The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 4

V. The Inevitable Breakup Takes Place

In his Apology and Defence, Miller made a distinction between the Advent Movement in general, and the seventh-month movement phase in the summer and autumn of 1844, which first grew up within the compass of the larger movement, and then encompassed and became the culmination of the parent movement. Miller had been quite apprehensive over the indiscriminate use of the epithet “Babylon,” as applied to churches rejecting the fundamental truth of the second advent. On November 10, he wrote: PFF4 837.4

“The name of ‘Babylon,’ and I am sorry to say it, was applied to alt of our churches without any discrimination, although in too many instances it was not unjustly applied.” ¹⁸ PFF4 837.5

And now so real was the fear that the Albany Conference itself might be the first step toward forming a separate denomination, which, it was thought, would be returning to “Babylon,” ¹⁹ that some even protested using the name “Adventist.” But there was no thought of formulating a creed or of creating any new ecclesiastical organization. And, as to the term “Adventist,” Miller commented: PFF4 838.1

“Was the term Adventist in use ten years ago? No, it is not in the dictionary: it is a newly coined word.... The coiners of the word are entitled to it, and those who associate with them. But let it be distinctly understood, that at the Albany Conference, the question did not arise whether we should adopt that name. It was already upon us; and the only question that arose respecting it, was whether when speaking of some fanatics who call themselves Adventists, the word should be permitted to remain in that connection.” ²⁰ PFF4 838.2

1. HIMES DECLARES AGAINST “SHUT DOOR.”

The realistic J. V. Himes held that, since Christ had not come, the business of the church was not ended—and the business of the church is to save sinners. Holding to the advent hope, he repudiated the “shut door” idea—and in so doing denied the validity of the seventh-month movement, or “true Midnight Cry.” He seemed more interested in the mathematics of the chronology, of Daniel 8:14, than in the imagery of the symbolism of the wise and foolish virgins of Matthew 25. He persuaded Miller, who for several months had been uncertain. Litch likewise repudiated the entire “shut door” idea and flatly declared, “We erred, and ran off the track,” over the “tarrying time” and the seventh month. ²¹ But Litch pursued his individual tangent way, until he at last broke all connection with the Adventist groups, and became a Futurist. ²² PFF4 838.3

Marsh, editor of the Voice of Truth, first advocated the “shut door,” then repudiated it. Bliss, Galusha, and others repudiated it, and so did Storrs. So they waited, expecting the real “Midnight Cry” and the true “shut door” in the near future. Thus quite a number pushed the 1844 date forward to 1845, 1846, 1847, 1854, or later dates. And a split over a date was the beginning of the split into the Evangelical Adventists and Advent Christians in 1856.” ²³ PFF4 838.4

2. SMALL FANATICAL GROUP HOLDS EXTREME “SHUT DOOR.”

A small second group, of brief duration—and concentrated largely in Maine and New York-took the extreme position that all probation had ended, with the doom of the world already fixed. They held to the fulfillment of the 2300 days in 1844, and asserted that the door was shut on Christ’s mediatorial work, and no more sinners would be saved. Joseph Turner and John Pearson, Jr., of Maine, led out in this. For a time they also held that the sanctuary was in heaven, our High Priest entering the most holy at that time. So Turner calculated that the Bridegroom had come spiritually to the household of faith, and had already shut the door. PFF4 839.1

Accordingly, only those would be safe who “entered in” with Christ on October 22. All others were lost sinners, and condemned. He held the weird position that the seventh millennium had already been entered, and the antitypical Sabbath had begun. And he strangely held that the saints should do no work or manual labor on the millennial “Sabbath,” and that those who entered into this experience were fully sanctified. He was an extremist, and intolerant of others. This he published in the Hope of Israel. In the January 24 issue he stated: “In every place I visited I found a goodly number, I think quite a majority, who were and are now believing that our work is all done for this world.” ²⁴ PFF4 839.2

