain this strong view," but that for years the main body of the church to which he belongs, including Mr. and Mrs. White, held that view as an important article of their creed.  We now proceed to give the testimony proving the assertion we have just made, and first give some extracts from the writings of Wm. Miller.

We have done our work in warning sinners and in trying to awake a formal church.  God in his providence has shut the door; we can only stir one another up to be patient.  We are now living in the time specified by Malachi 3:18; also Dan. 12:10; Rev. 22:10-12.  In this passage we cannot help but see that a little while before Christ should come there would be a separation between the just and the unjust, the righteous and the wicked; and never since the days of the apostles has there been such a division line drawn as was drawn about the 10th or 23rd day of the seventh Jewish month.  -- Advent Herald, Dec. 11, 1844.
 
But you ask why I do not show whether the probation of sinners is ended?  I answer, It is a close point, and if handled at all it ought to be done very wisely, and with a great deal of humility.

He then quotes Dan. 12:10 and proceeds.

It will readily be seen by this text that before the end the people of God must be purified, made white, and tried.  Now if probation goes on until the last moment of time, how can those who are regenerated in the last moment have their patience tried?"
 
There was a division line drawn then.  Many who were in deep distress for a preparation to meet Christ at that time have gone back since the time passed, and have become the most shameful scoffers and the greatest persecutors we have among us.  And I have not seen a genuine conversion since.  A number who were converted at that time and before remain steadfast, looking and praying for Christ to come.  If 
I am correct you will see a general and powerful struggle among our nominal sects for revivals in a short time, but it will prove a failure, no one will be made truly pious.

Such were the sentiments put forth by Bro. Miller shortly after the passing of the time in '44, and they were adopted quite extensively for awhile throughout the Advent ranks, and were finally incorporated into the theory of those who engaged in what they considered the Third Angel's Message.

We give the testimony of Eld. Jos. Bates:

Our Labor in the Philadelphia
and Laodicean Churches.

Preparatory to the second coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, three angels are commissioned to go forth and proclaim their messages of salvation.  These three messages were to be delivered as follows:  First, to the Sardis, or fifth state of the church, and all out of the church.  His message was the everlasting good news of the coming reign of Christ, with the warning that the hour of God's judgment is come.  Rev. 14:6,7.

The second angel's message was the fall of Babylon the Sardis state of the church called by us the nominal church (in name only).  When this annunciation was made another was made from heaven, viz., Come out of her my people.  The call was responded to and thousands broke away from her communion forever.  The message closed with an additional cry throughout the camp of Israel, 'Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him.'  Instead of Jesus coming to earth as was then expected, we found by a further examination of God's word, connected with the types, that the 2300 days (the basis of the second Advent doctrine) was the appointed time for our Great High Priest to begin the cleansing of the Sanctuary, the true Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man.  We understand that he was a mediator for all the world, ministering in the Holy Place in the Holy Place in the Tabernacle called the Sanctuary, from the day of Pentecost, A.D. 31, until his appointed time, the end of the 2300 days, or years, the fall of 1844.  Then on the tenth day of the seventh month, 1844, our Great High Priest, attired in all his priestly garments, having over his heart the breast-plate of judgment on which is represented the names of all the true Israel of God, rises up and shuts the door, and passes into the Holiest of all, and appears before the Ancient of days, and confesses the names of all Israel before his Father and his angels.  Mark this: here was a literal transaction in heaven at that time, and all true shut door believers so teach and show further that the third angel's message is based on the opening of the door into the Holiest of all, to make this presentation.  Here a question arises, Who are meant by the whole house of Israel?  We believe they comprise all honest obedient believers that had up to that time overcome, (Rev. 3:5,) and also children that had not come to the years of accountability.  When they do reach that point, their place is at the open door, keeping the law of God.  'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul' -- Ps. 19.  The call to come out of Sardis because she was the fallen Babylon the apostate church, was clear, and as far in the past as a cry at midnight.  But it is said they have converts.  Yes, but they are strange ones, because they come after the house of Israel have their names borne into the Holiest.  Hence, says the prophet, 'He hath withdrawn himself from them; now shall a month devour them with their portions.'  The true church are to be found with those that are represented with their own on the breast-plate of judgment, and entered into the Philadelphia state in the fall of 1844, and became a church at that time, according to the message then delivered them.  At this point of time then the door was shut against the Sardis church and the wicked world.  Another door opened to the philadelphia church to enter with the Master of the house to the marriage.

