advent movement

Seventh Day Adventist Roots — The Parting of the Ways

by

Following the Great Disappointment on October 22, 1844, opposition arose against the preaching of the advent message and against those proclaiming it. Most of the churches refused to admit the ministers that were preaching the coming of Christ. “Thus the impressive Millerite movement came to its tragic close, so far as its original form is concerned. The great stream ceased its onward flow and was dissipated, to use the figure aptly employed by Nichol (F. D.), like a river absorbed in the torrid sands of the desert. Here is his graphic portrayal.

” ‘The erstwhile fast-moving stream poured out over an arid, uncharted waste. The scorching sun of disappointment beat down, and the burning winds of ridicule swept in from every side. The river suddenly lost its velocity. There was no momentum to cut a clearly marked channel in this new, parched land. Sun and wind quickly began to play havoc with this directionless body of water, now spread thinly over a wide area. While a central stream of what had once been an impressive river, was more or less well defined, there were many lesser streams, which often ended in miniature dead seas, where stagnation and evaporation soon did their work. Indeed, no small part of the once large river, when evaporated under the scorching sun of disappointment, was finally returned to the sources from whence it came, the other rivers in the religious world.’ ” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, 827.

Following the Disappointment, the leaders were concerned over the confusion of opinions that became prevalent. I. E. Jones describes the confusion at that time: “Our brethren this way are catching at every conceivable hypothesis to reconcile the movement of the tenth [day of the seventh month, or October 22] . . .But supremely ridiculous, painful and dangerous, as is this state of things among ourselves, it is not as much so as the ranks of our opponents present. Who can think of the endless diversity of opinion among them on the prophecies and atonement, free will, baptism, conversion, and every Bible truth; and not say in view of his temptations to leave this [Advent] cause, ‘To whom shall we go?’ . . . Oh, I sigh, for home. Home; sweet home. But, patience my soul.” Ibid., 828.

William Miller was very perturbed by the discord that existed among the various factions that grew out of the Millerite Movement. He said, “I must confess I am pained at heart, to see the battle we are now in . . . after having silenced our common enemy . . . Every [Adventist] paper which has come into my hands recently is full of fight, and that too against our friends.” Ibid.

He was openly opposed to all the various “new theories” that had arisen in an attempt to explain the Disappointment. He denied the application of the parable of the “Midnight Cry” to the seventh month movement and stated that that was not a fulfillment of the prophecy.

“The controversy as to whether the seventh-month movement was the logical and legitimate climax of the Millerite message, or whether it was a tragic mistake, hinged on what came to be known as the ‘shut door’ doctrine. The seventh-month movement, it will be remembered, was based on two premises: (1) The typical cleansing of the ancient sanctuary on the Day of Atonement, on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month; and (2) the parable of the wise and foolish virgins, who, after passing the expected time of the wedding, fell asleep and were roused at midnight by the cry, ‘Behold, the bridegroom cometh!’ The wise virgins, who are ready to meet the coming bridegroom, enter with him into the wedding, where the door is shut after them. But the foolish ones, who failed to use their opportunity to be ready, then find themselves outside.” Ibid., 829.

In midsummer, of 1844, the cry went forth at “midnight” that the Bridegroom was to come, not in 1843, but in the seventh month of 1844. The cleansing of the sanctuary at the end of the 2300 years was to occur on the tenth day of the seventh month—the day when the sanctuary was cleansed in ancient Israel’s time. At the close of the 2300 years and the passing of the tenth day of the seventh month there were two courses open to those who refused to be discouraged by the passing of the time. Either the message containing the “midnight cry” was a delusion and the time a mistake or, the period had ended but the anticipated event was wrong.

After 1844, those that rejected the “Midnight Cry” message decided that the time was a mistake, the seventh-month a blunder and concluded that the “Midnight Cry” and the “Shut door” were still future. They said that “if the parable of the Bridegroom was yet to be fulfilled in the second advent, at a future ending of the 2300 days, they would be right in saying that the Bridegroom had not come and the door of the parable had not yet been shut. But if the time calculation had been correct —if the 2300 days had really ended in October, 1844—and the ‘Midnight Cry’ of the seventh month had been the true climax of the God-given message of a great prophetic movement, then those who held this view must necessarily believe that the parable of the virgins and the prophetic Day of Atonement had been fulfilled and that the ‘door’ of the parable—whatever it might be—had been ‘shut.’ ” Ibid., 830.

