The Investigative Judgment: Theological Milestone or Historical Necessity?

Adventists have sometimes tried to get around this by inventing a moveable throne. Now, whether that means that the ark is left behind in the mercy seat in there and just some other aspect of the throne comes out, I'm not sure. But the Spirit of Prophecy is very clear that the most holy place was the center of the divine work of atonement. And there's no biblical basis whatever for moving the throne. None whatever.

And if some here at this point wish to say, "But Sister White saw in vision the Father arise and enter a flaming chariot and go from the holy into the most holy," I would remind you that you should read closely what the Seventh-day Adventist commentary says on the nature of symbolic vision in its notes on Ezekiel 1. A special note at the end of Ezekiel 1, where it points out that the prophets didn't see the actual but saw a representation that was meant to teach them something.

In Early Writings, you read in the supplementary notes, the supplement Ellen White put in, how she was criticized for describing certain people bowing before the throne who were wicked people. And the critics said, "Fancy having those people in heaven." And Ellen White said, "I never meant to say they were in heaven. I am but recording it as it was presented to me. Didn't John see a great red dragon in heaven?" Ellen White had a sense of humor.

Apocalyptic visions are not to be taken as graphical, literal representations of the unseen, my friends. They are sketches within the experience and culture of the contemporary prophet to teach them something. It's very important to understand that.

When you read in Jeremiah 13 about the prophet Jeremiah being told to take a girdle and take it to the Euphrates and then after 70 days go and get it back, you might be led to think that was next door. It was a thousand miles away. And United didn't exist then. He didn't go to the Euphrates, nor did he go and get it back. It was all done in vision.

And when you read in Ezekiel 4 about the prophet lying on his side 360 days, he never did, except in vision. And some of the things that Hosea did that may seem to shock you, find the same key of explanation.

So within the veil, sitting at the right hand of God, on the throne of God, can only mean the most holy place.

We've said many things in connection with the sanctuary that won't stand. We have spoken about how every day the blood went into the holy place and was sprinkled there and so it became defiled. Two errors there. Number one, the blood usually didn't go into the holy place at all. It was very, very rare the blood went into the holy place. Usually, it was poured outside of the altar. Secondly, we speak about blood defiling. You will not find anywhere in Scripture that the blood of a sacrifice ever defiles. It was always presented as cleanings. Always. The blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sins.

Well, there's nothing adequate in print on these topics. I've had a few swipes at it in print, but knew if I was very frank, it would never be published. So I said as much as I could, beginning back in the 1950s, and I have had some things published, touching on the problem.

What shall we say about it? Well, the first thing that I must say is in answer to what you will say. "But Ellen White." So let me point out to you that Ellen White clearly teaches that Christ went into the most holy place at his ascension. In one place, she says, "Still bearing humanity, he ascended to heaven, triumphant and victorious. He has sprinkled the blood of the atonement on the mercy seat." That's at his ascension. Let me give you the reference. Signs of the Times, April 19, 1905.

Listen to it again. "Still bearing humanity, he ascended to heaven, triumphant and victorious. He has taken the blood of the atonement into the holiest of all" - notice she's quoting Hebrews 9 and 10, and she's applying the holiest of all to the most holy place, the place where the mercy seat is. Because the second half of the sentence says, "... sprinkled it upon the mercy seat."

So, here, Ellen White says that Christ, at his ascension, went into the most holy place and sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat.

I would point out to you that after Ballenger had written his books on this topic, E. Andross, a very devout Adventist scholar, for the first time went into print as saying, "Yes, 'within the veil' does mean 'the most holy place,' and Christ did go there, immediately ascended." That book is a more excellent ministry by E. Andross. But, of course, Andross had to get out of it some way, so he said, "He went in and he came out again and went back into the first."

Listen to this one from Acts of the Apostles, page 33. And please note that Ellen White, here, as in many other places, is a rebel. The greatest rebel we've ever had amongst us was Ellen White. Praise God! No Adventist writer would have dared to write some of the things she wrote. I'm so glad she wrote them. They convinced me that she was led of the Spirit of God in the way that you and I have not been led. Listen to this one from Acts of the Apostles. It's a wonder the editors didn't wipe it out. "As in the typical service, the high priest laid aside his pontifical robes and officiated in the white linen dress of an ordinary priest, so Christ laid aside his royal robes and garbed himself with humanity and offered sacrifice, himself the priest, himself the victim. As the high priest, after performing his service in the holy of holies, came forth to the waiting congregation in his pontifical robes, so Christ will come the second time."