The above needs no comment to show what was meant by the "shut door"; but we have the testimony of Eld. James White, equally as explicit.  He says:

And strange to tell, many of those who have abandoned the fulfillment of prophecy in our past experience are ready to brand us with fanaticism, and rank us with Shakers, &c., for believing what they have believed, and for carrying out and showing a consistent fulfillment of the parable in all its parts, which shows that the door is shut.  Here I will give some extracts from a letter that I have recently received from Bro. Holt, of Conn.  "Many will point us to one who is said to be converted for positive proof that the door is not shut, thus yielding the word of God for the feelings of an individual." 

But says the objector, The door of mercy will not be closed until Jesus comes.  We do not read of such a door as the door of mercy in the Bible, neither do we teach that such a door was shut in 1844.  God's mercy endureth forever.  He is still merciful to his saints, and ever will be, and Jesus is still their advocate and Priest.  But the sinner to whom Jesus stretched out his arms all the day long and who had rejected the offers of salvation was left without an advocate when Jesus passed from the Holy Place, and shut that door in 1844.  The professed church who rejected the truth was also rejected, and smitten with blindness, and now with their flocks and herds they go to seek the Lord as still an Advocate for sinners; but says the prophet, [Hosea v, 6, 7,] "they shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them." -- Present Truth, No. 10, 1850.

It may seem superfluous to offer any more evidence, yet we wish to present the combined testimony of nine of the ministers of the S. D. Adventist church placed upon record less than eight years ago touching the very point at issue.

If we go back to a period of from six to nine years, we find the believers in the Third Angel's Message few in number, very much scattered, and in no place assuming to take the name of a church.  Our views of the work before us were then mostly vague and indefinite; some still retaining the idea adopted by the body of Advent believers in 1844, with Wm. Miller at their head, that our work for the world was finished, and that the message was confined to those of the original Advent faith.  So firmly was this believed that one of our number was nearly refused the message, the individual presenting it having doubts of the possibility of his salvation because he was not in the '44 move.  Such things may seem strange to most of our readers, but they serve well to illustrate our proposition that crude and erroneous views were entertained....  And according to our views of the work we had to do was our method of labor.  As individuals would go scores and even hundreds of miles to present the truth to one or two who had been believers in the first message, so would the laborers go long distances to visit, to comfort, and to strengthen the scattered ones who had embraced the faith.
 
          J. H. Waggoner,    J. N. Loughborough,
          M. E. Cornell,        Joseph Bates,          
          James White,        E. W. Shortridge,      
          Moses Hull,           John Byington,         
                            J. B. Frisbie.       

The above is ample testimony to prove that the S. D. Adventist church, as a body, for years after 1844, did not believe in the possibility of the conversion and salvation of sinners, and yet Uriah Smith has the hardihood in the face of these facts to say that "some may perhaps have entertained the strong view" of the "shut door" above presented.  Again he says, "IF it could be shown that men have believed and taught the shut door in its extremest sense, so much the better for the visions, if it should finally appear that they have not so taught."

To the above testimony we might add that of our own experience, for we have been all through the Advent experience of the last quarter of a century.  We were among those who in '44 believed without a doubt that the Lord would come on the tenth day of the seventh month of that year, and with them met the severe disappointment.  We were among those who embraced the shut door theory, and hence we only speak what we know to be true when we affirm that by the term "shut door" was meant that the probationary state for sinners was past.  We can also bear testimony to the truth of the statement of those nine ministers, for well do we remember when, seventeen or eighteen years ago, our Advent band in Cincinnati was visited by Elders Holt, Case, and J. N. Andrews, who had no message or labor for any but those of the original Advent faith.

Now, cannot any one see that this is the very class of people of whom it can be consistently and truthfully said that they have or had no "travail of soul for sinners"?  For if they believed the time for their salvation was past it would be impossible to engage in such a work; they could not do it, and did not do it for years.

