A Review of Donald R. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians: A Neglected Problem and a Forgotten Answer (Westlake Village, CA: Oak and Acorn Publishing, 2022)
Many assessments can be found of Ellen White's use of outside historical information in certain of her writings. The problem with these investigations is that they usually end in challenges to her credibility, accusing Ellen White of having made mistakes (often serious ones) in her recounting of various historical narratives. Donald McAdams' recent book, Ellen White and the Historians [##1|Donald R. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians: A Neglected Problem and a Forgotten Answer (Westlake Village, CA: Oak and Acorn Publishing, 2022).##], is no exception.
McAdams’ book originated with an unpublished manuscript which he completed in March of 1974, originally titled, Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians: the Evidence from an Unpublished Manuscript on John Huss [##2|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. xii.##]. Many Adventists first became familiar with McAdams’ research through an article in Spectrum magazine published in June of 1978 [##3|Eric Anderson, “Ellen White and Reformation Historians,” Spectrum, July 1978, pp. 23-26.##].
We begin this review with an acknowledgement that any Bible-believing Christian should be able to affirm—that God knows the facts of history better than any human historian, and is thus wise and powerful enough to declare the truth under the inspiring influence of His Holy Spirit. We must be very careful with our criticisms and not give the impression that those lacking the unique discernment available to an inspired author somehow possess the ability to sit in judgment on the inspired text.
Divine Origin
If we take seriously Ellen White’s claim to prophetic inspiration, such statements as the following become an appropriate starting point in any discussion of her reliability as an author:
Sister White is not the originator of these books. They contain the instruction that during her lifework God has been giving her. They contain the precious, comforting light that God has graciously given His servant to be given to the world. From their pages this light is to shine into the hearts of men and women, leading them to the Saviour. The Lord has declared that these books are to be scattered throughout the world. There is in them truth which to the receiver is a savor of life unto life. They are silent witnesses for God. In the past they have been the means in His hands of convicting and converting many souls. Many have read them with eager expectation, and, by reading them, have been led to see the efficacy of Christ's atonement, and to trust in its power. They have been led to commit the keeping of their souls to their Creator, waiting and hoping for the coming of the Saviour to take His loved ones to their eternal home. In the future, these books are to make the gospel plain to many others, revealing to them the way of salvation [##4|Ellen G. White, Colporteur Ministry, p. 125.##].
A Unique Book
About The Great Controversy, Ellen White particularly testifies:
God gave me the light contained in The Great Controversy… I was moved by the Spirit of the Lord to write that book… The Lord has set before me matters which are of urgent importance for the present time, and which reach into the future. The words have been spoken in a charge to me, ‘Write in a book the things which thou hast seen and heard, and let it go to all the people; for the time is at hand when past history will be repeated.’ I have been aroused at one, two, or three o'clock in the morning with some point forcibly impressed upon my mind, as if spoken by the voice of God… I was shown… that I should devote myself to writing out the important matters for volume 4 [The Great Controversy]…The book The Great Controversy, I appreciate above silver or gold, and I greatly desire that it shall come before the people. While writing the manuscript of The Great Controversy, I was often conscious of the presence of the angels of God. And many times the scenes about which I was writing were presented to me anew in visions of the night, so that they were fresh and vivid in my mind [##5|——Colporteur Ministry, pp. 127-129.##].
In the Introduction to The Great Controversy, Ellen White affirms:
Through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the scenes of the long-continued conflict between good and evil have been opened to the writer of these pages. From time to time I have been permitted to behold the working, in different ages, of the great controversy between Christ, the Prince of life, the Author of our salvation, and Satan, the prince of evil [##6|——The Great Controversy, p. x.##].
As the Spirit of God has opened to my mind the great truths of His word, and the scenes of the past and the future, I have been bidden to make known to others that which has thus been revealed – to trace the history of the controversy in past ages, and especially so to present it as to shed a light on the fast=approaching struggle of the future [##7|——The Great Controversy, p. xi.##].
In other words, if we accept Ellen White’s claim to the prophetic office, we are constrained to acknowledge that The Great Controversy is a special book, written by order of God under His guidance, inspiration, and approval. Like other inspired texts, it should be regarded as sacred ground. We are reminded of God’s command to Moses at the burning bush: “Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Ex. 3:5).
As we now look at Donald McAdams’ book, we will compare his claims of historical inaccuracy on Ellen White’s part to evidence from the works of credible scholars both past and present. A few examples will suffice for the purpose of this review.
1. Personal Manuscript
It is noticeable that much of McAdams’ argument is based on a personal manuscript of Ellen White’s about John Huss, a document which contains spelling mistakes and is very hard to read [##8|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, pp. 34-43.##]. But why, may we ask, is so much attention devoted by McAdams to a handwritten paper that was intended solely for Mrs. White’s personal use and not at all for the public? Is this truly a fair way to judge Ellen White’s writings—or any author’s writings, for that matter?
It is noteworthy that McAdams appears to have a special preference for a description of events in the life of John Huss by one Matthew Spinka. He explains:
The reader will discover that my main authority for the evenfs of the life of John Huss is Matthew Spinka. His book is a good example of modern historical scholarship at its best. It betrays no undue prejudice and is clearly written, and in matters of fact it is most scrupulously grounded on eyewitness accounts [##9|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 43.##].
Spinka is certainly a good historian, but this doesn’t make his narrative the gold standard either for judging Ellen White’s credibility or that of other historians. McAdams appears, as we will see, to attach more value to Spinka’s account than either to Ellen White’s narrative or that of other credible students of this period. To use a single author’s writings as the measure of all others on a given subject, without explaining why the latter should be seen as unreliable, gives at the least the appearance of questionable scholarship. Herein lies the most serious error of McAdams’ work from a strictly scholarly perspective.
2. Change of anecdote
According to Ellen White, the youthful Huss was accompanied by his mother to Prague, and as they drew near the city, his mother knelt and prayed for the blessing of God for her son. This anecdote is described by some historians with additional detail—though, as McAdams himself acknowledges, historians differ in their depiction of this story. For example, while one source claims that a present was brought by John’s mother for the rector of the university and was lost, another claims she brought a loaf of bread for the elementary schoolmaster [##10|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 54.##].
Ellen White writes of this experience as follows:
He was accompanied on the journey to Prague by his mother; widowed and poor, she had no gifts of worldly wealth to bestow upon her son, but as they drew near to the great city, she kneeled down beside the fatherless youth and invoked for him the blessing of their Father in heaven. Little did that mother realize how her prayer was to be answered [##11|White, The Great Controversy, p. 98.##].
McAdams alleges that “Mrs. White has considerably changed this anecdote” in her Great Controversy narrative [##12|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 54.##]. In Chapter 5 of McAdams’ book, Ron Graybill speaks negatively of Ellen White’s depiction of this story, writing that “errors or questionable statements (of Ellen White) . . . included: (1) changed anecdote about the mother’s prayer” [##13|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 238.##].
Of course, Ellen White is brief in her description of the Huss story and doesn’t mention all the details. Was she obliged to mention all of them? Certainly not.
McAdams seems to misunderstand the purpose of The Great Controversy. This book is not specifically written as a history with the intention of giving all relevant historical details, but rather, to offer by way of illustration a brief overview of the controversy between good and evil through the centuries of the Christian Era.
Ellen White clearly explained:
This history I have presented briefly, in accordance with the scope of the book, and the brevety which must necessarily be observed, the facts having been condensed into as little space as seemed consistent with a proper understanding of their application [##14|White, The Great Controversy, pp. xi,xii.##].
Instead of finding fault with Ellen White, McAdams would do better to consider that credible historians don’t always agree on all aspects of these events; thus their descriptions hardly constitute a faultless standard by which to determine what actually happened. The purpose of Ellen White’s Great Controversy narrative is simply to list the most important and appropriate aspects of the Huss biography within the context of her larger account of the age-long struggle between truth and error.
3. Interdict
At another point McAdams writes: “Starting also from this paragraph and running through paragraph 18 there are several inaccuracies. This all follows Wylie, who is also incorrect. Mrs. White says the Pope put Prague under interdict, but it was Archbishop Zbynek who on June 20, 1411 put Prague and its environments for two miles around under interdict. See Spinka, p. 125” [##15|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 61.##].
Again we note how McAdams appears to use Spinka as the benchmark for his critique of Ellen White. But when Archbishop Zbynek placed Prague under interdict, the big question is whether he took such a drastic measure on his own authority or acted in the name and power of the Pope.
Ellen White states in The Great Controversy that the Pope “declared the city of Prague to be under interdict” [##16|White, The Great Controversy, p. 100.##]. Several pages later she writes: “The city was again placed under interdict” [##17|——The Great Controversy, p. 104.##]. This is in harmony with the available historical facts. Prague was put under interdict in mid-1411, an act often ascribed to the archbishop who was instructed by the Pope and thus acted in his name and power. This sentence was renewed a year later in 1412, and is usually ascribed to Pope John XXIII, one of the antipopes (or pretended popes) during this time. John, for those who may not remember, was the antipope of Gregory XII and Benedict XIII and the successor of Alexander V, the latter having died in 1410. (An online article on this particular antipope explains why a more recent pope also called himself John XXIII, and how the apparent discrepancy is reconciled [18].)
We note with interest that two Dutch historians, Andringa and Verhagen, agree with Ellen White as to the Pope’s responsibility for the imposition of the interdict during the time of Archbishop Zbynek. Since Alexander V had suddenly died in May 1410, it was his successor, John XXIII, who in June of 1411 placed Prague under interdict. The two Dutch historians explain:
But Alexander V refused to comply and without hearing him, he hurled the ban from Rome against Johannes Huss, so that he was excommunicated. . . . The days of unrest and tension began, as the Pope also pronounced the sentence of interdict against Prague, because of the presence of Huss within its walls… Hus did not want his fellow citizens to suffer for his sake and that his presence would bring ever greater misery on his friends. He therefore went into voluntary exile, and his lord, Baron of Hussinecz, and also John of Chlum, joyfully welcomed him into their castles and gave him opportunity to preach throughout the country. Many enjoyed a lasting blessing and where the church had portrayed the courageous man as a heretic and devil, his hearers had to declare: 'his life is blameless and his teaching is pure and exalted... Huss found a strong ally at this time in a Bohemian nobleman, Hieronymus (Jerome) of Prague, a man of great learning and eloquence, of tender devotion and undaunted courage... The name of Hieronymus became inseparably linked to that of Huss, and the bond of their sincere friendship was broken only by death. In the meantime, the battle that both men waged against the corrupt state of the church became increasingly sharp and fierce [##19|W. Andringa and J. Verhagen, Gekeurd en Gelouterd, Het Leven Lijden en Sterven der Martelaren (Utrecht, Joh. De Liefde, 1893), vol. 1, p. 717.##].
This reference confirms that the Pope placed Prague under interdict in the days of Archbishop Zbynek and that Huss left Prague at this time. The above statement likewise affirms that Huss found in this difficult period a close friend in Jerome, or Hieronymus of Prague, and their preaching clearly increased in courage and power, becoming more sharp and fierce as the crisis intensified. All these points harmonize with Ellen White’s narrative, even though these points are disputed by McAdams in his determination to expose what he presumes—on the basis of but one historian, the reader will note—to be inaccuracies in Ellen White’s recounting of the Bohemian Reformation.
That the above citation describes the interdict of June 1411 is undeniable, because Andringa and Verhagen subsequently describe the renewed interdict of October 1412, after which Huss left Prague again. We read on the two following pages:
Hus decisively refuted the actions of the Pope... who undertook a crusade against a monarch... Just as courageously he raised his voice against the shameful trade in indulgences. He openly declared the papal indulgence to be a lie and deception and strongly opposed it with reasons. Hieronymus of Prague gave a moving speech and… the papal bull was burned in front of the cheering people.
