278
The Great Controversy 1888
William Miller possessed strong mental powers, disciplined by
thought and study; and he added to these the wisdom of Heaven,
by connecting himself with the Source of wisdom. He was a man
of sterling worth, who could not but command respect and esteem
wherever integrity of character and moral excellence were valued.
Uniting true kindness of heart with Christian humility and the power
of self-control, he was attentive and affable to all, ready to listen to the
opinions of others, and to weigh their arguments. Without passion or
excitement, he tested all theories and doctrines by the Word of God;
and his sound reasoning, and thorough knowledge of the Scriptures,
enabled him to refute error and expose falsehood.
Yet he did not prosecute his work without bitter opposition. As with
earlier reformers, the truths which he presented were not received with
favor by popular religious teachers. As these could not maintain their
position by the Scriptures, they were driven to resort to the sayings
and doctrines of men, to the traditions of the Fathers. But the Word of
God was the only testimony accepted by the preachers of the Advent
truth. “The Bible, and the Bible only,” was their watchword. The
lack of Scripture argument on the part of their opponents was supplied
by ridicule and scoffing. Time, means, and talents were employed in
maligning those whose only offense was that they looked with joy for
the return of their Lord, and were striving to live holy lives, and to
exhort others to prepare for his appearing.
Earnest were the efforts put forth to draw away the minds of the
[336]
people from the subject of the second advent. It was made to appear a
sin, something of which men should be ashamed, to study the prophe-
cies which relate to the coming of Christ and the end of the world.
Thus the popular ministry undermined faith in the Word of God. Their
teaching made men infidels, and many took license to walk after their
own ungodly lusts. Then the authors of the evil charged it all upon
Adventists.
While drawing crowded houses of intelligent and attentive hearers,
Miller’s name was seldom mentioned by the religious press except
by way of ridicule or denunciation. The careless and ungodly, em-
boldened by the position of religious teachers, resorted to opprobrious
epithets, to base and blasphemous witticisms, in their efforts to heap
contumely upon him and his work. The gray-headed man who had
left a comfortable home to travel at his own expense from city to city,