And now having shown conclusively that at the time of Mrs. White's earlier visions the Advent people with whom she was associated understood the shut door view to teach the close of probation in 1844 to all except those then engaged in the Advent movement, we next proceed to inquire, Do the earlier visions of Mrs. White teach the same thing?  Let it be borne in mind that we have already proved that she was at that time a believer in the shut door doctrine herself, and also from the testimony of ten competent witnesses that doctrine involved the end of probation to all except Adventists, with the exception, perhaps, of young children.

It will not be denied that her visions teach that a door was shut in 1844, but it is claimed that she also saw another door opened at the same time, and as Jesus entered into the Most Holy Place as a High Priest, that sinners may come to him at that open door and be saved.  We know this is the modern view, but we have presented evidence amply sufficient to show that this was not the view entertained at the time of the earlier visions; and the question is: which theory do they harmonize with?  The old or the new?  We appeal now directly to the visions.

In a pamphlet published by James White in 1847, a copy of which is now before me, is published her first vision, in which she describes the Advent people as an on elevated path going towards the holy city, while the world is described as situated far below.  The reader will not fail to notice that a division line is very distinctly drawn here between the Advent people and the world.  She does not see a single individual on the path going to the city but Adventists which is in perfect harmony with the shut door view as understood at that time; and this principle holds good all through the vision.  She describes some as growing weary of the long road to the city, and Jesus encouraging them; and says that "from his arm came a glorious light, which waved over the Advent band [still the Adventists exclusively] and they shouted Hallelujah.  Others rashly denied the light behind them, &c.  The light went out, leaving their feet in perfect darkness, and they stumbled and got their eyes off the mark and lost sight of Jesus, and fell off the path down in the dark and wicked world below.  It was just as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to the city as all the wicked world which God had rejected."

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, and carefully studying the natural import of the language used, it would seem to any honest and candid mind that this vision teaches the shut door doctrine "in its extremest sense," as Uriah Smith states it; in fact that it can mean nothing else; and thus Eld. W. and his wife must have thought, or they would not have made the admission to me they did, nor expunged the obnoxious expression from a later edition of this vision.

We now come to the vision concerning False Reformations.  In treating on this point in his late work Uriah Smith has again manifested a lack of candor.  In quoting from the vision, on page 33, he quotes from Experience and Views, in which a portion of the original vision has been expunged.  Why did he not quote from The Present Truth of Aug. 1849, which contains the entire vision?  Why has he been so careful not to give the entire quotation in any one place in his book?  After quoting that portion published in Experience and Views, he devotes five pages to explanations, without once informing the reader that an important item of the vision is left out.  True, in the latter part of the book he attempts to break the force of the suppressed part; but even there he does not give the entire connection.  This we will now do:

I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders and false reformations would increase and spread.  The reformations that were shown me were not reformations from error to truth, but from bad to worse; for those who professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious garb which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart.  Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's people; but if their hearts could be seen they would appear as black as ever.  My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be.  I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past.

Here she professes to have been shown the false reformations that succeeded the shutting of the door in 1844, and that they would increase and spread; but instead of making men better they would be made worse, for those who professed to be converted had not been benefited in the least, but were just as blackhearted as ever; and then after saying she could not see the travail of soul for sinners as used to be, she gives the reason why; i.e., "the time for their salvation is past."  It does seem that any one can see that this is a plain straightforward account, and what gives certainty to this view is the fact that it is in perfect harmony with the views of the body of Sabbath keeping Adventists at the time the vision was first published, for they then believed (Mrs. White among them) that the time of probation for sinners was ended.

But Uriah Smith tries to evade the force of this plain evidence, 1st, by leaving out the suppressed portion of the vision which qualifies and explains the closing paragraph; and 2nd, having done this, he goes back give paragraphs to find the antecedent of the word "their," showing that he is hard pressed to make out his case, and clear the visions of this odious feature.  In order to understand his position we quote from his book.