The sentence of the interdict would rest on Prague as long as Huss remained within its walls. The courageous preacher himself was excommunicated until the Council, to be held at Constance, should examine his case, and all the ecclesiastical tribunals were ordered to seize him... to make him suffer the just punishment. A dangerous move among the Bohemian people resulted from this statement, and it became more alarming every day. To prevent an outburst and not to trouble his friends by his stay in Prague, Huss returned to his birthplace. The Baron of Hussinecz offered his castle as a refuge... Meanwhile, Huss preached as faithfully as before... His followers came by the thousands from all parts of Bohemia to hear the apostle preach the Gospel [##20|Andringa and Verhagen, Gekeurd en Gelouterd, vol. 1, pp. 718,719.##].
This period of imposing interdicts was obviously a very stormy time. There is also some evidence that Prague had been placed under interdict in 1409, but this interdict was ineffective because it was proclaimed in the name of a deposed pope. But it still led to confusion and agitation, which shows how tumultuous these years truly were. Even if an interdict is pronounced without the correct papal authority, it can still cause considerable unrest, and that was clearly the case. Two Huss biographers describe the circumstances of the time as follows:
On June 5, 1409, the Council declared both Popes as deposed and pronoumced a ban on them as schismatics and heretics. Then it proceeded to elect a new Pope. On June 17 Alexander V was proclaimed Pope and recognised by all the cardinals… Here the Archbishop was waging a desperate struggle on behalf of Gregory; in Lent he excommunicated Hus and all his friends. For the first time Hus and all Wyclifites were pronounced heretics and cast out of the Church… But his first blow at Hus was a failure; the king forbade the reading of the ban from the chancels. When a few clerics defied him the king took action against them and seized their goods. Then Zbynec resorted to his strongest weapon; he placed Prague under an interdict. But this interdict, pronounced in the name of a deposed Pope, rebounded on himself. Once again street riots broke out, notorious clergy were dragged from their beds and put in the pillory and it was only with difficulty that the palace of the Archbishop was saved [##21|Paul Roubiczek and Joseph Kalmer, Warrior of God: The Life and Death of John Huss (London: Nicholson and Watson, 1946), p. 94.##].
An interdict is a strictly papal measure. The Pope is the originator, while the local archbishop and clergy are the executors. These radical measures are to be proclaimed with the approval of the Pope and applied on his authority and in his name. This point is documented in another, more recent book about Huss:
HUSS' EXCOMMUNICATION On 26 June 1409, Alexander V was elected as pope. Zbynek the Archbishop reported to Alexander V that the heretical teachings of Wycliffe had spread. On December 20, 1409, Alexander V instructed Zbynek in a papal bull to take action against them in the pope's name and power. In March 1410, the papal bull reached Prague. In June 1410, Archbishop Zbynek continued to eliminate Wycliffe's teachings in Prague. This he attempted to do by decreeing the public burning of Wycliffe's books and banning the preaching of his teachings [##22|The Goose of the Reformation (Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church, 201 Pandan Gardens, Singapore 609337, 2015, pp. 13-14.##].
On 22 and 25 June 1410, Huss preached against the decree. Huss also sent a translation of Wycliffe's Trialogus to John XXIII (antipope from 1410-1415, opposed to Gregory XII and Benedict XIII, successor of Alexander V) [##23|The Goose of the Reformation, p. 14.##].
Going against the ban would mean excommunication. Huss did not comply. As a result, John XXIII put Prague under an interdict, that no religious services could be performed wherever Huss was on that day, plus one more day of banning all church services. This sentence was to be read regularly every Sunday in every church across Bohemia. Soon after, John XXIII passed a second decree, ordering Huss to be seized and burned, and Bethlehem Chapel to be destroyed. Huss was sentenced to aggravated excommunication [##24|The Goose of the Reformation, p. 15.##].
This book clearly indicates that Archbishop Zbynek did not act on his own, but that Pope Alexander V gave him instructions. Zbynek therefore clearly acted in the name and on the authority of the Pope. The Presbyterian Historical Society also supports the fact that John XXIII placed Prague unter interdict. In a recent article titled, “Remembering Jan Hus,” we read:
When Pope John issued an interdict banning all religious services in Prague along with a sentence of aggravated excommunication against Hus, the preacher took refuge in the Bohemian countryside, where he continued to write and preach to small outdoor crowds [25].
Dr. D. P. Rossouw likewise confirms that Pope John XXIII applied the interdict measures to Prague. He writes:
But the main cause which aroused the indignation against Huss was a bull issued by Pope John XXIII… When this bull was proclaimed in Prague, Huss could not restrain himself from preaching against it… The Pope therefore summoned him to Rome, and when Huss refused to obey he excommunicated him and forbade religious services to be held in the churches of Prague [##26|D.P. Rossouw, Medeerfgenamen van Christus—Geschiedenis van de Vervolgingen der Christelijke Kerk (Amsterdam: Hoveker and Zoon, 1894), p. 248.##]. (Bear in mind that to forbid church services is part of the sentence of interdict).
Dr. Glenn Sunshine, a former professor of history at Central Connecticut State University, writes the following in a recent article about Huss:
Hus’s views were very popular with the people and with the king, and the attacks on him by Pope John XXIII and Albik, the new archbishop of Prague, led to rioting in parts of Bohemia. The pope responded by placing Prague under interdict, banning the celebration of all sacraments and the burial of the dead in consecrated ground [27].
Whether we speak of the interdict of 1411 or of 1412, the authority of the Pope stood behind it. Thus many sources indicate, in harmony with Ellen White’s narrative, that the Pope placed Prague under interdict. The application of an interdict is a strictly papal measure, even if its application to local situations must be executed by local church authorites. In the words of one online encyclopedia, from the Oxford University Press:
Interdict is a papal prohibition which operated at various levels.
A general interdict could be imposed only by the pope [28].
It is thus clearly in harmony with this statement to attribute the imposition of an interdict to the reigning pope, as Ellen White does and several historians do with her. Will Durant, historian and philosopher and author (with his wife Ariel) of the highly-acclaimed Story of Civilization series, also attributes the interdict proclamation of the year 1411 to Pope John XXIII:
The Pope now launched his own excommunication against Huss, and when Huss ignored it John laid an interdict upon any city where he should stay [##29|Will Durant, The Reformation: A History of European Civilization from Wyclif to Calvin: 1300-1564 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), p. 164.##].
Based on the above, it is difficult not to conclude, contrary to McAdams’ allegations, that the available historical evidence confirms Ellen White’s statement about Prague being placed under interdict by the Pope (not merely by the local archbishop) during this period.
4. Great Difficulties
McAdams goes on to say: “Mrs White’s implication and Wylie’s clear statement that the interdict caused great difficulties in Prague are not correct. The king, Wenceslas IV of Bohemia, ‘forbade its observance.’ Spinka, p. 125” [##30|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 62.##].
Is it really true that the first proclamation of the interdict created no great difficulties in Prague? With reference to the year 1409, Roubiczek and Kalmer write:
For years to come Prague was a storm-centre. Could anyone preserve order when three Popes were reigning? Fresh resistance to the successful Masters was brewing [##31|Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 95.##].
These were obviously stormy years for the Bohemians. But Ellen White doesn’t say the interdict caused all the difficulties in Prague. She writes: “The city of Prague was filled with tumult. A large class denounced Huss as the cause of all their calamities” [##32|White, The Great Controversy, p. 101.##]. Severe though the interdict was, its influence this time was indeed limited. But other factors created problems as well. The sale of indulgences and a street procession, several months before the interdict was again proclaimed in Prague, created significant trouble and unrest. A source describing the situation at that time speaks, as does Ellen White, of tumult in Prague:
The tumults at Prague had stirred up a sensation, unpleasant for the Roman party; papal legates and Archbishop Albik tried to persuade Huss to give up his opposition against the bulls, and the king made an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the two parties. In the mean time the clergy of Prague, through Michael de Causis, had brought their complaints before the pope, and he ordered the cardinal of St. Angelo to proceed against Huss without mercy. The cardinal put him under the great church ban. He was to be seized and delivered to the archbishop, and his chapel was to be destroyed. Stricter measures against Huss and his adherents, the counter-measures of the Hussites, and the appeal of Huss from the pope to Jesus Christ as the supreme judge only intensified the excitement among the people and forced Huss to depart from Prague… but his absence had not the expected effect. The excitement continued [##33|Samuel Macauley Jackson, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Co, 1909), vol. 5, p. 416.##].
It should be remembered that Albik was the new archbishop who resigned shortly after the interdict was again renewed. This quotation therefore deals with the time after Prague was placed under interdict in June 1411, while Albik was in office. At that time the city of Prague was filled with tumult, and Huss was constrained to leave Prague because of the excitement, which is in harmony with Ellen White’s narrative but denied by McAdams, as we will see. That there were great difficulties in Prague at this moment is affirmed by numerous historians. Frantisec Lutzow writes:
The attempt to establish at Prague the sale of indulgences in a manner that was particularly repulsive to the citizens had produced a state of feverish excitement. Public opinion was already so intensely excited and irritated by the traffic in indulgences that troubles broke out in several churches.
It is certain that on June 24 a very strange procession left the Mala Strana and paraded the streets… a vast and noisy crowd joined the procession. Many carried sticks and even swords. The procession wended its way through the streets of the old town and the market-place to the new town, where it stopped at the present Karlovo namesti (Charles’s Square). Here the documents imitating papal bulls were placed under an improvised gallows and burnt amidst loud applause of the crowd [##34|Frantisec Lutzow, The Life and Times of Master John Hus (London: J.M. Dent & Co; New York: E.P. Dutton & Co, 1909), pp. 153-156.##].
The Dutch historian Husen, in harmony with Ellen White’s words, also described Prague as a scene of tumult:
Soon there was another clash... Pope John XXIII had entered into war with Ladislaus, King of Naples in 1411... John wrote, because he could not conquer that king by his own power, a crusade against Ladislaus, promising everyone who would assist him absolute pardon.
The preachers of indulgences also appeared in Bohemia, on the most impudently selling the kingdom of heaven for money. Huss... spoke in a great assembly against indulgences, openly contending... whether the Pope possessed this right or not. The people stirred, and Jerome stirred them up even more by a violent speech. The crowd seized an indulgence preacher, hung the papal pardon bull on his chest, led him through the city with ignominy, and burned the bull. In the churches the preachers of indulgences were mocked and booed. The pope was called the antichrist and they went on a rampage of violence. When three troublemakers were put to death, the bitterness reached its peak... Now the time had come for the Pope to take revenge. He sent a cardinal to Prague with a bull banning Huss and threatening with interdict any place that might grant him residence or protection. Huss appealed from the papal ban to the righteous judgment of Christ and lived in safety in his hometown of Hussinecz [##35|R. Husen, Geschiedenis der Hervorming (Doesburg: J.C. Van Schenk Brill, 1903), p. 46.##].
The burning of the books of Wyclif a few months earlier, together with the excommunication of Huss, had aroused great excitement and bloody street rioting in Prague, which evoked a long-lasting spirit of rebellion. Again, from Roubiczek and Kalmer:
In the meantime in the courtyard of the palace a huge bonfire was feverishly erected and on it the books of Wyclif which had been handed over were laid… The excitement aroused by the burning of the books was so great that the Archbishop had to flee to his strong castle of Roudnice two days later. From there he proclaimed the excommunication of Hus and all those who had supported the appeal to the Pope.