The Millerites taught that the door of the parable meant that the door of salvation would be closed at the Second Coming of Christ, when everyone would either be ready or lost. After the Disappointment, Miller and others thought that their work for the world was ended and that they were now in the tarrying time—a few days or months—until Christ should come.

In 1840, Himes and Litch had taught that after the sixth vial and trumpet ended, when the seventh trumpet sounded, the mystery of God was to be finished, the time of grace would end and probation’s door would be shut. Miller agreed with this interpretation, but added that there would be a little time to separate the good from the bad. Miller stated: “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; and be diligent to make our calling and election sure.” Ibid., 831.

As time passed, this view was abandoned by the Millerites. Himes had never, since the Disappointment, believed that their work for the world had come to an end. Miller, along with some other leaders, soon came to be of the same opinion. The controversy over the “shut door” increased so dramatically that the leaders of the Millerite movement decided to convene a conference in Albany, New York, to attempt to resolve the conflicting views. The conference unanimously passed a report listing ten principles similar to the “Fundamental Principles” published in the Millerite papers, upon which they could unite. They opposed: “(1) The postmillennialists’ dream of world conversion before the advent. (2) The ‘Judaizing doctrine’ of the restoration of the literal Jews as a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. (3) Any of the new tests advocated by various minority groups.” Ibid., 834.

But their attempt for unity was not altogether successful, and the Millerite movement was split into three groups.

The first group included J. V. Himes and others that repudiated the “shut door” and denied the validity of the seventh-month movement and that Christ’s coming was imminent. Having rejected all the views, which had made them a part of the Advent movement, they had no reason to exist and so soon, the group faded out of the picture. Litch also refused to accept the “shut door” idea and eventually broke with the Adventist groups and became a Futurist. The second group was concentrated in Maine and New York and they took extreme views stating that all probation had closed and the doom of the world was fixed. That the 2300 days were fulfilled in 1844 and the door was shut on Christ’s mediatorial work and no one else could be saved. Only those who had entered with Christ on October 22 would be saved.

The third group was smaller than the first group but soon far surpassed them in numbers. They believed and taught the validity of the seventhmonth movement and adopted Edson’s view of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary as an explanation of the Disappointment. They rejected the idea of the “shut door” (meaning the close of probation) and continued to preach the soon coming of Christ to all that would listen.

“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.” Ibid., 841.

It was out of this third group that the Seventh-day Adventist Church developed. Joseph Bates, who had played a prominent role in the Millerite Movement, James White, a Millerite evangelist, Hiram Edson and others were prominent leaders. They rejected both formalism and fanaticism and became the nucleus of the Sabbatarian Adventists.

“Three key teachings, each developing independently, began to characterize the group which erelong became the Sabbatarian Adventists. And these features came to be regarded by them as interrelated in what they believed to be the prophetic charter of their mission. These three were: (1) The sanctuary, as embracing the special, or final ministry of Christ in the holy of holies of the heavenly sanctuary, thus giving new meaning to the message, ‘the hour of God’s judgment is come’ (2) the Sabbath, that is, observance of the seventh day, as involved in the keeping of the ‘commandments of God,’ and (3) the Spirit of Prophecy, or the ‘testimony of Jesus,’ to be manifest in the ‘remnant’ church, or last segment of God’s church of the centuries.” Ibid., 844, 845.

These three beliefs developed in various places. Hiram Edson and his group, after study in western New York, began to preach the sanctuary phase. Joseph Bates and others began to proclaim the Sabbath in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. In Maine, Ellen Harmon’s experience and influence established confidence in God’s past leadership and in His future guidance in the Advent Movement. These three groups eventually united.

“These three primary teachings—the Sabbath, the sanctuary, and the Spirit of Prophecy, along with the old basic, established, and fundamentally evangelical positions, as well as immortality only in Christ and the foundational Adventist teachings on the second advent and the Bible prophecies —formed the basis for the emergence of a new theological system, balanced in form and Scriptural in emphasis. Slowly the doctrinal framework of the Sabbatarian Adventists took definite shape. Their convictions were crystallizing as the thinking of different leaders began to be published in 1846 and 1847—the writings of Hiram Edson, O. R. L. Crosier, and F. B. Hahn, Joseph Bates, James White, and Ellen Harmon.

“As this merging of views began to take place, and the adherents of the Edson view of the sanctuary and the Bates view of the seventh-day Sabbath first began to coalesce, there was as yet no semblance of an organization, much less of an emerging denomination. But in this way, in three separate places in three different States, and all by the close of 1844, these three distinctive teachings that were to become major doctrinal features, in a distinctive Sabbatarian Adventist setting and movement, now reached out and touched each other.” Ibid., 848–850.