"I saw that Satan was working through agents in a number of ways.  He was at work through ministers, who have rejected the truth and are given over to strong delusions to believe a lie that they might be damned."  These ministers are the ones referred to, who are carrying on the false revivals brought to view.  She was bade to look to see if there was on their part the travail for souls as used to be.  She could not see it.  Why?  Because they, the ministers, had rejected the truth, and had been given to believe a lie; the time for their salvation was past, and they could not feel that deep and genuine concern for souls that would be felt by those who stood in the counsel of God, and through whom he was working to bring sinners to himself.

Here then, Smith asserts that that class of ministers that rejected the truth (by which is meant the Advent movement), and who did not believe that the probationary state for sinners was ended, could not have that deep and genuine concern for sinners they felt formerly, and this for the reason that their own probationary state was ended; whilst those who believed (as we have abundantly proved) that the time for the salvation of sinners closed in 1844 could still feel a deep and genuine concern for their souls, and that God was working through them to bring sinners to himself.  Oh consistency, thou art a jewel!  How can any one charge God with the folly of sending out a class of ministers to convert sinners, whilst those ministers themselves did not believe it possible for them to be converted.  Again how does he know that those ministers who rejected the (Advent) truth did not have that deep concern for souls they did previous to 1844?  Who has enabled him to look into the hearts of men and pass such judgment upon them?  Just think of it! laboring for the past twenty-six years for sinners, and yet have no deep and genuine concern for them as those can who believed the door was shut (in its extremest sense) in 1844!  We wish the reader to bear in mind that Uriah Smith claims that it was the leaders in the (so called) false reformations that had no travail of soul for sinners as formerly.  We might rest the case upon inconsistency and absurdity of this view in consideration of the fact that at the time of the vision that class of ministers were the only ones who were engaged in efforts for the salvation of sinners, except those Adventists who did not believe in the shut door; but we have the most direct and positive proof on this very point, and that too from Eld. Jas. White.  This testimony is from a tract published by him at Oswego, N.Y., in May, 1850, entitled The Sanctuary, the 2300 Days, and Shut Door.  On page 13 he says:

When we came up to that point of time (tenth of seventh month, '44), all our sympathy, burden, and prayers for sinners ceased, and the unanimous feeling and testimony was that our work for the world was finished forever.

This it will be perceived was published fourteen months after the vision, and gives us a perfect knowledge as to who it was that had not "travail of soul for sinners."  Uriah Smith says of those who have no travail of soul for sinners that the time of their salvation is past.  If he tells the truth then Elders White, Bates, &c., occupy a very unenviable position, as the time for their salvation passed by twenty years ago.  The plain simple truth of the case is evidently just this:  She saw no travail of soul for sinners among her brethren, and hence she concluded there was no salvation for sinners.

On page 38 Uriah Smith claims that because the visions teach that after the shutting of the door in 1844, God's people are being tested on the Sabbath question, therefore "the visions do positively teach that there are some, how many we of course know not, whose probation has not yet ceased, but who are yet to be converted to God, or sealed to destruction."  In putting forth such an assertion as this the writer manifests gross ignorance of the earlier visions, and the belief of those most intimately connected with them, or else he is practicing willful deception on his readers.  Any one at all conversant with all the facts in the case will readily perceive from the visions themselves that the position maintained for years was that whilst the cases of the ungodly and of those professing Christians who had not identified themselves with the Advent movement had been decided against them forever at the tenth day of the seventh month, '44, the Lord then commenced to select out of the Advent people by means of the Third Angel's Message one hundred and forty-four thousand saints, who should keep the commandments of God and be alive to hale the coming of the Lord, whilst the rest of the Adventists who would not obey the Third Angel's Message and those who once embraced the Sabbath under its teachings and afterwards gave it up, would be lost forever.  It is in this sense alone that the earlier visions teach any thing like a probationary state after '44 and there is not a single hint in them that we can find that shows a possibility of one new convert to God being made after '44, but the very reverse, Uriah Smith's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding.

To show that this was Mrs. White's position nearly seven years after the time specified, we will give a quotation from the "Camden Vision" published June 29th, 1851.

Then I saw that Jesus prayed for his enemies; but that should not cause us or lead us to pray for the wicked world whom God had rejected.  When he prayed for his enemies there was hope for them, and they could be benefited and saved by his prayers, and also after while he was a mediator in the outer apartment for the whole world; but now his spirit and sympathy were withdrawn from the world; and our sympathy must be with Jesus, and must be withdrawn from the ungodly.