Bloody street rioting ensued in the seething town. The people prevented the proclamation of the ban, bursting into the churches and driving out the priests who would obey the Archbishop. At St. Vitus’s forty priests were driven from the altar. Heedless of the sanctity of the place six men with drawn swords forced their way into St. Stephen’s and the preacher hardly escaped with his life. The courtiers, with Voksa of Waldstein at their head, took the side of the insurgents. When they happened to find themselves in the majority many of the priests and monks took their revenge on the followers of Hus, dragging them into their refectories and beating them half dead with newly-cut switches [##36|Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 106.##].
That there were great difficulties in Prague in the years 1410, 1411, and 1412, and also afterwards, is undeniable. The difficulties were so far-reaching, intense, and serious that the archbishop, Albik, could no longer cope with the turbulent situation and resigned.
Neander, a well-known German historian, reports that the enemies of Huss were planning to disperse the congregation in the Bethlehem Chapel, capture Huss, and destroy the Chapel. But due to opposition from the local population, they had to abandon their plans:
With the permission of the Councilors in the 'Altstadt' of Prague, most of whom were Germans and therefore enemies of Hus, many citizens united... led by... Bernhard Chotek, to disperse the congregation in the Bethlehem Church and to take Hus himself into custody; but the steadfast opposition of the crowd gathered around the beloved preacher forced them to abandon that purpose. Returning to the town hall, they now decided to at least comply with the Papal order by destroying the Bethlehem Chapel, but they were prevented from doing so, as that intention, as soon as it became known, caused the fiercest uprising among the population…
Archbishop Albicus of Unicow, who could not satisfy his desire for peace in that struggle any more than he could cope with it, also left his post. At the end of the year 1412 he resigned his dignity [##37|Dr. A. Neander, Geschiedenis der Christelijke Godsdienst en Kerk (Rotterdam: Van der Meer & Verbruggen, Deel 9, 1858), pp. 374,375.##].
In view of the above, Ellen White can hardly be faulted for writing that at the time in question, “the city of Prague was filled with tumult” [##38|White, The Great Controversy, p. 101.##].
5. Hus left Prague
In his criticism of Ellen White’s narrative, McAdams further states: “Huss did not leave Prague at this time. He did leave Prague, after a second interdict was enforced in October of 1412. But it is clear Mrs. White is referring to the first interdict, for she mentions two—and there were only two and this was the first one” [##39|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 62.##].
Ellen White writes, after stating that Prague was filled with tumult: “To quiet the storm, the Reformer withdrew for a time to his native village” [##40|White, The Great Controversy, p. 101.##].
First of all, we must realize there is no unity among historians as to when Huss left Prague and returned again. In a footnote, Lutzow states:
The date of Hus’s departure from Prague as well as those subsequent short visits to the city has caused much controversy among the modern historians of Bohemia – Palacky, Tomak, Dr. Loserth have all suggested different dates [##41|Lutzow, The Life and Times of Master John Hus, p. 164.##].
In view of the above statement, for McAdams to declare dogmatically that “Huss did not leave Prague at this time” is presumptuous. There is in fact evidence, in harmony with Ellen White’s version of events, that Huss did leave Prague some time before the second interdict was enforced. One can easily understand that the situation in Prague deteriorated, especially due to the condemnation and burning of Wyclif’s writings, Huss’s persistent preaching against abuses in the church, together with his defense of Wyclif’s teachings and calling the Pope Antichrist. All of this fueled the disturbances and the increasing resistance to the church, leading to Huss being banned and an interdict being issued.
Another historian, Craig Donofrio, writes of the events that followed:
It didn’t take long until the persecution of Hus and his followers increased to the point of rioting. In response, the pope banned the churches of Prague from participating in Word and Sacrament. There would be no preaching, Lord’s Supper, Baptism, marriage, last rights, ordinations or even Christian burials. As far as the Pope was concerned, the Churches in Prague were closed for business. Hus left Prague for the countryside in hopes of quelling the hostilities [42].
Donofrio may well refer to the first enforcement of the interdict on Prague, and that Huss left Prague at that time. The first and second proclamations of the interdict on Prague were not far apart, and little distinction is sometimes made by historians in their description. Several sources make clear that Huss left Prague many times during this period, often returning secretly. At first he left Prague on his own initiative, but later on, because of the tense situation, he was urged by the king to leave the city. Huss, however, was not convinced that it was right to leave his beloved parish. Roubiczek and Kalmer recount:
Hardly had he left Prague than it seemed to him that he had taken a false step and he returned there and continued to preach. Once again, however, his position was impossible. The agreement the king desired seemed to be in sight if only he would comply, and so he once more turned his back on Prague. Hardly had the talks broken down, however, before he was there again. It was a constant coming and going that betrayed the torments of the hunted. He did not fear death. Whenever he was in Prague he preached in the Bethlehem Chapel. But all his sermons betrayed his fear as to whether he was doing right when he left again [##43|Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 146.##].
As for the time Huss left Prague, there are some interesting sources that corroborate Ellen White's account. Geo Morrish, author of several church histories, not only describes the development of the events that led to the first announcement of the Prague interdict, but also describes the events that led to the second proclamation of the interdict. In this context, Morrish tells us when Huss left Prague:
It was not long before Rome heard of what was going on at Prague, and Pope Alexander V. at once issued a bull commanding the Archbishop of Prague, to proceed against all who preached in private chapels, and who read the writings or taught the opinions of Wickliffe. Then a great collection of all Wickliffe's books was made… were piled up in the street, and were publicly burned, while the bells tolled dismally…. After this wicked act we find Huss preaching with still greater zeal and earnestness. He now attacked the sale of indulgences, and other unscriptural proceedings of the Papacy.
Another mandate arrived from Rome. The Pope summoned Huss to appear in person to answer for his doctrines… The King, the Queen, and many of the great ones of Bohemia sent an embassy to the Pope, begging that Huss might not appear in person… In vain they pleaded; the Pope condemned Huss in his absence, and laid the city of Prague under interdict… The poor superstitious people could not brave this state of things long; tumults soon began to disturb the peace. "Let us cast out the rebel," was the cry, "lest we perish." There was nothing for Huss but to depart. He must leave the city where he had many friends, and not a few loving disciples, for he knew that his presence could but entail sorrow and calamity on them. So he went away, and found a place of refuge in his home beneath the sighing pines of Hussinezt…
If we cast our eyes round, and survey the state of Europe at this time, the picture is truly deplorable. Three popes were now reigning in Christendom, each claiming to be the rightful successor of Peter. Not only with maledictions and curses did the rival popes shine now to crush one another; they hired soldiers and swords, and by war and rapine each strove to become the greatest… This melancholy spectacle had a very powerful effect on John Huss… And now we find him not only striking at the abuses of the Papacy, but levelling his blows at its root and endeavouring with all his might to extirpate it, both root and branch together. He now wrote his wonderful treatise "On the Church," in which he brought out clearly that Christ alone was the invisible Head of the Church. This tract was followed by another, called, "The Six Errors," which was circulated far and near, and produced a profound impression throughout Bohemia.
Something else happening at this time helped to deepen the impression made by this tract. Ladislaus, King of Hungary, had brought down the wrath of John XXIII upon himself, by giving support to Gregory XII one of the rival popes. In great anger he (John) issued a bull, excommunicating… King Ladislaus… the Pope also "commanded all emperors, kings, princes, cardinals, and men of whatever degree… to take up arms against Ladislaus… and he promised to all who should join the crusade, or who should support it, the pardon of all their sins, and immediate admission into Paradise, should they die in the war… Huss seized the opportunity of directing the eyes of his countrymen to the contrast between the vicar of Christ, and Christ Himself: the one who proclaimed war and bloodshed, and the gentle Saviour who taught a gospel of peace… The Archbishop interfered, and again placed Prague under interdict, so long as John Huss remained in the city. Again the Reformer, fearing for his friends, withdrew to his native village of Hussinetz [##44|Geo Morrish, Heroes of the Reformation: The Story of Their Trials and Triumphs (London: Paternoster Square, 1895, republished 2014 by Irving Risch; Rumble edition, Church History, John Huss, 2022), pp. 4-7.##].
In this rather long quote it becomes clear that Huss left Prague after the first proclamation of the interdict, but that he also withdrew after the second proclamation. Other sources also confirm Ellen White’s survey of these events. In connection with a letter to the brethren of the monastery of Dolein, in Moravia, we find this interesting statement:
The date of Hus’s exile, and therefore of the following letter, is somewhat uncertain. He seems to have left Prague first in the August of 1412, but a few months later, on his own statement, returned and preached [##45|B. Workman and R. Martin Pope, The Letters of John Hus (London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1904), p. 80.##]. (It may be observed that August 1412 is a few months before the second interdict was enforced.)
Huss wrote the following in another letter, apparently some time before the interdict was pronounced on Prague the second time:
Let me know, therefore, if you can rest satisfied with this advice of Augustine; for I am urged by my conscience not to be absent and thus prove a stumbling block, although the necessary food of God’s word be not wanting to the flock. On the other hand, the fear confronts me that my presence, by the wicked device of an edict, may become a pretext for the withdrawal of that food—that is, the Holy Communion, and the other things pertaining to salvation [##46|Workman and Pope, The Letters of John Hus, p. 82.##].
In the context of still another letter, written between September 1412 and August 1414, we find this statement:
Hus, as we have seen, had left Prague in the early autumn of 1412, but soon returned [##47|Workman and Pope, The Letters of John Hus, p. 83.##].
Indeed, Matthew Spinka, whose book McAdams praises as “a good example of modern historical scholarship at its best” [##48|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 43.##], indicates that Huss had left Prague a few months before the second interdict was enforced:
Furthermore, being in this extremely irritated mood, the king yielded to the request of the theological faculty that the Zebrak decisions be announced to the clergy and the university. He called a meeting at the Old Town Hal (July 16, 1412), to which both the clergy and the university masters were summoned by the royal Council. Hus, however, was absent, having left the day before; he returned three weeks later [##49|Matthew Spinka, John Hus’ Concept of the Church (Princeton, 1966), p. 121.##].
When Huss was back in Prague he undertook a public defense of Wyclif in three sessions, and Spinka writes in a footnote on the page noted above:
Others do not mention this long absence of Hus from Prague, and therefore date his defense of Wyclif toward the end of July [##50|——John Hus’ Concept of the Church, p. 121.##]. (This, according to Spinka, is dated a number of weeks too early.)
Still another good source clarifies that Huss left Prague soon after the interdict of June 1411, and several months before the interdict was again imposed in October 1412:
On the first of Setember in the same year, AD 1411, Huss made a public confession of his belief. As, on account of the interdict, he could not preach in the Bethlehem Chapel, he now revisited his birth-place. Hieronymus also left Prague for a short time, having been summoned by the king of Poland to Cracow, to assist in regulating the newly established University.
It was some time before the Archiepiscopal Throne at Prague was again filled… Huss and Hieronymus had returned and were as bold and undaunted as before. They continued to preach in spite of the interdict… The vacant Archiepiscopal Throne must at lenth be filled up… Wenzel proceeded in his unusual manner. He sold it to a Bohemian named Albicus… In the same year, AD 1412 therefore, in which he had been enthroned… an administrator was appointed to assist him [##51|Ludwig Wurkert, Paayne’s Illustrated History of the Church of Christ from its foundation with special reference to the Reformation and the lives of the great Reformers (New York: N.P. Fitzpatrick, 1861), p. 324.##].
It is clear from this reference that Huss left Prague in 1411 and was back again before a new Archbishop had been appointed. Albik, the new Archbishop, was appointed in January 1412, a few months after the death of his predecessor, Zbynek, in September 1411.