Now, please note, here she applies the Day of Atonement from the incarnation to the Second Advent. Did you get it? "As in the typical service, the high priest laid aside his pontifical robes and officiated in the white linen dress." When was that? The Day of Atonement, that's the only day. As the high priest did that on the Day of Atonement, so Christ laid aside his royal robes and garbed himself with humanity. There's the incarnation. And offered sacrifice himself the priest, himself the victim. Here she goes beyond Uriah Smith. Uriah Smith said he wasn't a priest. Crows said he wasn't a priest. Crows and Smith both said it wasn't an atonement. Ellen White departs from them on all three. She says it was the atonement at the cross, he was a priest, and it was the Day of Atonement from the incarnation here.

Now please don't go out and say, "Des Ford says the Day of Atonement began the incarnation." Please go out and say, "Ellen White says." I didn't write Acts of the Apostles. I wish I could have.

From the SDA Commentary Bible, Volume 5, 1109, the mercy seat is open to all who accept Christ as the proficiation for sin, the veil is rent, the partition wall is broken down. "Christ came to demolish every wall of partition, to throw open every compartment of the temple." This is Christ's Object Lessons, page 386.

This is why, my friends, in the book of Revelation, where you have some of the furniture symbolically pictured from the first apartment, and in the second apartment you never find a veil. You never find a veil. The New Testament knows nothing about a veil in the heavenly temple. Ellen White says, "There's a new and living way into the holiest of all before which there hangs no veil." That's Ellen White.

But the strongest statement I leave to last. It's never been noticed. We can read and read and read and not know what we're reading. But in a book written years after Great Controversy, the greatest book Ellen White ever wrote, a book where she is more careful to exegete rather than just homiletically apply passages, the Desire of Ages, the greatest book in the world next to Scripture. All this talk about Ellen White's plagiarism. Sure she used other books in preparing this book. She used Hanna, Dr. Harris, Ed Ashime, Farrer, Daniel Marsh, and a number of other books. Sure she did. But, my friends, those books were open for anyone. I don't see them coming up with the Desire of Ages. The issue isn't, Did Ellen White use sources? It's, What use did she make of them? What did she come up with? The sources are available for everyone, and people don't come up with a thimble full of quality. The sources are there.

So here's the greatest book she ever wrote, and please notice what she says at the end of the chapter on Calvary. Speaking about the rending of the veil: "The earth trembles and quakes, the Lord himself draws near. With a rending noise, the inner veil of the temple is torn from top to bottom by an unseen hand, throwing open to the gaze of the multitude a place once filled with the presence of God. In this place the shakina had dwelled. Here God had manifested his glory above the mercy seat. No one but the high priest ever lifted the veil, separating this apartment from the rest of the temple. He entered in once a year to make an atonement."

And then a little lower down she says, "Now type has met antitype. The great sacrifice has been made. The way into the holiest is laid open [quoting Hebrews 9 and 10]. A new and living way is prepared for all [do read it in its setting, Hebrews 10:19 and 20, a new and living way through the veil]." Here, that's what she's quoting. "The way into the holiest is laid open, a new and living way is prepared for all. No longer need sinful, sorry humanity await the coming of the high priest." And then she quotes Hebrews 9 and 12, which, as I read to you in the latest version, translates as Christ went into the most holy place at his ascension. She used the version available to her, which had "holy place," which the translators knew meant "the second apartment," because holy place is the name given to the second apartment right throughout Leviticus 16, about five times. And it's in Leviticus 16 where you have "within the veil" used repeatedly.

I marvel at the way Ellen White was not afraid to go right against Adventist traditions, right against some things she had apparently written herself, and when here she dealt in exegesis, she came right within the most precise specifications of biblical exegesis of the passage under review. And she pictured Christ going straight into the most holy place, as she has done in these other places, where it says he went in and sprinkled the blood on the mercy seat and so on.