“A series of six Sabbath conferences, held in 1848, with an aggregate of several hundred in attendance, was the next step. Here these three distinctive features, with their already established positions, began to be forged into a single unified body of belief. And before long the essentials of an integrated system of evangelical, doctrinal, and prophetic truth were developed as held by Seventh-day Adventists around the world.” Ibid., 850, 851.

God was leading His remnant people.

 

SDA Roots, part 5

by

A great revival developed as a result of Miller ’s preaching. People flocked to his meetings not only from the community but also from surrounding towns. His lectures made such an impression upon the listeners that they kept asking for more. His messages could not be presented in one lecture, so he was persuaded to continue preaching. This was Miller’s experience wherever he went, and the result was the conversion of many souls.

Miller’s small town preaching ended in 1839. On November 12, he met Joshua V. Himes, pastor of the Chardon Street Chapel, in Boston, Massachusetts, who invited Miller to preach to his church family. While preaching in the Chapel, Miller lived with Himes, and they began a friendship which lasted for many years. “God in His providence had brought the two men together. The beginning of this association opened a new era in Miller’s work of spreading his convictions regarding the soon coming Christ.” The Urgent Voice, 63. The interest generated by Miller’s preaching became so great that he was compelled to present another series. Charles Fitch’s Marlboro Chapel was rented for the series.

 

Miller Begins to Write

 

From this time until the great disappointment, Miller hardly had time to pause in his public proclamation of the Second Coming of Christ. Almost from the beginning, he received so many invitations to preach that he could not possibly comply, for lack of time. This prompted him to begin publishing his views in printed form. He prepared a series of articles and sent them as anonymous contributions to the Baptist weekly paper, the Vermont Telegraph at Brandon, Vermont. The editor of the paper refused to publish the articles unless the author was identified,whereupon Miller consented and they were printed with the initials, W.M.

Miller wrote a book in which he detailed his views on the prophecies and particularly the Second Coming. This book had a great and profound influence upon all that read it. The editor of the Boston Daily Times, in which sections of Miller’s book were published, was the first to give Miller’s views favorable publicity through the press. The editor continued to print Miller’s articles, and they created a pronounced impact upon the public mind.

However, not all publicity was favorable. One pastor, Ethan Smith, submitted two articles rebutting Miller’s views. The opposition was not very effective, and in most cases it just spurred on the reader to a more careful study of Miller’s message. Even Ethan Smith stated: “I wish to encourage the study of the prophecies and signs of the times: and have been much tried, to see so little attention paid to them; and to hear so many ministers speaking most disrespectfully of this study! I view this fact to be a very dark sign of the times! I think such ministers have got to repent of this sin, or they must sink under it. It is a great insult offered to the Holy Ghost, who inspired the prophecies and commanded us to study and understand them.” The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, 517.

“It was about this time that the copy of Miller’s Lectures was placed in the hands of Josiah Litch, a Methodist minister in Massachusetts, who soon became persuaded of its essential soundness and began to write and publish on the subject. Practically the same experience came to Charles Fitch, pastor of the Marlboro Congregational Church of Boston. Meantime Miller was lecturing in some of the moderate-sized towns of Massachusetts, such as Lowell, where he was invited to preach by Timothy Cole, a minister of the Christian Connection, who was likewise greatly impressed.” Ibid., 519.

 

Himes Helps the Work

 

The acquaintance with Himes, in late 1839, led to a greatly expanded and accelerated Advent Movement in the larger cities. Himes did not associate himself with Miller without counting the cost of such a move. He stated: “We are not insensible of the fact, that much obloquy will be cast upon us in consequence of our association with the author of this work [Miller]. This, however, gives us no pain. We had rather be associated with such a man as William Miller, and stand with him in gloom or glory, in the cause of the living God, than to be associated with his enemies, and enjoy all the honors of the world.”

“Thus it was that Joshua V. Himes, scarcely thirty-five years old, gave up a promising future to cast his lot with an unpopular cause. But Himes was no stranger to unpopular causes. He was an energetic opponent of the liquor traffic, and for a time he had worked closely with William Lloyd Garrison in the battle against slavery. As pastor of the Chardon Street Chapel, he had opened the doors of the church to more than one reform cause. Millerism was therefore only one of several ‘causes’ with which Himes was actively associated. But it was the one to which he was to devote the most time and effort. And, with Miller and Fitch, he became one of Millerism’s three leading figures.” The Urgent Voice, 64.