Turner went to New York City and conferred with S. S. Snow, who maintained that no mistake was made in proclaiming October 22 as the crucial day. But Snow likewise went on into extreme fanaticism, finally proclaiming himself to be Elijah the prophet, who was to come, and soon separated himself from Adventism in every form. PFF4 839.3

But neither Turner nor Snow ever accepted the seventh-day Sabbath, and were quite separate from the Sabbatarian Adventists and their version of the “door.” Himes, however, and his group, classed them all together, and unjustly put the stigma of fanaticism upon the Sabbatarians as well. Some spoke of the “door of mercy” being shut; others realized that this was an extreme position, and contended that the door that was shut was the “door of access” to the people; that God had not cut off the opportunity of salvation, but that obstinate and willful men had closed their ears to God’s message for the time. PFF4 840.1

3. THIRD GROUP REJECTS BOTH FORMALISM AND FANATICISM

This brings us to the third division of the former great Millerite body, which will be the subject of our continuing study in Part III. It was smaller than the first, or Albany Conference, group, but soon became larger than the second, or fanatical, wing. In this third segment the most conspicuous preachers were Joseph Bates, who had played a rather prominent part in the Millerite movement, James White, also a Millerite evangelist, Hiram Edson, and others. This segment held to the validity of the seventh-month movement, adopted Edson’s new view of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary as explaining the Disappointment, and became the nucleus of the Sabbatarian Adventists. ²⁵ They clashed sharply with Turner and his followers and other extremists. ²⁶ So this group, small at first, was confronted on the one hand by coldness and opposition from those Adventists who repudiated the seventh-month movement, and on the other hand by those fiery extremists who held that they had already entered the millennium, and other types of fanaticism. Theirs was a difficult position. PFF4 840.2

This group, holding to the validity of the 1844 movement as a fulfillment of prophecy, saw in the Disappointment a test of those who were willing to make every sacrifice to be ready to meet their Lord, and then to hold their faith in the face of bitter disappointment. They insisted that the working of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of the participants in that movement had been proof that the Lord was in it; and consequently they felt that those who declared it all a mistake were repudiating the leading of God, and murmuring against the path in which He had led them. PFF4 840.3

Accepting the fulfillment of the 2300 days, and the “true Midnight Cry” of the parable, they, like Miller and others, thought at first that their work for the world was done. It seemed that the world, which had scorned their message, and was still reviling them, would shortly see the coming of the Saviour, for which it had refused to prepare. It was easier for the Miller-Himes party to abandon this position since they now regarded the 1844 movement as no fulfillment of prophecy at all, than for the third group, who held to the belief that the Midnight Cry had been fulfilled, and that the mistake was the nature of the fulfillment. Undoubtedly, the fact that this was a topic of controversy, and that the larger party opposed them as fanatics for believing what the majority had previously held, inclined them to doubt the arguments, as well as the reports, of new converts made by those who seemed to them to have repudiated their whole past experience. PFF4 841.1

Nor did it help matters that this third segment was condemned, along with others whose extreme views they did not share in any degree. They labored from the first with the disappointed ones who were in danger of losing their faith, and they soon came to believe that not only those who had not knowingly rejected truth, but also rank unbelievers, could be converted. Their developing view of the prophesied cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary led to the understanding of the “door” as having reference to the closing of one phase and the opening of another in the priestly ministry of Christ, and to the view that the commission, “Behold, I have set before thee an open door,” placed before them a larger work than ever before, that the end of the 2300 year-days introduced a further prophetic message and a still wider heralding of the “everlasting gospel.” PFF4 841.2

So this third group, holding on to their past experience as definitely of God, came through the early trials, the misunderstandings, the extremes, the “growing pains” of gradual development, and became eventually the largest of the Adventist bodies. In building an advancing prophetic interpretation on the basis of the cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of the 2300 days, they carried on and developed the heritage of the earlier movement, and spread to the far corners of the earth the message that Miller had said must continue to be proclaimed—“the everlasting gospel to preach unto ... every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.” ²⁷ PFF4 842.1