Well, what shall we say about the solution to the problem? The coming of Christ, my friends, was the end of the world and the judgment of the world. "Now is the judgment of this world." Once at the end of the world has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. The coming of Christ was the end of the world, my friends, legally, forensically. And all the things that happened in principle with the death of Christ are repeated again at the end of the age, when that which is forensically true already becomes, in a sensory fashion, manifest.

Let me illustrate what I mean. Theologians talk about inaugurated eschatology. What they mean is that when Christ came and said, "The kingdom is at hand, the kingdom is among you, now is the judgment." When Christ spoke about everlasting life now for those who believe, and when the New Testament says, "The devil was destroyed by the cross," theologians say, "All these statements are saying that somehow the end of the world came with the First Advent."

And then they talk about consummated eschatology, by which they mean the real, obvious end of the world. And you can take themes like judgment, eternal life, the destruction of Satan, new Creation, outpouring of the Spirit, the harvest - they all fit the First Advent, and they all fit the Second.

Let me illustrate it more. We know that the passover pointed to the cross of Christ. But the New Testament also makes it point to the Second Coming. "As oft as ye drink this cup, ye do drink it till he comes." The passover is made to point towards the Second Advent as well as the First. Pentecost saw the early rain. And on Pentecost, Peter said, "This is that that was foretold by the prophet Joel: 'I will pour out in the last days my spirit on all flesh.'" But Pentecost, like passover, is to have a repetition at the end of the age. Consummated eschatology, as well as inaugurated eschatology.

Take the jubilee. In Luke 4:16-20, when Christ stood up at Nazareth, he said, "The spirit of the Lord is upon me. He's anointed me to preach good tidings. The year of release to the captives." And then he spoke in terms of the jubilee imagery. But the real jubilee, of course, is at the Second Advent, when the captives are released from the grave, when the devil is destroyed, when we all go into our eternal reward.

So the Bible, my friends, applies the passover, Pentecost, jubilee, to the judgment at the end of the First Advent, and the judgment at the end of the world. And it's not a strange thing that it should say the same thing with the Day of Atonement. Does anyone here think the goat was slain in 1844? The Day of Atonement, my friends, is the same as the Atonement. It was the day the atonement was made, and of course that points to Calvary. How else could it! What else could e 637, where she makes the great earthquake at the Second Advent. Read Revelation 16:18 and 16:14. Those signs she recorded in harmony with the history of the Movement. She wasn't saying that's the end of it.

Matthew 25 in Great Controversy is applied to the midnight cry in 1844. But read Christ's Object Lessons. That's not even mentioned. She gives the exegetical meaning. Great Controversy wasn't wrong, my friends, anymore wrong than about the signs, but it wasn't complete.

And similarly about the cleansing of the sanctuary. If you'll only read Great Patriarchs and Prophets, written years after. And I don't have time to read it, but in the chapter on the tabernacle a churches as a whole.

So the New Testament applies the Day of Atonement type both to what happened in inaugurated eschatology, the forensic judgment, "Now is the judgment of this world," John 12:31, the cross; and it also applies it to the judgment at the end of the age, when the merits of the atonement it will be seen who has laid hold of them in the Great Judgment Day.

Now Adventists have caught the second, but not the first. Other churches did it in reverse. But Ellen White had both. And, please, don't forget it.

There is a primary reason why the Day of Atonement has these two applications. They could both have merged. The New Testament, my friends, does not contemplate twenty centuries after Christ. Read the SDA Bible Commentary on Revelation 1, where it correctly says Christ could have come back in the First Advent, just after the cross. Of course, he could, my friends. Prophets and Kings, pp. 703, 704, says it was God's purpose that the whole world be prepared for the First Advent. Would it have taken twenty centuries if the whole world had been ready for the First Advent? Of course not, my friends.

Now, listen. Put aside your preconceived opinion and listen to these clear texts. What is the New Testament saying? "God, who at sundry times and died as man, has spake unto the fathers by the prophets, has spoken in these last days by his son. Once at the end of the world has he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Yet a little time, and he will come. It is the last hour, the night is fast spent, the morning is at hand, behold I come quickly. This generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled. There are some standing here that won't taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. You'll not have gone over all the cities of Israel until the Son of Man become."