We should keep in mind that the interdict was again imposed in October of 1412, after the new archbishop was installed. Since Huss at that moment was already back in Prague, it is clear—according to the above reference—that he had left Prague some nine to ten months before the second interdict was enforced. Furthermore, this quote makes clear that Huss, because of the turbulent circumstances, was not at all timid but full of courage, bold and undaunted, a point we will consider under the following heading.
If we consult the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics as to when Huss left Prague, it is very clear that, according to this source, he withdrew from Prague in 1411, after the interdict of that year and more than nine months before the interdict was again renewed in October 1412. We read:
Thereafter Pope Alexander V., to whom Archbishop Sbinko had now made his submission, issued, at the instance of Hus’s enemies a bull against Wyclif, enjoiningthat his writings should be burnt (1410). Hus protested, and, in spite of the archbishop’s prohibition, actually defended Wyclif in public discussions. The consequence was that Hus was excommunicated, and Prague laid under a Papal interdict – measures which failed, however, to achieve their object. Then Pope John XXIII,’s bull of indulgence for a crusade against Ladislaus of Naples, the champion of Gregory XII (1411), led to a division among Hus’s own followers. Hus assailed the bull in trenchant sermons and disputations, while the theological faculty of the University… defended it. The breach became wider and wider, and led to popular riots in Prague, so that at length the king, who was still on Hus’s side, found it necessary to induce him, for the sake of peace, to leave Prague (1411). Hus did so; but the desired result did not ensue [##52|James Hastings, John A. Selbie, Louis H. Gray, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), vol. VI, p. 887.##].
We are thus constrained to conclude, based on the above evidence, that Huss did in fact leave Prague after the first proclamation of the interdict, a short time before the interdict was renewed a second time. There is thus no credible reason to doubt the accuracy of Ellen White’s recounting of the events of this period.
Huss's followers were in constant conflict with the Papists and, as we read in an earlier quote, Prague was a 'storm-centre' during these eventful years. Although the king supported Huss and tried to limit the consequences of the imposed interdict as much as possible, its psychological influence on the population was still significant.
These were years of fear, tension and uncertainty, and many pointed to Huss as the cause of the turbulent conditions. The desire for peace and tranquility was great, with numerous attempts made to reach a solution between the warring parties. But the successes achieved to limit the unrest were of a very short duration, with conflict soon resuming in full force. It is understandable that Huss left Prague more than once during these times, to promote peace for the well-being of his followers and the community at large.
6. Preaching with greater zeal
In another footnote McAdams alleges Ellen White’s inaccuracy on another point: “When Huss did leave Prague as an exile, he never returned, except secretly. He clearly did not preach with greater zeal” [##53|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 64.##].
Ellen White, by contrast, states:
When after a time the excitement in Prague subsided, Huss returned to his chapel of Bethlehem, to continue with greater zeal and courage the preaching of the word of God [##54|White, The Great Controversy, p. 102.##].
Ellen White often refers to Wylie’s chronicle of events, and he wrote in a similar way:
With zeal quickened by his banishment, he thunders more courageously than ever against the tyranny of the priesthood in forbidding the free preaching of the Gospel [##55|J.A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism (Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, 1997), Vol. 1, Book 3, Chapter 2, p. 221.##].
Is Ellen White wrong? Or is McAdams? If we consult Morrish again, we find the following statements in his chapter on Huss:
In time things quieted in Prague, although doubtless, the calm was only at the surface. With an intense yearning Huss longed to return again to his Chapel of Bethlehem, the scene of so much divine blessing. The wish was granted him, and once more he stands with his beloved flock around him, who listen with hushed breath to the burning words that proceed from him. His banishment has but quickened his zeal, and more courageously than ever he denounces the tyranny that would suppress the free preaching of the Gospel…
Plainer and bolder, day by day, grew the speech of Huss, and the people became so incensed against the priests that they trembled for their lives [##56|Morrish, Heroes of the Reformation, Rumble edition, p. 5.##].
Würkert confirms Ellen White’s description by using words that express a similar meaning:
Huss returned several times to Prague during the period of his banishment, and even preached to a crowded congregation in his chapel…
For the rest, it is certain that during this time Huss advanced more decidedly than before. He preached so freely and evangelically that his entire breach with the Romish church was plainly to be seen. He not only exposed abuses and evils, but also sharply attacked the Pope and the Cardinals, and once, among other things, expressed himself thus in a sermon: ‘He would give the Roman Church a blow that would make her hold her mouth even when a hundred years were gone by… We must not suppose that Huss only reasoned, and that he never spoke with a voice of thunder” [##57|Wurkert, Payne’s Illustrated History of the Church of Christ, pp. 341,342.##].
This style of preaching certainly testifies of courage, zeal, and determination, and shows no sense of fear or discouragement. A German source presents a similar picture:
He was a man of great sagacity, of irreproachable conduct and very zealous for the true welfare of Christendom. He preached with great eloquence and power in the public streets of Prague, even after his expulsion in 1413, and subsequently in the district of Bechin, against the prevailing vices of his day [##58|Christian Adolph Pescheck, The Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia. From the German in two volumes (London: Houlston and Stoneman, Paternoster Row, 1845), vol. 1, p. 7.##].
An English church historian, Joseph Milner, also testifies that Huss openly espoused Wyclif’s convictions and continued to zealously preach despite the fierce opposition. We read:
The Archbishop of Prague, in the year 1410, condemned the writings [of Wicklef] to be burned... Now the difficulties for Huss multiplied. He was excommunicated in Rome… Huss had no choice but to appeal to Almighty God… He continued to persevere in preaching. In one of his sermons he dealt with the usefulness of the commemoration of the saints... While in the same sermon he declares himself with all zeal against the abuses of the times [##59|Joseph Milner, Geschiedenis der Kerk van Christus (Amsterdam: J.H. den Ouden; Rotterdam: Van Der Meer & Verbruggen, 1839), Deel Zeven, p. 279.##].
There is no evidence that Ellen White’s statement was wrong. Several historians clearly testify that Huss, in spite of his leaving Prague because of the impending dangers, continued to preach openly and courageously.
7. Two Pictures
During this time two learned men came to Prague and painted two pictures, one of Christ in His simplicity and the other of the opulent splendor of the Pope. Ellen White refers to these pictures and explains that crowds came to stare at them, causing great commotion in the city [##60|White, The Great Controversy, pp. 99,100).##]. McAdams, however, writes:
This account of the two pictures and its effect on Huss may be true, but it conflicts with the information given in Spinka, p. 48 [##61|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 59.##].
But Spinka is hardly the only credible scholar relative to the events in question. Pescheck writes:
In the year 1404, two learned Englishmen, James and Conrad of Canterbury, came to Prague and spoke much against the Pope. But when this was prohibited, they, by consent of their host, Luke Welensky, caused to be painted in a room of the house where they lodged, in the suburb of Prague , the history of Christ’s passion on the one side, and on the other the pomp of the papal court. Huss mentioned these representations publicly, as a true antithesis between Christ and Antichrist; and all ran to see them [##62|Pescheck, The Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia, vol. 1, p. 8.##].
This was like an illustrated sermon, and Huss was sufficiently impressed to make it publicly known as the depiction of truth. If so many hurried to see the paintings, it’s fully understandable that they would cause commotion in Prague, as Ellen White explained.
Neander mentions this event in a footnote, and refers to the Hussite historian Zacharias Theobald as the author of the story. Neander, however, is a bit too cautious with this event, because Huss does not refer in his writings to the story, leading Neander to assume Theobald’s account might not be accurate. Neander writes:
We make no mention here of the story concerning the so-called 'Anti-thesis Christ or Antichrist' or the scene which was painted by the two Englishmen on the wall of the hall, rented by them, and in which the entry of the Pope Rome, resplendent with worldly splendor, was opposed to the entry of Christ into Jerusalem. Nor do we speak of the commotion caused by it, because we do not know whether we have here in the story of the Hussite historian Theobald... a credible source, and because Hus nowhere refers to this incident in his writings, although he is said to have mentioned it several times in his sermons [##63|Neander, Geschiedenis der Christelijke Godsdienst en Kerk, Band 9, p. 308.##].
Theobald’s record, however, is in harmony with Ellen White’s description and there is no valid reason to doubt it. Still another source depicts this story in harmony with Ellen White’s report:
Still further did the Englishmen continue their attacks. They placed two pictures for exhibition in a room they had engaged for that purpose. One was a painting of the entry of the Saviour into Jerusalem… everything bearing the impress of poverty. The other picture was the entry of the Pope into Rome. Here all was pomp and splendor… Huss availed himself of the opportunity, and spoke to his congregation from the pulpit about these two pictures. In consequence of his praise, multitudes of the people flocked to see them… All Prague was in excitement… The two Englishmen were compelled to leave the city, but the noise and excitement did not cease. Huss and his friends were exposed to the persecuting hate of the priests’ party…They were called the enemies of Christianity – traitors to God – agitators – peacebreakers – outcasts of the human race [##64|Wurkert, Payne’s Illustrated History of the Church of Christ, p. 324.##].
8. Huss and Jerome Close Friends
Contrary to Ellen White’s narrative, McAdams writes: “Huss and Jerome had been close friends since 1401, thirteen years before. ‘…Jerome of Prague… brought [the works of Wycliffe]… to Prague in 1401.’ ‘Jerome then became Huss’ intimate companion and adherent – an attachment he preserved throughout his life.’ Spinka p. 59” [##65|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 66.##].
Ellen White, however, writes: “Hitherto Huss had stood alone in his labors; but now Jerome, who while in England had accepted the teachings of Wycliffe, joined tn the work of reform. The two were hereafter united in their lives, and in death they were not to be divided” [##66|White, The Great Controversy, pp. 102-103.##].
Ellen White clearly indicates that the intimate association of Huss and Jerome did not start in 1401. Their close friendship clearly came at a subsequent date, several years later. Ellen White explains: “A citizen of Prague, Jerome, who afterward became so closely associated with Huss, had, on returning from England, brought with him the writings of Wycliffe” [##67|——The Great Controversy, p. 99.##].
We find the following statement from Morrish on the connection between Huss and Jerome (or Hieronymus) to be in complete harmony with the words of Ellen White.
Up to this time Huss had no yoke-fellow in his work; he was quite alone; and often in sadness and melancholy, he yearned for the sweet solace of a companion of like spirit with himself. It pleased God to give him such an one, a friend, who became to him as Jonathan to David. Jerome, of Faulfisk, was a Bohemian knight. He had been at Oxford, in England, and there had received much truth from Wickliffe's writings. He was noted for his subtle intellect and fervent eloquence. He had, too, a fearless courage, and a lofty devotion.
From this time the names of Huss and Jerome were ever united, Although alike in their great qualities and aims, there were many minor points of difference between them that made them necessary to one another. Their love ripened, day by day, until it became "passing the love of woman," and so it remained, in sweet unbrokenness while life lasted. Even death did not keep them long apart, for "they were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided” [##68|Morrish, Heroes of the Reformation, Rumble edition, p. 6.##].
The context of this quote makes clear that the close ties between Huss and Jerome dated from the time Huss was banished from Prague, just as Ellen White says. Jerome studied and traveled considerably, and was often in other countries. He was imprisoned in Vienna in 1410 for his defense of Wyclif’s writings and excommunicated by the bishop of Cracow. After these bitter experiences he returned to Prague. From then on he became close friends with Huss, standing up for him and defending him as much as possible. We read:
In March 1410, the bull against Wyclif’s writings was issued, and on the charge of favoring them Jerome was imprisoned in Vienna, but managed to escape into Moravia. For this he was excommunicated by the bishop of Cracow. Returned to Prague, he appeared publicly as the advocate of Huss [##69|Jackson, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Co, 1909), vol. VI, p. 129.##].
