p. 196 | A Good Illustration by Dudley Marvin Canright

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 23, 1875

A Good Illustration.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

An apt illustration will sometimes tell more than a strong argument. Hence it is a good thing to use them freely when you have those that are to the point.

I lately heard Eld. Hutchins illustrate one point very forcibly. It was this: Those who come out in any community to keep the Sabbath, or in a family where all the members of the family do not embrace it, are always accused of making division and bringing disturbance. They say that these persons have no right to thus separate themselves from other people by keeping a different day; and that they are responsible for all the inconvenience growing out of it. It is important, they say, that families should be agreed and walk together, and that society should be in harmony. But now let us illustrate this:—

A father has three young sons. He sends them several miles away on important business. He distinctly commands them to go directly to the place, attend to business, and return. He charges them not to play by the way, and to be sure to keep together, and says he will punish them if they separate. They go on their errand; but, by and by, they begin to loiter by the way. They stop to pick berries or play with other boys. They get over into the field and away from the road. Finally, one of the boys urges them to go on about their business. He reminds them of his father's commandment; but they refuse to go. Finally, he resolves to leave them and go himself whether they will or not. But they now think of a bright idea: The father strictly commanded them not to separate. Hence, they tell him if he leaves them he will break the father's command and they will report him to his father accordingly.

They argue the case thus: “Father commanded us to keep together, and not to separate. We two are in the majority. If you go away from us you will be responsible for the separation, and father will punish you.” Nevertheless, the boy leaves them and performs the errand as his father directed.

Now, in this case, who was responsible for the division? All can see that it was the two boys who refused to go about their father's business, and not the one who separated from them to keep his father's command.

Just so, those who separate from the mass, in obedience to the plain commandment of God, are not responsible for this separation and division. Those who refuse to obey God are the ones who are responsible for divisions.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

St. Charles, Mich., Dec. 6, 1875.