My friends, it's as plain as the nose on your face that the New Testament teaches that the end was meant to come just after the First Advent. If the church had seized hold of the gospel, understood the good news, and in the exuberance of joy and the great gift of God, gone out to spread it to the whole world - because Jesus cannot come until the whole world has heard the gospel, and the only thing that holds up the Second Advent is that people understand the gospel. Once they understand it, they can't help but spread it. The trouble is, we've never understood it. That's why we're so Laodecean. That's why we're marching, marching, ever marching, backwards.

Do you know it took us until 1911 before we had as many people as William Miller had in 1844? It took us until 1911. Now the statistics are exploding so that unless some new thing happened within Adventism, friends, we'll be a forgotten sect at the turn of the century, or not long after. The only thing that held up the return of Christ after the cross was a church that understood the meaning of the cross. And that's what Matthew 24:14 is saying.

If you look at the last days of our Lord Jesus Christ, they represent the last days of his body. His body is the church. The last days of our Lord Jesus - remember, he preached 1260 days, he has anointed the Holy Spirit, there was a loud cry in his ministry, great signs and wonders, he polarized the people. Then the opposing churches got together, and they linked arms with the state. They said it's expedient one man should perish and not the whole world. They passed the death decree. He had a little time of trouble. He was sealed for his mission. He was determined to go through with it. His probation shut. He had a bigger time of trouble on the cross. And the plagues fell, darkness, signs in the heavens.

My friends, the next thing that happened was that attention was drawn to the most holy place. Because that veil represented his flesh, and when the flesh of Christ was torn, my friends, there was no barrier to entering boldly into the presence of God, accepted because of the merits of the crucified Christ. That's the gospel.

So there, in the last days of Jesus Christ, the 1260 days of preaching, the polarizing of the people, the anointing of the Spirit, a latter rain, a loud cry, union of church and state, the death decree, time of trouble, signs in the heavens. The cleansing of the sanctuary? He did that in his last days. The attention to the most holy place. They had prefigured the work of his body in the last days, my friends. It's all taught out in Revelation 11, where it uses the same things about the church as applied to Jesus Christ.

What happened in 1844? God brought this church back to apostolic privilege, brought it back to the place where it could see the significance of the cross, brought it back to that place where if it would lay hold of the gospel, symbolized by the sanctuary, if it could lay hold of the blessed truth, represented by the daily, it would spread to the world and Jesus would come. Every man's destiny would be decided in the Judgment. "And he that is holy would be holy still, and he that is filthy would be filthy still. And, behold, I come quickly."

In 1844 God gave this church the opportunity of fulfilling the apostolic commission, and Ellen White says that had all the people in the Miller Movement accepted it, Christ would have been back just after 1844!

Well, says someone, the Great Controversy doesn't say it that way. Let me say a few things to you on the Spirit of Prophecy. The best way to undo, my friends, is to overdo. And I treasure the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. I've tried, tried, and tried again to apply its principles, and I have failed miserably a million. And but for the gospel she reveals, I would be most discouraged. But I do know that those writings brought me to Christ. I do know those writings led me to the Bible. I do know those writings speak to my heart with an intensity and a conviction that no other human author has ever done. And having said that, I believe we misuse her writings in an abominable fashion. I believe we do things that would have made her hair stand on end and made her very angry.

Listen to what she wrote and which we have forgotten. The book Evangelism, page 256: "The testimonies of Sister White should not be carried to the front. God's Word is the unerring standard. The testimonies are not to take the place of the Word. Let all prove their position from the Scriptures, substantiate every point they claim as truth from the revealed Word of God. Never do we want any soul to bring in the testimonies ahead of the Bible."

How come we don't do that? I mean, how come we don't do what she says? We do bring the testimonies ahead of the Bible. We do it all the time. You know, the Bible is a difficult book. But the testimonies, I can understand that. That's nineteenth century and twentieth century English.

My friends, there is nothing of truth in the testimony that's not in the Bible, Ellen White says. Nothing. Ellen White did not give us a single truth of doctrine. Read sometime Movement of Destiny on that very subject. And read in this book, because I don't have time to enlarge on it, all the Ellen White quotes that say that the Bible, and the Bible only, is our standard of doctrine. That every point of doctrine is to come from the Bible. And she says the Bible is the only true source of doctrine that's unmixed with error. Boy, that sounds dangerous, but Ellen White said it.