This statement, affirming his public advocacy of the teachings of Huss, certainly reflects a close relationship between Huss and Jerome. A German source tells us, regarding Jerome:
He came to Vienna, was captured here at the instigation of the Hungarian clergy, but was freed again at the instigation of his friends in Prague. He now returned to Prague and became close with Hus, with whom he was already friends [##70|Dr. Herzog, Real-Encyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche (Rudolf Besser: Stuttgart and Hamburg, Band 6, 1856), p. 81.##].
The German language says it well: “Er kam nun nach Prag zurück und schloss sich eng an Hus an…” Jerome closely aligned himself with Huss when he came to Prague soon after his release from prison in Vienna.
Just before Jerome came to his side, danger threatened Huss and he felt alone. Spinka explains:
The situation was growing increasingly threatening for Hus. Potentially, the most serious aggravation of the development was Pope John’s ‘crusading’ bull, which he issued on September 9, 1411. In fact, it was the conflict over this bull of indulgences which proved fatal to Hus: during it he was deserted by most of his former friends, with the exception of a few brave souls such as Jerome of Prague and Jakoubek of Stribro, and abandoned to his fate by the king [##71|Spinka, John Hus, A Biography (Princeton, 1968), p. 132.##].
Jerome, returning to Prague when Huss was clearly isolated, joined in the work of reform. When Huss criticized the papal bull, he stood firmly at his side as a reliable friend:
One by one his friends fell away from him until he found himself isolated, almost as if he were a voice crying in the wilderness [##72|——John Hus, A Biography, p. 134.##].
But Jerome proved to be a loyal friend who defended Huss and supported him in his critique of the papal bull:
This daring critique of the papal ‘crusading bull’ was eloquently and emphatically supported by Jerome of Prague [##73|——John Hus: A Biography, p. 139.##].
The close friendship between Jerome and Huss is also described by Roubiczek and Kalmer:
Jerome had just returned and he had said to Hus, ‘My Master, in what you have written and preached according to divine law, especially against pride, greed and similar vices, you are in the right. Be steadfast in it and be firm and strong. So soon as I learn that you are in need or if it should further the cause itself, I will follow you of my own free will and help you’ [##74|Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 211.##].
Jerome kept his promise at the cost of his life. He was apprehended, and like Huss, condemned to death. Both were burned at the stake, Huss on July 6, 1415, and Jerome several months later. The latter was led through the same streets as Huss, during which he bore witness to his coworker’s integrity. Jerome subordinated his own death to the memory of his friend and was burned at exactly the same spot as Huss on May 30, 1416. And again, as with Huss, the earth with his ashes were gathered up and thrown into the Rhine.
And so, as Ellen White wrote, in death they were not to be divided. They shared exactly the same fate! [##75|See Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 258; D. Albert Hauck, Real-Encyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche (Stuttgart and Hamburg, 1856), Band 6, p. 82; Durant, The Reformation, p. 167; White, The Great Controversy, pp. 102,103,114,115.##].
Anti Catholic Doctrines
McAdams writes elsewhere: “We should note that throughout this chapter Mrs. White assumes that Hus taught doctrines that were contrary to Catholic belief” [##76|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 150.##]. This is allegedly one of the “errors or questionable statements” noted earlier in this review, as stated by Ron Graybill [##77|——Ellen White and the Historians, p. 238.##].
But did Ellen White in fact assume that Huss taught only anti Catholic doctrines, or does the above statement by McAdams mislead the reader regarding Ellen White’s narrative? In contrast with McAdams, Ellen White paints a balanced picture of the Reformers, of whom Huss of course was one. She explained:
Great light was given to the Reformers, but many of them received the sophistry of error through misinterpretation of the Scriptures [##78|White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 450.##].
The Reformation did not, as many suppose, end with Luther. It is to be continued to the close of this world's history. Luther had a great work to do in reflecting to others the light which God had permitted to shine upon him; yet he did not receive all the light which was to be given to the world. From that time to this, new light has been continually shining upon the Scriptures, and new truths have been constantly unfolding.
Luther and his co-laborers accomplished a noble work for God; but, coming as they did from the Roman Church, having themselves believed and advocated her doctrines, it was not to be expected that they would discern all these errors. It was their work to break the fetters of Rome and to give the Bible to the world; yet there were important truths which they failed to discover, and grave errors which they did not renounce [##79|——The Story of Redemption, p. 353.##].
The doctrine that God has committed to the church the right to control the conscience, and to define and punish heresy, is one of the most deeply rooted of papal errors. While the Reformers rejected the creed of Rome, they were not entirely free from her spirit of intolerance. The dense darkness in which, through the long ages of her rule, popery had enveloped all Christendom, had not even yet been wholly dissipated [##80|——The Great Controversy, p. 293.##].
In light of these quotes, it is very hard to maintain that Ellen White assumed that the Reformers, including Huss, only taught doctrines that were contrary to Catholic belief. As Ellen White clearly indicates, the Reformers did not receive all the light on the issues they raised, or other issues as well. Despite the enormous good they accomplished, the Reformers failed to discover certain important truths and failed to renounce certain grave errors. But they faithfully lived up to the light they had received and were honest witnesses—to the extent they were aware—to the Biblical teachings they came to know.
9. In Worms 3,000 New Testament Copies Printed.
Turning to another episode in Reformation history, McAdams alleges that Ellen White made another narrative mistake, this one regarding the work of William Tyndale; a mistake supposedly made by her in “condensing D’Aubigné. She states that after reaching Worms, Tyndale printed 3,000 copies of the New Testament, ‘and another edition followed in the same year.’ In fact it was in Cologne where Tyndale had ordered 3000 copies” [##81|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 163.##].
McAdams refers to page 247 of The Great Controversy, but a number of sources, in harmony with Ellen White’s description, confirm that 3,000 copies of the New Testament were in fact printed in Worms. In Cologne only a very small portion was printed, because the authorities ordered the printing stopped. Jules Grisham explains:
Tyndale and his amanuensis William Roye, an Augustinian friar of Jewish background from Calais, worked together on translating the New Testament using Erasmus’ Greek New Testament, the Vulgate, and Luther’s German Bible as sources. In the spring of 1525, they moved on to Cologne, a center of printing, and by autumn of that year they handed a finished copy to a Cologne printer who managed to print out 3,000 copies of the first eighty pages before the local authorities ordered him to stop. The anti-Lutheran controversialist known as Cochlaeus had infiltrated the ranks of the printers and had discovered their plot to flood England with these Tyndale Testaments before the king or cardinal could discover it. He saw to it that further printing was expressly forbidden, and he promptly fired off letters to Henry VIII, Cardinal Wolsey, and the bishop of Rochester to warn them “that they might take diligent precautions at all the English ports to prevent these pernicious wares being imported.
Tyndale and Roye fled from Cologne with the 3,000 partially printed copies, and they raced along the Rhine to Worms. There they handed off the manuscript to a local printer, and in February 1526 the first English New Testament translated from the Greek was printed. Copies began arriving in London within a month [82].
Will Durant writes:
Tyndale went to Wittenberg, and continued the work under Luther’s guidance. At Cologne he began to print his version of the New Testament from the Greek text as edited by Erasmus. An English agent roused the authorities against him; Tyndale fled from Catholic Cologne to Protestant Worms, and there printed 6,000 copies, to each of which he added a separate volume of notes and aggressive preface based on those of Erasmus and Luther. All these copies were smuggled into England and served as fuel to the incipient Protestant fire [##83|Durant, The Reformation, p. 533.##].
Again we see Ellen White vindicated. The printing job was not completed in Cologne, but in Worms. Michael Rinehart writes in a paper:
The first complete edition of Tyndale’s New Testament was published in Worms in 1526. Copies made it to England, where Bishop Tunstall ordered them burned. The sight of Bibles being burned incensed the public. Sadly, Tyndale would not live to finish his Old Testament, but as much as 75% of the King James Version owes itself to Tyndale’s work [84].
Another source confirms that Tyndale’s New Testament was printed in Worms, and explains that a London merchant gave considerable financial support to the project, but that did not prevent Tyndale coming in need of money:
With money from a London cloth merchant he sailed for Germany, aged 30. He lived a hand-to-mouth existence on the run from government spies. The first complete English edition of his New Testament was printed in Worms in 1526 and bootlegged across the North Sea to England…
Tyndale went into debt to finance a run of 3,000 of the New Testament. Another 3,000 copies were pirated. They were sold openly on the streets of London. The bishops, furious, ordered them to be burned [85].
It was indeed the plan to print 3,000 copies of the New Testament at a printing shop in Cologne. But the printshop was raided, causing Tyndale to flee with his companion and the material to Worms, where the printing was completed:
By the spring of 1525, the translation of the New Testament was well under way, so that Tyndale could search for a printer. He found Peter Quentel, whose shop was in Cologne… They planned to print 3,000 copies, but the work was rudely interrupted when pro-Romanist infiltrators raided the printing shop. Tyndale and his assistant fled, hastily gathering what copies and manuscripts they could carry. They escaped to Worms, where Peter Schoeffer was asked to complete the printing. And so, in the spring of 1526, some of the 3,000 copies from Schoeffer's press came trickling into England, hidden in boat holds like drugs under innocent cargo [86].
On May 15, 1997, Tyndale’s New Testament was displayed at the U.S. Library of Congress, where—among other things—the following information was given:
Tyndale completed his translation in Cologne in 1525.
He took it to printer Peter Quentell, who reportedly had printed 10 sheets of the New Testament when his press was shut down by Cologne officials. The "Cologne Fragment" is so called because it is all that is known to survive of Tyndale's attempt to print his New Testament in Cologne in 1525. The Fragment is also in the exhibition on loan from the British Library.
Tyndale fled to Worms, where, in February 1526, printer Peter Schoeffer completed a run of between 3,000 and 6,000 New Testaments. The books were shipped in bales of cloth down the Rhine and smuggled into ports in the south and east of England. Many were collected by order of the Bishop of London, Cuthbert Tunstall, and ceremonially burned in October 1526 in front of St. Paul's Cathedral [87].
Ellen White on the French Revolution
McAdams’ book includes multiple references to the research of one William Peterson [##88|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, pp. 24,172-175,182,194-196,198.##], one of the earliest Ellen White critics in modern Adventism, who wrote an article during the early years of Spectrum magazine regarding alleged errors in the sources used by Ellen White on the history of the French Revolution [##89|William S. Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum, Autumn 1970, pp. 57-69.##]. Like McAdams and others who have subjected Ellen White’s writings to scrutiny of this sort, Peterson employs seriously defective logic and flawed arguments in seeking to impugn the credibility of Ellen White’s recounting of French history, whether before or during the Revolution.
Among other things, Peterson claims Ellen White’s sources on the French Revolution were anti-Catholic, anti-Democratic, “strong on moral fervor and weak on factual evidence” [##90|Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 63.##]. Wylie, whose reliability in the Huss narrative is so strongly (and wrongly, as we have seen) disputed by McAdams, is declared unreliable by Peterson because of his many books exposing papal errors and atrocities [##91|Petrerson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 61.##], and his strong support of the principles of Protestantism [##92|Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 61.##]. Because of this, Peterson writes, “Here is a man not to be trusted when he describes the Catholic persecution of French Protestants” [##93|Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 61.##].
Unfortunately for his case, Peterson gives no evidence as to Wylie’s unreliability in this regard. To tar a man as prejudicially “anti-Catholic” merely because he denounces the unscriptural teachings and blood-drenched persecutions authorized by Catholicism, makes as much sense as calling someone anti-German who factually recounts the history of the Holocaust, or anti-American for factually recounting the history of slavery, racism, and the slaughter of native Americans at the behest of the United States.
