p. 314 | A DIALOGUE by Dudley Marvin Canright

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Oct 18, 1877

A DIALOGUE.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

[The Salem (Mass.) Post has contained lengthy reports of our lectures in Danvers. This has stirred up much interest on the Sabbath question outside of our lectures. A well read infidel wrote a dialogue on the Sabbath question which was published in the Post. He showed that Sunday was only a heathen festival, that the early church worked upon that day, etc. But he then went against the seventh day and the Bible, claiming that any heathen religion was as good as that of the Bible. In answer to him the Post published the following, which may be interesting to the readers of the Signs.—D. M. C.]

SCENE—At the Advent Tent, Danvers.

AQUILA—Good evening, Linscott, glad you have come over to the tent. Very interesting meetings here.

LINSCOTT—So I hear. Thought I would drop in an evening.

AQUILA—People here say they never heard such preaching. 'Tisn't exactly orthodox, but we are about satisfied it is Bible, nevertheless.

LINSCOTT—Well, I am not a very strong believer in orthodoxy or the Bible either you know.

AQUILA—Neither did I use to be, but I am glad to say that I have changed my opinion about the Bible since attending the tent, and I have been wanting to see you for several days. I happened to hear your conversation with your friend Mandel. Some things which you said I admired very much.

LINSCOTT—Yes? What were they?

AQUILA—You showed friend Mandel very clearly, that Sunday keepers have no Scriptural authority for observing the first day of the week, and calling it the Sabbath day.

LINSCOTT—Oh yes, I always knew that neither Christ nor his apostles ever said a word about keeping the first day of the week. It is strange to me that ministers should take the fourth commandment which positively enjoins the observance of the seventh day, or Saturday, and preach from that in favor of the first day. The fact is, every one of them break that commandment every week.

AQUILA—Yes, I think you made Mandel see that point very plainly. You were also right in saying that the early Christians for several centuries worked on Sundays, as on other working days.

LINSCOTT—Any one at all acquainted with history ought to know that. It is astonishing to me how well-informed ministers can have the conscience to tell their hearers differently when they must know how this matter stands.

AQUILA—But now, Linscott, allow me to correct you on some of your statements. Evidently you have not looked closely into the Bible concerning this Sabbath question. I think you told Mandel that the first day of the week was called the Lord's day.

LINSCOTT—Well, isn't it?

AQUILA—Never in the Bible, nor after the apostles' times.

LINSCOTT—But I certainly think I can find it in the Bible.

AQUILA—Well, the Elder here has offered $50 for any such text, and the people have hunted their Bibles through and through, and given it up. I can show you in a moment that the Lord's day is the seventh day. The Lord made heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh day. Then he blessed that day and sanctified it. Time after time the Lord says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” “My holy day.” “My Sabbath,” and so on. The other six days He gave to man for working days. Now which day is the Lord's day?

LINSCOTT—Well, I declare, I had never thought of it in that light. I see you are right about that, certainly. The Lord's day is the day that belongs to the Lord, of course. I must tell Mandel about this when I see him.

AQUILA—I noticed that you had fallen into another common error, probably without reflection. You know we take for granted so many things which we have received from our fathers without any investigation.

LINSCOTT—Yes; that is the difficulty which I find with most people. If a doctrine has been held by their forefathers, that is enough for most people. They never stop to examine farther. If they would examine for themselves they would soon see many false ideas exploded. But what is the point to which you refer?

AQUILA—You termed the seventh-day Sabbath the “old Jewish Sabbath,” but it is never called so in the Bible. It is always the Lord's Sabbath. If you will think a moment you will see there is no sense in calling the day the Jewish Sabbath; for there were no Jews at all for nearly twenty-five hundred years after the creation of the world, but God's holy Sabbath was given at creation, as you may perceive by the second chapter of Genesis. It was given to Adam in Eden. He was not a Jew, but the father and representative of all nations. Hence, really the Sabbath was given through him to all people. As Christ says, “the Sabbath was made for man.” That is, all men wherever you find a man, of any race. Hence it is not a Jewish Sabbath.

LINSCOTT—Certainly, I see you are correct, come to think of it I knew all these facts before. Strange I did not think of them. I have been led into this absurdity by hearing Christians use the term “old Jewish Sabbath.” But I will not use it any more.

AQUILA—Pardon me, friend Linscott, if I call your attention to a still worse blunder which you made in talking with Mandel. You said that Jesus in his conversation with the young lawyer about which commandment he should keep, quoted almost all the ten precepts, except the Sabbath, and you inferred from this that therefore the Sabbath was not to be observed. Now turn to Matt. 19, and you will find that Jesus only quoted half the ten commandments, five of them, and these the very shortest ones, simply enough to indicate what law he meant; the commandments against idolatry, image worship, swearing, Sabbath-breaking, and coveting he did not mention at all. Would you then think that Jesus meant to teach that none of these commandments were to be kept?