Let me talk to you about Ellen White's role. Ellen White's role, my friends, is pastoral, not canonical. Not canonical. You have in the writings of Ellen White more than you've got in the whole Bible. And when Ellen White said she's a lesser light, she meant what she said. It wasn't just a becoming humility. She meant what she said. Her writer's role is not canonical. The gift of prophecy is not the gift of omniscience.

Adventists think that anything Ellen White ever spoke about, that was the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and so on. My friends, it wasn't always. How do we know? Because often she says something different in another book. Which is often complimentary, not necessarily contradictory.

So the gift of prophecy is not the gift of omniscience, my friends. John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets, said Jesus. Among those born of women, there hasn't been a greater than John the Baptist. He didn't have everything straight. He spoke about Christ, "His fork is his hand, he'll thoroughly purge his floor, he'll gather the wheat into the barn, he'll burn up the chaff with fire." And he meant then. He meant then. He didn't have everything straight. He didn't understand about the kingdom of Grace. He didn't understand about the spiritual kingdom. He looked for a material kingdom, and pronto. And this greatest of the prophets had his doubts: "Art thou he that should come or do we look for another?"

My friends, the gift of prophecy is not the gift of omniscience. Ellen White would have been burdened above all measure if she thought she was supposed to know everything about everything. We don't know everything about anything. Everything is related to everything else. Therefore, you can't know everything about everything, and not everything about anything.

Take the apostles. They all had the gift of prophecy, but truth came slowly. After the ascension of Christ, they still believed in a shut-door theory for years. Only Jews could make it, the Gentiles were shut out. God had to work miracles in order to convince them that a Gentile had a chance at salvation, too. The apostles had the gift of prophecy, my friends. They called the apostles then prophets, but they didn't understand everything. Neither did Ellen White.

Someone with the gift of prophecy is not inerrant, my friends. Please read sometime what Ellen White says about her own gift in Selection Messages, Volume One, the first chapter. She says, "As for infallibility, I've never claimed it." She says, "Some look at it as gravely and they say about the manuscripts of the Bible, 'Couldn't there be mistakes in those manuscripts?'" And she says, "Of course there could be! The mind that would stumble over that would stumble over anything." And she goes on to say the Bible is not given in grand, superhuman language, but it's given for practical purposes. And she says the miracles are not recorded in their exact order. And she goes on and lists other imperfections. She says, "God's not on trial in the logic of Scripture."

My friends, we misunderstand the nature of inspiration. Inspiration, like all the acts of God, is beyond our comprehension. And it's for practical purposes. The glorious sun under which we walk has spots on it. Will we therefore walk in some subterranean channel? God never works miracles unnecessarily, my friends. Think of the type of man he chose to write the Epistles in the New Testament. He chose a theologian. He could have chosen a fisherman, but he didn't. Think of the people he chose to write the gospel. People who were associated with Jesus Christ in the flesh, or closely associated with those that did. If inspiration was what many people think, he could have taken any schoolboy. Put a pen in his hand and said, "Write. W-R-I-T-E." He didn't do it that way.

We need to understand what inspiration is about. Inspiration is not inerrancy. Ellen White said, "As for infallibility, I've never claimed it. The Bible is the only source of truth," she says, "unmixed with error," which suggests that even the writings of the non-canonical prophets, my friends, were not inerrant. As a matter of fact, if you'll apply a strict rule, even the writings of the Bible are not inerrant. And if that sounds blasphemous, that is our official position. Which doesn't make it right, but it makes it respectable. The church's official position is that the Bible is not inerrant. It is reliable, it's an infallible rule of doctrine, but we've never ever taught inerrancy. We have many, many articles in print denying it. Please read sometime the book The Testimony of Jesus by F. L. Wilcox, that great editor of The Review, in which he has a whole chapter, no claim to infallibility.

When Ellen White put out Spiritual Gifts, the first 400 volumes, she said, "Please correct me where I've made any mistakes. My memory might have been wrong. Please correct me so I can change it." In Great Controversy, Ellen White could write about Josiah Litch and his prophecy about August 11, 1840. But, my friends, Josiah Litch was wrong. The date he chose to begin the prophecy was years out, he forgot about the dropping out of the days in the calendar change, and he didn't understand what the text was saying anyway. The text in Revelation spoke about the hour, day, month, and year. It's not a period at all. It's a point. And every Greek scholar in the world knows it. And the SDA Commentary knows it, too, so they put a special note in the Commentary, saying, "Because of the difficulties of the Greek and our smallness of space, we will not enlarge upon the problem."