It helps to remember that bias is not necessarily the same as prejudice. To be prejudiced is to pre-judge, without considering evidence. Bias, by contrast, can in fact be an opinion informed by evidence. Peterson seems not to consider that numerous and credible historians, who can’t fairly be accused of sharing Wylie’s Protestant fervor, offer similarly graphic accounts of papal persecutions in the medieval and early modern period [##94|See Will Durant, The Age of Faith: A History of Medieval Civilization—Christian, Islamic, Judaic—from Constantine to Dante: A.D. 325-1300 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950), p. 784; Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Reason Begins: A History of European Civilization in the Period of Shakespeare, Bacon, Montaigne, Rembrandt, Galileo, and Descartes: 1558-1648 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1961), pp. 350-355; The Age of Louis XIV: A History of European Civilization in the Period of Pascal, Moliere, Cromwell, Milton, Peter the Great, Newton, and Spinoza: 1648-1715 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963), pp. 69-75; William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of An Age (New York: Little, Brown, and Co, 1993), pp. 7-8,34-36,201-202; Miroslav Hroch and Anna Skybova, Ecclesia Militans: The Inquisition (Leipzig, Germany, 1988; translated from the German by Janet Fraser, published by Dorset Press, a division of Marboro Books Corp, 1992).##].
This is not to deny the reality of anti-Catholic bigotry, either in American history or elsewhere in historic Protestant culture. The problem arises when such bigotry is equated with opposition to unscriptural teachings or the factual recounting of violent persecutions. The civil, economic, or social marginalizing of individuals on account of religious faith lies on an entirely different plane either from theological denunciation or the candid survey of historical facts.
Other sources used by Ellen White on the French Revolution are denounced by Peterson as having “Tory” or “monarchist” leanings, and thus presumably untrustworthy when offering what Peterson calls “sweeping moral condemnations of the French people” and a “virulently anti-French diatribe” [##95|Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 62.##]. But the fact is that it makes no difference, at the bottom line, what political or cultural biases a reporter or historian might have. What matters is the reporting and research itself, and how it stacks up against known facts. And one hardly needs to be a British Tory or French monarchist to deplore the bloody excesses of the French Revolution!
In free societies, where media reporters often disclose scandalous or other embarrassing information about politicians and other guardians of the established order, it is often the practice of the latter to allege a certain bias on the part of such reporters. (One thinks of how Richard Nixon and his associates tried to discredit the reporting of the Washington Post concerning the Watergate scandal because of the Post’s alleged bias against Nixon and his policies. Contemporary allegations of similar bias could also be cited.) Such bias may in fact be real. But the evidence thus produced must still stand or fall on its own merit. If the sources used by Ellen White and/or Uriah Smith were unreliable, the evidence for such should be offered. Claims of their prejudices or research style prove nothing unless it is demonstrated that their statements are inaccurate.
Peterson collides with the plainest facts of history when he accuses Ellen White of inaccuracy—one never corrected, he laments, in the 1911 Great Controversy [##96|Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.## ]—when she writes of how “thousands upon thousands of [French] Protestants found safety in flight” [##97|White, The Great Controversy, p. 278, quoted by Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.##]. Contrary to Peterson’s claims [##98|Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.##], Ellen White never says all these thousands fled during the sixteenth century. Instead, she speaks of how this flight “continued for two hundred and fifty years after the opening of the Reformation” [##99|White, The Great Controversy, p. 278.##]. The entire context of this statement describes the general persecution of Protestants in France following the Reformation, and how the effect of this persecution led to the later backlash of the French Revolution [##100|——The Great Controversy, pp. 276-288.##].
The number of Protestants who fled France following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 by Louis XIV is well documented by history and very much in harmony with Ellen White’s statements. Olivier Bernier, in his 1987 biography of Louis XIV, speaks of at least 300,000 Huguenots.fleeing from France during this time [##101|Olivier Bernier, Louis XIV: A Royal Life (New York: Doubleday, 1987), p. 232.##]. The late historian Barbara Tuchman, author of such acclaimed histories as The Proud Tower [##102|Barbarta Tuichman, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994).##] and the Pulitzer Prize-winning Guns of August [##103|——The Guns of August (New York: The Macmillan Co, 1962).##], estimates in her 1984 book The March of Folly that somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000 Huguenots fled France at this time [##104|——The March of Folly from Troy to Vietnam (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), p. 22.##].
Compared with any of these figures, Ellen White’s “thousands upon thousands” statement makes perfect sense. The impact of these departures is documented by these and other authors as devastating to France [##105|Tuchman, The March of Folly, pp. 21-22; Bernier, Louis XIV: A Royal Life, p. 232.##], leaving no alternative to Catholicism in the French mind except atheism [##106|Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV, pp. 74-75.##]. Just like Ellen White says [##107|White, The Great Controversy, pp. 276-288.##].
Other Ellen White inaccuracies alleged by Peterson are trivial at best—whether, for example, one noted by Ellen White as a “priest of the new (Revolutionary) order really was a priest, or just a metaphorical one [##108|Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.##], or whether the change from the 1888 to the 1911 Great Controversy of the word “millions” to “multitudes”—regarding those who died during the French Revolution—indicates a substantive shift [##109|Petrerson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.##]. (I suspect that the “great multitude which no man could number” described in Revelation 7:9 very likely includes millions!)
For the careful student of both history and Ellen White’s writings, a blend of mirth and tears often attends the review of claims like the above. It is hard not to wonder whether such persons are more desirous of discrediting Ellen White than objectively considering either the content of Ellen White’s writings or the facts of history in general. At the bottom line, as with the Huss and Tyndale narratives on which the present article has focused, Petersons’s claims offer no compelling evidence that the historians used by Ellen White allowed prejudice of any kind—whatever it may have been—to affect the accuracy of their historical writing.
McAdams and the “New Orthodoxy”
The sixth and final chapter of McAdams’ book was written by one Eric Anderson, a retired Adventist historian and academic administrator who wrote the original Spectrum article noted at the start of the present review, which reported on McAdams’ as-yet-unpublished research [##110|Anderson, Spectrum, July 1978, pp. 23-26.##].
It would lead too far afield to respond to all the points made in this chapter, the tone of which is telling for reasons we will consider in a moment. What is likely most noteworthy in this chapter is Anderson’s lament that McAdams’ views of Ellen White’s authority haven’t become the “new orthodoxy” relative to her role in the church [##111|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, pp. 248,250,253.##]—a term he used in his Spectrum article nearly five decades ago [##112|Anderson, Spectrum, July 1978, p. 24.##]—despite what Anderson calls the “factual evidence so carefully collected by this discreet researcher (McAdams)” [##113|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 251.##].
Anderson, McAdams, and their fellow philosophical travelers in the church view McAdams’ findings as earth-shaking, so far as their impact on Ellen White’s perceived reliability is concerned. “What is the leadership doing so that the Church will ever be ready for this?” [##114|——Ellen White and the Historians, p. 251.##], McAdams once asked the late Arthur L. White, grandson of the prophetess. At another point he asked the leaders, “What are you going to do about the new evidence I have uncovered?” [##115|——Ellen White and the Historians, p. 251.##]. Like so many Ellen White critics, these men pose themselves as courageous whistle-blowers “speaking truth to power,” in the mold of a Daniel Ellsberg or a John Dean.
But the evidence assembled in the present article should give great pause to anyone inclined to view McAdams’ research as the best reflection of historical fact. Again we note how McAdams’ work is based primarily on the findings of a single historian, while the present book review has gathered references from a collection of historians past and present, representing a variety of academic, philosophical, and religious backgrounds. Unless McAdams and his acolytes are prepared to demonstrate why Matthew Spinka is believable and all these other historians are not, it’s difficult to see how any objective reader can’t be persuaded that those features of Reformation history recounted in The Great Controversy narrative harmonize far better with the known facts of the historical record than do the claims of Ellen White’s critics.
One is astounded by Anderson’s allegation of Ellen White’s “outrageously misleading claims about history borrowed from the Protestant historians” of her day [##116|——Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.##]. The outrage truly merited is on the part of any careful student of medieval and early modern history, and should more justifiably be directed at Anderson and his fellow Ellen White critics. For example, Anderson insists, in contrast with a quote by Ellen White from Wylie, that “the noonday of the papacy was not ‘the midnight of the world’” [##117|——Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.##]. But one hardly requires an assumed faith in classic Adventist prophetic interpretation or Ellen White’s historical reliability to recognize the cultural, intellectual, and moral darkness of an age when kings were deposed by pontiffs who boasted themselves “less than God but more than man, who shall judge all and be judged by no one” [##118|T. Walter Wallbank and Alistair M. Taylor, Civilization: Past and Present, vol. 1 (Chicago: Scott, Foresman, and Co, 1954), p. 404.##], of an era when the slaughter of religious dissidents was attended by the admonition, “Kill them all; God will know His own” [##119|Stephen O’Shea, The Perfect Heresy: The Revolutionary Life and Death of the Medieval Cathars (New York: Walker and Co, 2000), p. 5.##], or of a time when “the methods of the inquisition, including torture, were adopted into the law codes of many governments” [##120|Will Durant, The Age of Faith, p. 784.##], leaving what Will Durant ranks “as among the darkest blots on the record of mankind, revealing a ferocity unknown in any beast” [##121|——The Age of Faith, p. 784..##}.
Anderson goes on to say, “It is not accurate to describe the Middle Ages as a time in which Europe ‘made no progress in learning, arts, or civilization’” [##122|White, The Great Controversy, p. 60, quoted by McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.##]. This quote from Ellen White is taken out of context by Anderson. Here is Ellen White’s statement in its immediate context:
For centuries Europe had made no progress in learning, arts, or civilization. A moral and intellectual paralysis had fallen upon Christendom [##123|——The Great Controversy, p. 60.##].
The following page in The Great Controversy is the start of the chapter titled, “The Waldenses” [##124|——The Great Controversy, p. 61.##]. The statement quoted above is not, in other words, a general indictment by Ellen White of the entire medieval period, but rather, of the centuries preceding the Waldensian era, the latter generally seen as beginning toward the end of the twelfth century [125]. The late historian William Manchester, author of such notable histories as One Brief Shining Moment (a memoir of the administration of U.S. President John F. Kennedy) [##126|Manchester, One Brief Shining Moment: Remembering Kennedy (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co, 1983).##], The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972 [##127|——The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972 (New York: Bantam Books, 1974).##], and most recently the three-volume, breathtaking biography of Winston Churchill [##128|——The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory, 1874-1932 (New York: Dell Publishing, 1983); Alone: 1932-1940 (New York: Bantam Books, 1988); Defender of the Realm (with Paul Reid): 1940-1965 (New York: Bantam Books, 2012).##], writes the following of medieval civilization, in particular the centuries noted by Ellen White in the statement cited by Anderson:
The densest of the medieval centuries—the six hundred years between, roughly, A.D. 400 and A.D. 1000—are still widely known as the Dark Ages. Modern historians have abandoned that phrase, one of them writes “because of the unacceptable value judgment it implies.” Yet there are no survivors to be offended. Nor is the term necessarily pejorative. Very little is clear about that dim era. Intellectual life had vanished from Europe. Even Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman emperor and the greatest of all medieval rulers, was illiterate. Indeed, throughout the Middle Ages, literacy was scorned; when a cardinal corrected the Latin of the emperor Sigismund, Charlemagne’s forty-seventh successor, Sigismund rudely replied, “Ego sum rex Romanus et super grammatica”—as “king of Rome,” he was “above grammar.” Nevertheless, if value judgments are made, it is undeniable that most of what is known about the period is unlovely. After the extant fragments have been fitted together, the portrait which emerges is a melange of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and almost impenetrable mindlessness [##129|——A World Lit Only By Fire, p. 3.##].