LINSCOTT—W-e-l-l, I declare, is that really so? Let me look at that. (Opens the Bible and reads.) I see you are right. Really, how did I blunder like that?

AQUILA—You see, friend Linscott, you have taken some things for granted as well as other people. For instance, I was utterly astonished to hear you tell Mandel that the disciples did not “obey the old commandments of the decalogue. On the other hand they regarded themselves as at once free from this law.” Now look at that statement carefully. What do the ten commandments forbid? 1. Idolatry. 2. Image worship. 3. Profanity. 4. Sabbath breaking. 5. Disobedience to parents. 6. Murder. 7. Adultery. 8. Stealing. 9. Lying. 10. Coveting. You say the disciples did not obey these commandments! What an awful statement that is. What kind of men were they? If they did not obey them, then they disobeyed them of course. So they must have practiced adultery, worshiped images, profaned the name of God, broken his Sabbath, abused their parents, murdered, lied, stolen, etc. Why Linscott, do you really believe that?

LINSCOTT—I heard a minister preach from the pulpit the other Sunday that the disciples did not obey that old decalogue. I thought he found some scripture somewhere that said so, but I did not consider what a terrible statement that was. I see now that that cannot be possible, for it would make the apostles worse than pirates. But surely, I have read somewhere in the New Testament that the old Jewish law of ceremonies was done away.

AQUILA—Of course you have. I can read that very plainly in many places in the New Testament. But, sir, is it a Jewish ceremony to refrain from murder, adultery, stealing, lying, etc.?

LINSCOTT—Why, no, of course not; but what law was it then that was done away?

AQUILA—The one relating simply to carnal ordinances, and typical observances, which pointed to Christ, such as sacrifices, the priesthood, circumcision, the yearly festivals, etc. When Christ came, of necessity these all ceased, because they pointed to Christ. After the death of Christ we have the Lord's supper and baptism, pointing back to Him which we now observe instead of these typical ordinances pointing forward to Him.

LINSCOTT—Now that you mention it, I see in a moment that you are right. The ten commandments enjoin only moral duties, which had no reference to the coming of Christ.

AQUILA—Linscott, I begin to have hopes of you. Just follow out this idea and you will soon be straight on the law question. Why should God ever abolish the commandment against murder, adultery, stealing or idolatry? The very idea is absurd. And then the New Testament repeatedly contradicts such an idea. For instance, Christ said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, ‘Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.’” To the young man he said, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” To the Romans Paul wrote, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea we establish the law.” “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”

LINSCOTT—Strange that I did not think of those passages. I now remember what James says about it. “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point he is guilty of all. For that law which said, Do not kill, said also Do not commit adultery. Now if thou commit not adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” I might have known that this was the ten commandments, for he quotes two of them, and then says, whoever breaks one of them is a transgressor. That certainly shows that all the ten commandments are binding.

AQUILA—Remember, Linscott, that one of those commandments requires us to keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Hence that commandment has not been abolished.

LINSCOTT—It would certainly seem so from this. But how do you reconcile that with Paul's statement, “One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike,” and that no one is to be condemned for this practice? And then he told the Colossians that no man should judge them with regard to meats, drinks, holy days, new moons, or sabbath days.

AQUILA—This is very easily answered. Paul is not referring to the ten commandments nor the seventh-day Sabbath. Turn to the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus and you will find that the Lord commanded the Jews to observe seven yearly festival days, and in other places you remember they were required to keep the new moons. Now these yearly holy days were called sabbath days. Here it is, as you will see. (Reads Leviticus 23.)

LINSCOTT—Then there were sabbath days besides God's Sabbath were there?

AQUILA—Oh, certainly. For the Lord expressly says so, as you see that they were to keep all these feast days, new moons, and yearly Sabbaths, “beside the Sabbath of the Lord.” Verse 38.

LINSCOTT—Just so, but I never observed that before.

AQUILA—Now turn to Colossians and you will find that every term that Paul mentioned as not binding upon Christians relates to these yearly feasts and sabbath days; and then Paul's language is very guarded. He says you are not to be judged with regard to these meats, drinks, new moons and sabbath days, (plural number, not the Sabbath, as you will see, but sabbath days) which are a shadow of things to come. Now, Linscott, what sabbath days are done away? Does not Paul plainly state that it is only those which are a shadow pointing to Christ? But the seventh day Sabbath pointed back to creation, and not forward to the cross.

LINSCOTT—Friend Aquila I see you are right on this Sabbath question. It is no use for me to argue it farther. I always knew there was no Scripture authority for first day observance. But I had supposed that the seventh day was abolished by the apostles, but I have got to give that question up. I must have another talk with Mandel on that subject.

AQUILA—That is just the way the people around here think who have attended Elder Canright's lectures in the tent. They all acknowledge that the seventh day is undoubtedly still binding.

LINSCOTT—But, Aquila, what does this all amount to any way? I don't believe your Bible, as you know.