Now I'm caricaturing it a little, and I hope that you'll read it for yourselves. When we put out a lesson quarterly on the trumpets, we said, "There are difficulties here." Great difficulties. Ellen White's endorsement of Litch was not correct. Litch was wrong. Absolutely wrong.

On some topics, Ellen White just wasn't told. When she was asked about the daily, she said, "On this point, I've received no instruction." But she had written on it in early writings.

Let me say something about the book Great Controversy. One other thing, first. We've said Ellen White is not omniscient, not inerrant. Neither has she a divine commentary on the Scripture, and bang goes a very cherished heirloom. Ellen White nowhere claims to be the inspired commentary on the Scripture, my friends. She said, "The Bible is yet but dimly understood." And she didn't say in brackets, "But if you read all my writings, that problem will be solved." She said, "The Bible is yet dimly understood." She said, "When the books of Daniel and Revelation are better understood, there will be revival amongst us." We haven't had the revival yet. Apparently, they're not well understood, and she didn't interpret them for us. You'll find that the most difficult passages in the Bible she doesn't comment on at all. She was given to make us lazy. She said, "Go to the Word." The Bible, my friends, is the source of every point of doctrine, and Ellen White always points us to the Bible.

Great Controversy is a historical account of prophetic interpretation by Seventh-day Adventists at the time of the birth of that movement. She could talk about the signs and the sun, moon, and stars. And, my friends, the real meaning of those prophecies is obvious to anyone who reads the text. The great earthquake is the one that shakes every city and village and mountain and island at the end of time, not 1755 at Lisbon. And the falling of the stars are what accompany the coming of Jesus. And the darkening of the sun is what accompany the coming of Jesus. Please just read the Scriptures. They're as plain as can be.

But God in his mercy gave previews of these things to accompany the Second Advent Movement and to give integrity to what it was saying. Those signs were of God, the earthquake at Lisbon. And the dark day, and the falling of stars. They were not the absolute fulfillment of Scripture on the signs, my friends. In Early Writings, page 41, she very distinctly says that these signs in the heavens take place at the voice of God at the Second Advent. Read Great Controversy, page 637, where she makes the great earthquake at the Second Advent. Read Revelation 16:18 and 16:14. Those signs she recorded in harmony with the history of the Movement. She wasn't saying that's the end of it.

Matthew 25 in Great Controversy is applied to the midnight cry in 1844. But read Christ's Object Lessons. That's not even mentioned. She gives the exegetical meaning. Great Controversy wasn't wrong, my friends, anymore wrong than about the signs, but it wasn't complete.

And similarly about the cleansing of the sanctuary. If you'll only read Great Patriarchs and Prophets, written years after. And I don't have time to read it, but in the chapter on the tabernacle and the services, she explains the cleansing of the sanctuary is the cleansing of the earth and the whole universe from sin at the very end of time.

So to apply Daniel 8:14 just to 1844 only, my friends, is to misunderstand it entirely. It points to the Great Judgment that seals every man's destiny before the coming of Christ as they respond to the cross.

Look, I must stop and say one more thing. Here's the most important thing this afternoon: What is the meaning of the Adventists' stress on the most holy place? It is this, my friends. God wants us to look at what's there. That holy law, which must be sustained and was sustained by the cross, to show that God is against evil, that God will not compromise with sin, that the law is the foundation of the universe, its bulwark and its keystone. But above it is a mercy seat. Duty has a twin sister, and it's love. God's not only like but he's love. So look at the mercy seat. Better still, look at the blood drops there. He means us to see Calvary, my friends. We are meant to see the law, the mercy seat, the blood, the cross, and then see that every man's destiny is sealed by his attitude to those things. It is the attitude we take to the blood of Christ shed on the cross to substantiate the law. It's the attitude we take to that that seals every man's destiny in the Judgment. And that, my friends, is our message to the world. And when we preach it, instead of preaching celestial geography, Jesus will come.

It was a good American that said, "God offers every man [and I might add every Movement] truth or repose. You can take one or the other, but you can't have both."

Back