Writing of the English king John’s approval of the famous Magna Carta, another recent historian states the following regarding the general illiteracy of medieval monarchs:
King John, by the way, didn’t really sign the Magna Carta. He had his royal seal pressed in wax on the document. All the Hollywood movies which show him signing it are wrong. A king did not deign to sign anything. (Many didn’t know how.) [##130|Richard Shenkman, Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of World History (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993), p. 115.##].
Please bear in mind that the parenthetical sentence at the close of the above reference is in the original.
Like William Peterson, Anderson badly misleads the reader regarding Ellen White’s tracing of the roots of the French Revolution to papal policy in France. Anderson writes:
The French Revolution was not an illustration “of the working out of papal policy” nor did “the Jesuits alone” flourish on the eve of the upheaval. (The Society of Jesus had been expelled from France in 1764.) [##131|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.##].
Once again, the sentence in parentheses is in the original.
The two above phrases in quotation marks are taken by Anderson from two references in The Great Controversy [##132|White, The Great Controversy, pp. 265,279, quoted by McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.##]. But we have already noted, in our consideration of William Peterson’s claims, that the French Revolution was very much the result of Protestantism being expelled from the kingdom during the preceding century [##133|Bernier, Louis XIV: A Royal Life, p. 232; Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV, pp. 74-75; Tuchman, The March of Folly, pp. 21-22.##]. And the Ellen White statement referenced by Anderson doesn’t say “the Jesuits alone” flourished in France “on the eve of the upheaval” (the Revolution), as Anderson alleges [##134|White, The Great Controversy, p. 279, quoted by McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.##}. Here is the paragraph from The Great Controversy cited by Anderson:
“With the flight of the Huguenots a general decline settled upon France. Flourishing manufacturing cities fell into decay; fertile districts returned to their native wilderness; intellectual dullness and moral declension succeeded a period of unwanted progress. Paris became one vast almshouse, and it is estimated that, at the breaking out of the Revolution, two hundred thousand paupers claimed charity from the hands of the king. The Jesuits alone flourished in the decaying nation, and ruled with dreadful tyranny over churches and schools, the prisons and the galleys” [##135|White, The Great Controversy, p. 279.##].
The above statement, quoted by Ellen White from Wylie [##136|——The Great Controversy, p. 279.##], is clearly a general description of what befell the French nation in the wake of the Protestant expulsion which began in earnest following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 and continued in the decades which followed [##137|Bernier, Louis XIV: A Royal Life, p. 232; Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV, pp. 74-75; Tuchman, The March of Folly, pp. 21-22.##]. In no way does the statement by Wylie referenced by Ellen White claim that “the Jesuits alone” flourished in France on the eve of the Revolution. Rather, the statement simply describes the “general decline [that] settled upon France” because of the departure of what the record suggests were the most industrious of French citizens.
Put simply, the fact that the Jesuits were expelled from France in 1764, as Anderson notes [##138|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.##], two decades prior to the Revolution, hardly implies that either Jesuit influence or the overall impact of Catholic dominance in pre-Revolutionary France didn’t bear significant responsibility for the chaos and bloodshed that devastated the nation in 1789 and the years that followed.
Anderson’s chapter is scarred by tragic evidence of the author’s disdain for the counsel and role of Ellen White in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Such phrases as “spirit of prophecy” [##139|——Ellen White and the Historians, pp. 247,249.##] and “brethren of experience” [##140|——Ellen White and the Historians, p. 247.##] are placed in quotation marks, with a tone giving every evidence of exuding scorn. (Some with long memories will recall Anderson telling Newsweek magazine at the heart of the Desmond Ford controversy in the early 1980s: “The real question is whether Adventists will remain a sect or enter the Protestant mainstream as an evangelical Christian church” [##141|Kenneth L. Woodward and Richard Sandra, “A Day of Judgment for Adventists?” Newsweek, Jan. 4, 1982, p. 67.##]. No one familiar with Anderson’s beliefs, at that time or since, can doubt which outcome he preferred.) What is perhaps most disturbing is the following statement by Anderson:
It is not necessary for faithful Adventists to look with fear and loathing on “lofty and massive” Catholic churches “in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated” [##142|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, pp. 253-254.##].
Anderson’s disdain for such predictions comes across as particularly strange at a time when, for example, a recent and popular pope says that one violating the sanctity of Sunday should be “punished as a heretic” [##143|Detroit News, July 7, 1998, p. A1.##], when a very recent U.S. president advocates the use of torture [##144|James Masters, “Donald Trump says torture ‘absolutely works’—but does it?” CNN, Jan. 26, 2017; Rebecca Gordon, “Donald Trump Has a Passionate Desire to Bring Back Torture,” The Nation, April 6, 2017; Jonathan Swan, “Trump said CIA director Gina Haspel agreed with him ‘100%’ on torture,” Axios, Nov. 17, 2019.##], and when secret trials of suspected terrorists have made cover stories in prominent news magazines [##145|”Secret Trials: Justice vs. Terror: How Far Should We Go?” Newsweek, Dec. 10, 2001 (cover).##]. Any of the above sound more than slightly congruent with the sort of persecution that once took place in the secret recesses of medieval and early modern cathedrals at the behest of the papal Inquisition.
In sum, whatever was the reason for McAdams’ “new orthodoxy” relative to Ellen White’s authority being “shunted aside and ignored for decades” [##146|McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 248.##], the collective witness of historical studies both past and present offers compelling evidence for the rejection of McAdams’ views. We can only pray that church leaders will continue to reject this and similar proposals that place the prophetic voice in subjection to the shortcomings of human reason, mortal supposition, and fallible scholarship.
Conclusion
From what we have surveyed in the historical record, it is clear Ellen White’s description of key events during the Protestant Reformation and thereafter was guided by the Holy Spirit, and that the errors alleged by Donald McAdams and others cannot be sustained by credible evidence.
We are seriously ill-advised when we measure the accuracy of the inspired text by the writings, research, and speculation of uninspired scholars. Allegations of historical inaccuracy have been raised regarding the Bible for centuries, and regarding Ellen White for decades. None of these claims have ever been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the preface to his book, McAdams explains why he waited 50 years to publish in book form his original monograph, Ellen G. White and the Protestant Historians:
The first question that will come to the reader’s mind is, Why have I, after all these years, decided to publish this paper? The answer is embedded in the Adventist Church’s ongoing struggle to reconcile the evidence from history and science with the belief that Ellen White is authoritative in all matters. This book places my paper before the public as a document of historical importance for Adventists because it played a role in re-opening this discussion in the 1970s. Also, publication is timely because George Knight’s book, Ellen White’s Afterlife: Delightful Fictions, Troubling Facts, Enlightening Research, and Gilbert Valentine’s book, Ostriches and Canaries: Coping with Change in Adventism, 1966-1979, have renewed interest in my paper [##147|——Ellen White and the Historians, p. xi.##].
The present article doesn’t afford sufficient space to assess the content of the books cited here by McAdams. Suffice it to say for now that these books promote a view of prophetic inspiration and authority quite at odds with both Scripture and the writings of Ellen White, together with a historical perspective frequently at odds with the facts. When all is said and done, the narrative promoted by each of these authors, including McAdams, gives the uninspired recipient authority over the inspired text. In Biblical times, such stories never ended well.
Some may call our attention to the fact that Ellen White adjusted her description of the St. Bartholomew Massacre regarding which bell tolled to signal the start of the slaughter. It was pointed out to Ellen White that there is no evidence that it was the large palace bell that gave the signal, as she indicated, thus suggesting that she was wrong in her statement. Ellen White, having no desire to settle such minor historical issues, changed the wording in the 1911 edition to: "A bell, tolling at dead of night, was the signal for the slaughter" [##148|Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years, 1905-1915 (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1982), pp. 330-331.##].
But it is one thing for an inspired prophet, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to decide which details of the inspired narrative are significant enough to defend, and which are not. It is quite another for uninspired scholars to make such determinations. Ellen White’s flexibility relative to the above small detail in her recounting of the St. Bartholomew Massacre does not give uninspired readers an indiscriminate license to find fault with other details within her writings.
Nevertheless, her original statement need not be regarded as mistaken. A number of credible sources agree with her original statement that it was the palace bell—specifically, the bell of the Palace of Justice—that tolled first on that fateful night [##149|Jan Voerman, “Ellen White and the French Revolution,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 2007, pp. 251,253.##].
There may be some who have difficulty with Ellen White quoting outside historians, but this has the advantage of enabling those with historical knowledge to better recognize what Ellen White is describing. To those familiar with the historical record, such references can offer greater appeal. Furthermore, in quoting historians, would it not be possible for Ellen White to select, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, passages that contain truth in words that fit the divine purpose?
From the evidence surveyed in this article, it would seem this is precisely what she did.
We close this review with prophetic warnings both ancient and modern, more relevant now than ever for the people of God as they face the final crisis:
Men may get up scheme after scheme, and the enemy will seek to seduce souls from the truth; but all who believe that the Lord has spoken through Sister White, and has given her a message, will be safe from the many delusions that will come in these last days [##150|Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.##].
Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established: believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper (II Chron. 20:20
REFERENCES
1. Donald R. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians: A Neglected Problem and a Forgotten Answer (Westlake Village: Oak & Acorn Publishing, 2022).
2. Ibid, p. xii.
3. Eric Anderson, “Ellen White and Reformation Historians,” Spectrum, July 1978, pp. 23-26.
4. Ellen G. White, Colporteur Ministry, p. 125.
5. Ibid, pp. 127-129.
6. White, The Great Controversy, p. x.
7. Ibid, p. xi.
8. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, pp. 34-43.
9. Ibid, p. 43.
10. Ibid, p. 54.
11. White, The Great Controversy, p. 98.
12. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 54.
13. Ibid, p. 238.
14. White, The Great Controversy, pp. xi, xii.
15. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 61.
16. White, The Great Controversy, p. 100.
17. Ibid, p. 104.
18. “Antipope John XXIII,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII
19. W. Andringa and J. Verhagen, Gekeurd en Gelouterd, Het Leven Lijden en Sterven der Martelaren (Utrecht, Joh. De Liefde, 1893), vol. 1, p. 717.
20. Ibid, pp. 718,719.
21. Paul Roubiczek and Joseph Kalmer, Warrior of God: The Life and Death of John Huss (London: Nicholson and Watson, 1946), p. 94.
22. The Goose of the Reformation (Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church, 2015, 201 Pandan Gardens, Singapore 609337), pp. 13-14.
23. Ibid, p. 14.
24. Ibid, p. 15.
25. Nancy J. Taylor, “Remembering Jan Hus,” Presbyterian Historical Society, July 14, 2015 https://www.history.pcusa.org/blog/2015/07/remembering-jan-hus
26. D.P. Rossouw, Medeërfgenamen van Christus – Geschiedenis van de Vervolgingen der Christelijke Kerk (Amsterdam, Höveker & Zoon), 1894, p. 248.
27. Glenn Sunshine, Jan Hus (c. 1369-1415) Break Point, Colson Center Colorado Springs, Co 80962, Dec. 7, 2016 https://www.breakpoint.org/jan-hus-c-1369-1415/
28. J.A. Cannon, “Interdict,” Oxford University Press, May 29, 2018 https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/christianity/roman-catholic-and-orthodox-churches-general-terms-and-concepts/interdict
29. Will Durant, The Reformation: A History of European Civilization from Wyclif to Calvin: 1300-1564 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), p. 164.
30. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 62.
31. Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 95.
32. White, The Great Controversy, p. 101.
33. Samuel Macauley Jackson, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Co, 1909), vol. V, p. 416.
34. Frantisec Lutzow, The Life and Times of Master John Hus (London, J. M. Dent & Co, New York, E. P. Dutton & Co, 1909), pp. 153-156.
35. R. Husen, Geschiedenis der Hervorming (Doesburg, J.C. Van Schenk Brill, 1903), p. 46.
36. Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 106.
37. Dr. A. Neander, Geschiedenis der Christelijke Godsdienst en Kerk (Rotterdam: Van der Meer & Verbruggen, Deel 9, 1858), pp. 374, 375.
38. White, The Great Controversy, p. 101.
39. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 62.
40. White, The Great Controversy, p. 101.
41. Lutzow, The Life and Times of Master John Hus, p. 164.
42. Craig Donofrio, Three Popes and the Burning of Jan Hus (1517 Blogcast). July 5, 2019 https://www.1517.org/articles/three-popes-and-the-burning-of-jan-hus
43. Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 146.
44. Geo Morrish, Heroes of the Reformation: The Story of Their Trials and Triumphs, (London: 20 Paternoster Square), 1895, Republished 2014, by Irving Risch, Rumble edition, Church History, John Huss, 2022, pp. 4-7.
45. B. Workman and R. Martin Pope, The Letters of John Hus (London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1904), p. 80.
46. Ibid, p. 82.
47. Ibid, p. 83.
48. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 43.
49. Matthew Spinka, John Hus’ Concept of the Church (Princeton, 1966), p. 121.
50. Ibid.
51. Ludwig Würkert, Payne’s Illustrated History of the Church of Christ from its foundation with special reference to the Reformation and the lives of the great Reformers (New York: N. P. Fitzpatrick, 1861), page 324.
52. James Hastings, John A. Selbie, Louis H. Gray, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913), vol. VI, p. 887.
53. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 64.
54. White, The Great Controversy, p. 102.
55. J. A. Wylie, The History of Protestantism (Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, 1997), Vol. 1, Book 3, Ch. 2, p. 221.
56. Morrish, Heroes of the Reformation, Rumble edition, p. 5.
57. Würkert, Payne’s Illustrated History of the Church of Christ, pp. 341, 342.
58. Christian Adolph Pescheck, The Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia. From the German in two Volumes, (London: Houlston and Stoneman, Paternoster Row, 1845), vol 1, p. 7.
59. Joseph Milner, Geschiedenis der Kerk van Christus, (Amsterdam, J. H. den Ouden; Rotterdam, Van der Meer & Verbruggen, 1839), Deel Zeven, p. 279.
60. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 99, 100.
61. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 59.
62. Pescheck, The Reformation and Anti-Reformation in Bohemia, vol., 1, p. 8.
63. Neander, Geschiedenis der Christelijke Godsdienst en Kerk, Band 9, p. 308.
64. Würkert, Payne’s Illustrated History of the Church of Christ, p. 324.
65. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 66.
66. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 102-103.
67. Ibid, p. 99.
68. Morrish, Heroes of the Reformation, Rumble edition, p. 6.
69. Jackson, The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (New York, London, Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1909), vol. VI, p. 129.
70. Dr. Herzog, Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche (Rudolf Besser, Stuttgart und Hamburg: Rudolf Besser, Band 6, 1856), p. 81.
71. Spinka, John Hus, A Biography (Princeton, 1968), p. 132.
72. Ibid., p. 134.
73. Ibid., p. 139.
74. Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 211.
75. See: Roubiczek and Kalmer, Warrior of God, p. 258; D. Albert Hauck, Real-Encyklopädie, für Protestantische Theologie und Kirche (Stuttgart und Hamburg, 1856), Bd. 6, s. 82; Durant, The Reformation, p. 167; White, The Great Controversy, pp. 102, 103, 114, 115.
76. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 150.
77. Ibid, p. 238.
78. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 450.
79. ----Story of Redemption, p. 353.
80. ----The Great Controversy, p. 293.
81. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 163.
82. Jules Grisham, William Tyndale: Covenant Theologian, Christian Martyr, part 2, IIIM Magazine Online, Vol. 3, Number 9, Feb. 26-March 4, 2001 https://thirdmill.org/magazine/article.asp/link/https:%5E%5Ethirdmill.org%5Earticles%5Ejul_grisham%5ECH.Grisham.Tyndale.2.html/at/William%20Tyndale:%20Covenant%20Theologian,%20Christian%20Martyr,%20Part%20Two
83. Durant, The Reformation, p. 533.
84. Bishop Michael Rinehart, Tyndale, Luther, and Hus (Montgomery Texas), November 3, 2012 https://bishopmike.com/2012/11/03/tyndale-luther-and-hus/
85. Laurence Marks, The Independent (UK edition), Sept. 10, 1994 https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/english-in-the-beginning-william-tyndale-was-almost-wiped-out-of-history-yet-argues-laurence-marks-he-invented-our-language-1448159.html
86. Riemer A. Faber, Martyr for the English Reformation: William Tyndale, 1494-1994 (Christian Library: Reformed Perspective,1994). https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/martyr-english-reformation
87. Yvonne French, “First Printed English New Testament To Be Displayed at the Library of Congress,” May 15, 1997 https://www.loc.gov/item/prn-97-072/first-printed-english-new-testament-to-be-displayed-at-the-library-of-congress/1997-05-15/
88. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, pp. 24,172-175,182,194-196,198.
89. William S. Peterson, “A Textual and Historical Study of Ellen White’s Account of the French Revolution,” Spectrum, Autumn 1970, pp. 57-69.
90. Ibid, p. 63.
91. Ibid, p. 61.
92. Ibid.
93. Ibid.
94. See Will Durant, The Age of Faith: A History of Medieval Civilization—Christian, Islamic, and Judaic—from Constantine to Dante: A.D. 325-1300 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950), p. 784; Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Reason Begins: A History of European Civilization in the Period of Shakespeare, Bacon, Montaigne, Rembrandt, Galileo, and Descartes: 1558-1648 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1961), pp. 350-355; The Age of Louis XIV: A History of European Civilization in the Period of Pascal, Moliere, Cromwell, Milton, Peter the Great, Newton, and Spinoza: 1648-1715 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1963), pp. 69-75; William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance: Portrait of An Age (New York: Little, Brown, & Co, 1993), pp. 7-8,34-36,201-202; Miroslav Hroch and Anna Skybova, Ecclesia Militans: The Inquisition (Leipzig, Germany, 1988: translated from the German by Janet Fraser, published by Dorset Press, a division of Marboro Books Corp, 1992).
95. Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 62.
96. Ibid, p. 65.
97. White, The Great Controversy, p. 278, quoted by Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.
98. Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.
99. White, The Great Controversy, p. 278.
100. Ibid, pp. 276-288.
101. Olivier Bernier, Louis XIV: A Royal Life (New York: Doubleday, 1987), p. 232.
102. Barbara W. Tuchman, The Proud Tower: A Portrait of the World Before the War, 1890-1914 (New York: Ballantine Books, 1994).
103. ----The Guns of August (New York: The Macmillan Co, 1962).
104. ----The March of Folly from Troy to Vietnam (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984), p. 22.
105. Ibid, pp. 21-22; Bernier, Louis XIV: A Royal Life, p. 232.
106. Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV, pp. 74-75.
107. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 276-288.
108. Peterson, Spectrum, Autumn 1970, p. 65.
109. Ibid.
110. Anderson, Spectrum, July 1978, pp. 23-26.
111. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, pp. 248,250,253.
112. Anderson, Spectrum, July 1978, p. 24.
113. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 251.
114. Ibid.
115. Ibid.
116. Ibid, p. 253.
117. Ibid.
118. T. Walter Wallbank and Alastair M. Taylor, Civilization: Past and Present, vol. 1 (Chicago: Scott, Foresman, and Co, 1954), p. 404.
119. Stephen O’Shea, The Perfect Heresy: The Revolutionary Life and Death of the Medieval Cathars (New York: Walker and Co, 2000), p. 5.
120. Durant, The Age of Faith, p. 784.
121. Ibid.
122. White, The Great Controversy, p. 60, quoted by McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.
123. White, The Great Controversy, p. 60.
124. Ibid, p. 61.
125. “Waldensians,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians
126. Manchester, One Brief Shining Moment: Remembering Kennedy (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co, 1983).
127. ----The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972 (New York: Bantam Books, 1974).
128. ----The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Visions of Glory, 1874-1932 (New York: Dell Publishing, 1983); Alone, 1932-1940 (New York: Bantam Books, 1988); Defender of the Realm (with Paul Reid), 1940-1965 (New York: Bantam Books, 2012).
129. ----A World Lit Only By Fire, p. 3.
130. Richard Shenkman, Legends, Lies, and Cherished Myths of World History (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993), p. 115.
131. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.
132. White, The Great Controversy, pp. 265,279, quoted by McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.
133. Bernier, Louis XIV: A Royal Life, p. 232; Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV, pp. 74-75; Tuchman, The March of Folly, pp. 21-22.
134. White, The Great Controversy, p. 279, quoted by McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.
135. White, The Great Controversy, p. 279.
136. Ibid.
137. Bernier, Louis XIV: A Royal Life, p. 232; Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV, pp. 74-75; Tuchman, The March of Folly, pp. 21-22.
138. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 253.
139. Ibid, pp. 247,249.
140. Ibid, p. 247.
141. Kenneth L. Woodward and Richard Sandra, “A Day of Judgment for Adventists?” Newsweek, Jan. 4, 1982, p. 67.
142. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, pp. 253-254.
143. Detroit News, July 7, 1998, p. A1.
144. James Masters, “Donald Trump says torture ‘absolutely works’—but does it?” CNN, Jan. 26, 2017 https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/donald-trump-torture-waterboarding/index.html; Rebecca Gordon, “Donald Trump Has a Passionate Desire to Bring Back Torture,” The Nation, April 6, 2017 https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/donald-trump-has-a-passionate-desire-to-bring-back-torture/; Jonathan Swan, “Trump said CIA director Gina Haspel agreed with him ‘100%’ on torture,” Axios Nov. 17, 2019 https://www.axios.com/trump-gina-haspel-cia-torture-waterboarding-f8c4b63b-7825-4cc9-9ff3-128c759f5eee.html
145. “Secret Trials: Justice vs. Terror: How Far Should We Go?” Newsweek, Dec. 10, 2001 (cover).
146. McAdams, Ellen White and the Historians, p. 248.
147. Ibid, p. xi.
148. Arthur L. White, Ellen G. White: The Later Elmshaven Years, 1905-1915 (Washington, D.C: Review and Herald Publishing Assn, 1982), pp. 330-331.
149. Jan Voerman, “Ellen White and the French Revolution,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 2007, pp. 251,253.
150. Ellen G. White, Selected Messages, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.
Pastor Jan Voerman is a retired Seventh-day Adventist pastor living in the Netherlands. He obtained a Diploma of Theology in 1961from the Theological Seminary “Oud Zandbergen” near Utrecht, the Netherlands, going on to graduate from Newbold College in the United Kingdom with a Diploma of Theology in 1967, also earning in the same year a Bachelor of Arts from Columbia Union College (now Washington Adventist University) in Takoma Park, Maryland. He was ordained to the gospel ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Groningen, the Netherlands, in 1976. The author of seven books, he has long maintained a special interest in the history of the Protestant Reformation, and continues to bless the church through a ministry of preaching, research, and writing. He and his wife Jeanne have three children, all active in church work, one of whom serves as a pastor in Belgium.