Why did Jesus pray for the ungodly then?  Because they could be benefited and saved then.  Why does he not pray for them now?  Because they have been rejected of God.  Jesus ceased to be their mediator when he left the outer apartment in 1844, and hence they cannot be benefited by his prayers since then, and hence God's people should not pray for them now.  Uriah Smith may attempt to evade the force of this by asserting that the "world" is spoken of in general terms, and not as individuals, and hence there may be exceptions.  We reply that there is no evidence that Jesus ever prayed for the world in the aggregate, and the vision does not contemplate this; or, if it does then it teaches that during Jesus' ministration in the outer apartment there was hope that the world in the aggregate might be saved, which is contrary to the whole tenor of the New Testament.  Jesus declared, "I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me."  The prayers of Jesus will avail for the salvation of individuals, but not for the world as a whole; and hence when, as the vision says, "his spirit and sympathy were withdrawn from the world, she means that it is withdrawn from them individually, and not in the aggregate.  This is made still more plain, if possible, by the following expression in the same vision:  "I saw that the wicked could not be benefited by our prayers now."  No one would suppose for a moment that the band in Camden had commenced to pray for the conversion of the entire world, but according to the statement of Mrs. W. to Elder Snook, some of the brethren there had commenced to labor and pray in behalf of some of their neighbors, or friends, and this vision was given to correct this erroneous course.

We have not presented all the testimony that might be produced on this subject, but have given sufficient we think to satisfy the unprejudiced mind that the first visions of Mrs. White teach most distinctly the closing up of the probationary state of the human race in 1844, with the exception of the class of people then engaged in the Advent movement, the former having been rejected of God and given over to destruction, whilst the latter were yet to be tested by the Third Angel's Message.  This is what was understood by the shut door.

The question now arises do they believe in the shut door now?  We answer, that according to Uriah Smith's late work, they do, with a slight modification, and that may be expressed thus:  "The door is shut, but we hold the key, and can let you in."  He asserts that a great change in the relation of Jesus to the world occurred in 1844, and that the means that were sufficient for the salvation of sinners previous to that time have become inefficient since then, -- that now they must come to him with an understanding of his present position and work in the sanctuary, and that this can only be obtained through the medium of the Third Angel's Message; and this message is being proclaimed by the Seventh Day Adventists exclusively.  Any person may see that the above is not a burlesque upon the S. D. Adventist faith by reading his remarks on pages 24 to 26 of his late work in support of the visions.  True, he admits on page 26 that there may be true Christians who have not yet become acquainted with this doctrine of the change of Christ's ministration from the Holy to the most Holy place; but this only destroys the force of all he has previously said about its being essential to understand this change, for if one person may be a Christian and not understand this change, then others may, even all of them; and yet we find the visions describing this very class as being under the deception and influence of Satan.  The vision to which I allude is the one on pages 43 and 44 of Experience and Views, where she describes those who were still bowed before the throne, upon which Jesus sat previous to 1844, but was ignorant of his removal to the inner apartment.  Now mark!  They are worshipers of the true God; are believers in Jesus, and are worshiping with their faces towards the heavenly Sanctuary; but do not know anything of the change of position of the High Priest.  Uriah Smith says they are true Christians, and if they should be cut down by death before learning of the change, they would be saved; but Mrs. White describes them as "under the malign influence of Satan, -- he breathing upon them in answer to their prayers an unholy influence in which there was light and much power, but no sweet love, joy and peace."  The only reason the vision pretends to assign why these persons did not rise up with those who arose when Jesus did, is that they did not know that he had risen.  They were not of the careless multitude, because they are recognized in the attitude of worship, whilst the latter are not.  In fact, they must be the identical class of true Christians Uriah Smith refers to, and yet under the influence of the Devil.  Who can believe such absurdities?

Seeing then that the visions of Mrs. White as well as the doctrines and practice of the church to which she belongs, in their earlier days, agreed perfectly in teaching that after 1844 there was to be no more salvation for sinners, the question may be asked if we object to them giving up a doctrine when it is proved to be an error?  We answer,