AQUILA—My dear friend, I was exceedingly pained to hear your skeptical talk with Mandel. I am satisfied that you are just as far out of the way on that subject as you were upon the Sabbath question. I am sorry to see you throwing away your faith in the word of God for the uncertainties of modern geology. Are you not aware that this science is just in its infancy.

LINSCOTT—Oh, yes, I know that geology as a science is hardly out of its swaddling bands. It has very much to learn yet. I know that there is a great difference of opinion among its best advocates, that there are several theories advocated by different exponents of the science, and that it is not a demonstrative science.

AQUILA—Yes; and every decade has seen a wonderful change in the views of geologists. It is a remarkable fact that the immense periods once confidently assigned to the age of this world are being wonderfully cut down of late. More than that, we believe there are sufficient geological facts to show that the Mosaic record is correct, and that this earth is no older than the Bible record states. Linscott, had we not better be careful how we hazard our souls upon the uncertain speculations of geologists?

LINSCOTT—In candor, I must confess that I don't always feel exactly easy upon that point. But I am persuaded that there are other sacred writings just as good as the Bible, as those of Confucius for instance.

AQUILA—My friend do you know that Confucius laid no claim to being a religious teacher? He taught nothing with regard to the future. Indeed, he is totally silent as to whether there was to be any future for man at all. He taught no system of worship toward God. Hence I am astonished to hear you compare his teachings with those of the Bible. I heard you tell friend Mandel that the teachings of Confucius, Mencius or Buddha, were superior to the teachings of Jesus. Either you have never read those writings, or was not you serious in that statement; because it is utterly false. It would not bear the least investigation. Look at the Buddhist for example. See them bowing down to ten thousand hideous idols made with their own hands; behold their ignorance, superstition and degradation. Tell me why it is that civilization, refinement, and all moral influences follow in the path of the Bible? Why don't some of these heathen systems produce it if they are so superior to the Bible?

LINSCOTT—I must confess that that fact has always bothered me a good deal.

AQUILA—Yes, and well it may, for no infidel can answer it. Then I was astonished that you should think that your pretended Hindoo decalogue was equal to God's ten commandments. Here is the way you gave it. “1. Be contented. 2. Return good for evil. 3. Resist sensual appetite. 4. Abstain from unlawful gain. 5. Be pure. 6. Be chaste. 7. Study sacred writings. 8. Acquire knowledge of the supreme Spirit. 9. Be truthful. 10. Abstain from wrath.” Notice the defects in this decalogue. And the one you ascribed to the Buddhists, is just as bad. Neither of them say one word about honoring parents, the very first duty of every child. They say nothing against the foolish and wicked practice of worshiping images. They say nothing against profanity, nothing about worshiping the one true God. Three of your pretended precepts are nothing but tautology, each one affirming right over what is included in the other. Thus, “Resist sensual appetite, Be pure, Be chaste.” If a man resists his sensual appetite, would he not be chaste? would he not be pure? A well instructed Sabbath-school scholar could get up a better decalogue than that.

LINSCOTT—W-e-l-l, really it does look a little defective after all. I will have to look that over again. Learning that all ancient lawgivers were accustomed to pretend that their laws came directly from the gods, I perhaps too hastily concluded that Moses was like all the rest.

AQUILA—But, Linscott, look at this statement a moment. You are free to admit that all other pretended sacred writings are spurious, that if the Bible is not a genuine revelation from God, then we have none?

LINSCOTT—Certainly.

AQUILA—Don't you know, Linscott, that counterfeit bills always prove that there is a genuine somewhere, for men never counterfeit that which never exists. Bogus coin proves the existence of a genuine coin. The fact then, of the existence of so many pretended revelations from God, proves that there is a genuine one somewhere.

LINSCOTT—Strange that I had not seen that before. I see now that just as the abundance of quack doctors and patent medicines proves the existence of disease and the necessity for the remedy; so the universal prevalence of religious pretenders, and pretended sacred books of revelation proves the human race have always felt a crying need of a revelation from God. It would be a strange thing in nature that there should be such a universal and crying need of the human race, and yet nothing genuine and true to meet this want. Aquila, I

am getting my eyes open. I begin to see that there ought to be a true revelation from God to man. I know that all other revelations except the Bible, are spurious.

AQUILA—Thank God that you see so much. Promise me that you will study the Bible faithfully, thoughtfully, and candidly, and I will warrant you to become a sound believer. This is the trouble with infidels. Universally, they have but a smattering knowledge of the Bible. They have looked into it a little here and there, now and then, or perhaps read it through when little children; but to give it a thorough examination, with an honest endeavor to get at its spirit and real purpose, they never do. I know this from conversation with scores of them.

LINSCOTT—I must confess with shame that this has been my case, but it shall not be so in the future.

AQUILA—But it is meeting time. The elder is reading his first hymn. We shall have to hurry or we shall not get a seat. (They enter the tent.)