Himes’ abilities as a public speaker were unusual, and he frequently lectured on the subject of the Second Coming. But his most valuable accomplishments with the Millerite Movement were in the area of organization and promotion. He was responsible for the publication of tracts, songbooks, pamphlets, charts, broadsides and handbills. Himes, at various times, published more than a dozen periodicals promoting the teachings on the Second Advent.

 

A Voice for the Advent Movement

 

By the beginning of 1840, most papers, both religious and secular, had become most unsympathetic in their treatment of Miller and refused to print anything from him in rebuttal. Miller had for quite some time wanted to put out a periodical to serve as the voice of Millerism, but he had not been able to find anyone that would risk his reputation and finances on such a publication. When Miller spoke to Himes of his desire, he accepted the challenge and produced the first issue of the Signs of the Times, a week later.

In 1844, the name of this periodical was changed to the Advent Herald. In 1874, when James White began to publish a weekly paper to speak for the Seventh-day Adventists on the Pacific Coast, he took the name that Himes had abandoned and called it Signs of the Times. James White’s paper was not a continuation of Hime’s periodical and there was no connection between the two, except for the name.

Another person who opposed Miller’s teachings was John Dowling, a Baptist clergyman from New York. He published a Review of Miller, in which he presented the old Antiochus theory for the Little Horn of Daniel 8. He explained that the 2300 evenings and mornings were half days or 1150 literal days and that this referred to the second century B.C. He also taught that the millennium came before the Second Advent. This led to a Refutation by Litch suggesting, like Miller, that the six thousand years of the world’s history would terminate about 1843. He also wrote An Address to the Clergy, which caused many ministers to examine the question more thoroughly and convinced not a few of them of the true character and truth of the Millerite positions.

 

Campmeetings are Born

 

Despite the negative reaction and prejudice, aroused by the press, to the public meetings of the Millerites and those that favored his views on prophecy, a considerable interest caused the need for larger meeting-houses. As the result of this growth in interest in the Second Advent preaching, a weeklong meeting was held in Boston in early 1842. Thus the camp meeting was born. In June, Litch held meetings in East Canada resulting in between five hundred and six hundred conversions. “Great gatherings throughout Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine followed, which according to Litch, literally ‘shook the nation.’ ” Ibid., 522.

To accommodate the ever-increasing crowds, a big tent, seating six thousand, was erected six times the first season in New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Jersey. Marked results were seen. Fitch preached the Second Advent to the students and faculty of Oberlin College in Ohio, and elsewhere, finally establishing himself in Cleveland. Litch declares of this time: “The work spread with a power unparalleled in the history of religious excitements. And had it been the object of Adventists to form a sect, never was there a more favorable opportunity to carry all before them, given to any people. But higher and holier objects were in their vision—the saving of sinners from death, and the obtaining of a preparation for the coming of the Lord, were the objects of their highest ambition.” Ibid.

Miller and Himes returned to New York City in 1842 and lectured in the large Methodist church where George Storrs was the pastor. An Adventist daily paper was started called the Midnight Cry, edited by Joshua Himes, L. D. Fleming and Nathaniel Southard. Fitch also established many Second Advent papers and periodicals in Cleveland, and H. B. Skinner and Luther Caldwell did the same in Canada.

Wherever Miller’s writings were circulated, the sale and study of the Bible was stimulated. The movement was known as a Bible movement, and Litch stated that, “a course of lectures in a village, would open a door for the sale of more Bibles in a week than would have been sold before for years.” The tone of the movement was Protestant, the Bible and the Bible only as the rule of practice and faith.

“There were among the Millerite ministers men of commanding talent and attainment—only a few have thus far been named—who were the equal of the wise and learned opposers of the land, raised up, they believed, at a time when such help was needed. As to the actual number of ministers in the Millerite movement at this time Litch frankly said, ‘We have no means of ascertaining the number of ministers, and others, who have embraced the Advent faith. We only know that there are several hundred congregations, and a still larger number of ministers, who have publicly professed the faith, besides many who still remain in the churches of the land.’ These, he explained, were associated together for the accomplishment of a definite objective—to ‘sound the alarm.’ And any organization that existed was of the most ‘simple, voluntary and primitive form.’ ” Ibid., 527.

Next month we will take a closer look at some of the men associated with Miller in the proclamation of the Second Advent. We will scan a little of their backgrounds, training, talents, standing and religious affiliation.