The W. W. Prescott Armadale Sermons - Fred Bischoff

The new strategy of having secretaries take down the sermon in
shorthand and transcribing it for printing and distribution to the homes of the
people during the following week also proved highly successful. It was
considered a major advance that had the added spinoff of providing the
Australian field with much-needed tracts and booklets for evangelism.
Australia was "years behind" in that regard, according to W. C. White.
Others back home in Battle Creek, while applauding the progress, would
have preferred it to have been at the hand of someone other than Prescott.
Their reaction highlights the continuing tension over the "new theology" in
the church at this time.
One pamphlet, entitled "The Law in Christ" was a transcript of what
Prescott considered one of his best Armadale sermons. Approved by the
Australian book committee, it was later developed into a series of six
[actually seven] articles in The Bible Echo, the Australian church paper.
During October 1895, Prescott sent the manuscript to the Battle Creek
Publishing House, hoping that it would receive wider circulation. A Christocentric
presentation of the "law" and "justification by faith," the manuscript
was based on Prescott’s new understanding of the "law in Galatians." Two
months later the Battle Creek committee informed Prescott that they would
not publish the pamphlet. It contained "fundamental errors," they said--an
assessment that "greatly surprised" Prescott’s Australian friends.[7]
Prescott replied to the announcement by saying that he found the refusal
a "trifle peculiar." Almost amused, he ventured to ask for an explanation. But
Mrs. White was not at all amused. Absolutely indignant at the book
committee, she stated plainly that she had no confidence in them. They were
not adhering to the principle of "the Bible only" as the "rule of doctrine," she
said and rebuked them for "restricting" the circulation of the gospel. Several
months later, still bristling at the memory of the episode, she declared that
the committee had been "following in the paths of Rome." Taking up cudgels
in defense of the Minneapolis reform preachers, she declared it was not for
6