p. 12 | NOTES OF THE DISCUSSION IN KANSAS

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 11, 1877

NOTES OF THE DISCUSSION IN KANSAS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

SECOND SESSION.

In the second session I came to the New Testament, and showed that we are not left to guess at what institutions the New Testament had done away with. Was circumcision abolished? Here is the scripture directly asserting it. Col. 5:2. Was the priesthood changed? Again we have a positive statement. Heb. 7:12. Did the old sacrifices end, and give place to the sacrifice of Christ? No need of assumption on that point. Here is the scripture. Heb. 10:8, 9. Hence, if the seventh-day Sabbath was also done away, the Scriptures would not leave us to guess at it, but would directly and plainly say so. But who ever found the scripture which says the seventh-day Sabbath is abolished or changed, or in any manner altered? Nothing of that kind is said. Where has God given men liberty to work on his Sabbath? Where is the text stating that he has removed his blessing or sanctification from it? It cannot be found. Hence the conclusion is inevitable that the Sabbath stands as it stood before. I then showed that through all the teachings of Christ, he never said anything derogatory of the Sabbath, but honored it himself, Luke 4:16; told what was lawful, and what was not on that day, Matt. 12:1–12; said it was made for man, and that he was the Lord of it, that it was to be kept forty years after his resurrection at the overthrow of Jerusalem, Matt. 24:28.

We showed further that in the New Testament the Sabbath is positively the seventh day of the week, and not the first day. This is very plain from Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2; Luke 23:56; 24:1. Come down to the book of Acts, and if the Sabbath had been changed we would certainly expect to find a plain statement to that effect, but we find just the reverse. It is spoken of time after time in the same manner that it was in the Old Testament. Acts was written about thirty years after the resurrection. It is inspired language, inspired by the Holy Ghost. The Spirit of God as late as that time still designates the seventh day as the Sabbath. Acts 13:14. Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, called it the Sabbath, verse 27. The converted Gentile Christians called it the Sabbath, verses 42, 43; Luke called it the Sabbath, verse 44. James, before the great council of Christians at Jerusalem called it the Sabbath, Acts 15:21. Holy women held prayer-meetings upon that day, Acts 16:13; and Paul attended them. Luke calls it the Sabbath day, and says it was Paul’s manner to preach upon it. Acts 17:1, 2. Paul worked with his hands at his trade, and preached upon the Sabbath every week for a year and a half. Acts 18:1–11. Paul declared that he had strictly kept the law after his conversion to Christ. Acts 25:8. John, A. D. 96, recognized it as the Lord’s day. Rev. 1:10. This is the seventh day and not the first day, as shown by Exodus 20:8, 9; Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28, where the seventh day is declared to be the Lord’s day. This term is never applied to the first day.

Elder Shick claimed that the penalty of Sabbath breaking was stoning to death, and that this being abolished the law must have gone with it. We replied that the same penalty was attached to every one of the commandments, hence, according to him, if we could break the Sabbath now, so we could steal, lie, and murder now, because men are no longer stoned to death for these things. But the truth is that stoning to death was simply the penalty of the civil law governing the Jews, the same as hanging for murder is now the penalty of the law of our State. Yet neither hanging nor stoning has anything to do with the penalty due the sinner hereafter. The penalty for violating God’s law has never been changed. It was always the second death and it is the same now.

THIRD SESSION.

I now took up the perpetuity of God’s law,

showed how it was given from heaven by God’s own voice, engraved on tables of stone, and placed in the ark. Deut. 4:12, 13. But the ten commandments are only a brief summary of the moral law. It is still more briefly summed up by the two great commandments, first to love God with all the heart, Deut. 6:5; and the second to love your neighbor as yourself. Lev. 19:18. Hundreds of precepts referring to the decalogue, and growing out of it, are found scattered all through the Old Testament. None of these have been abolished. All the moral precepts of the Old Testament are as binding as ever; but all the shadowy rites and ceremonies and the laws touching them, together with the civil code of the Jews, were abolished at the cross.

We showed that the principles of the moral law existed from Adam’s time right down. The principles of several of the ten commandments were violated in the transgression in the garden of Eden. Gen. 3:6. Cain broke the sixth commandment. Gen. 4:8. References to the different precepts of the decalogue are found scattered all through the book of Genesis. Abraham is particularly mentioned as keeping God’s law and commandments. Gen. 26:5; Ex. 16:4, 27, show that God had a law, and that the Sabbath was a part of that law, before the ten commandments were given on Mt. Sinai. 1 Chron. 16:15–17, shows that the law of God given to Jacob,—Israel, is to be kept for a thousand generations, which takes it beyond the end of the world.

Ps. 89:27–32, says that if Christ’s children forsake and break the law of the Father, he will punish their transgression with stripes. Ps. 111:7, says that all his commandments are sure, they stand fast forever and ever. Ps. 119:114, says that the righteousness of God’s testimonies is everlasting, and verse 152, that God has founded them forever, and verse 160 says that every one of His righteous judgments endureth forever. Ps. 40:8, says that the law of God was in Christ’s heart when he came. Isa. 42:21, says that Christ should magnify the law and make it honorable.

Said I, “This he could not have done by abolishing it and treating it as my opponent now does. Does he magnify the law, does he make it honorable? No, his whole endeavor is to belittle it and make it as dishonorable as possible, just the reverse of what Christ did.” Matt. 5:17–19, is a hard nut for these no-law men to crack. They do not like to hear about it. It bothers them and worries them. They want to get away from it as quickly as possible. This language was written expressly for the benefit of those who should contend for the law of God. We do well to keep it prominently before the people everywhere. Eld. Shick could do nothing with it. Matt. 19:16–22, shows that obedience to the commandments is a condition of eternal life. In Matt. 15:1–9, Christ takes this very law to condemn the wicked Pharisees.

Rom. 2 is one of the strongest chapters in the Bible on the perpetuity of the ten commandments. Notice the following points:—

All are shown to be sinners. Verses 1–11.
The observance of this law makes men just before God. Verse 13.
The Gentiles have it in their hearts by nature. Verses 13–15.
It is a law in which the Jews rest, and by which they are instructed, verses 17, 18, hence it is the old law.
This law shows God’s will and what is excellent. Verses 17, 18.
This law has the form of truth. Verse 20.
To break this law dishonored God at the time the apostles wrote. Verse 23.
Four of the ten commandments are here directly referred to, verses 21–24, hence we know it is the ten commandments.
It is separate from the ceremonial law. Verse 25.
It can be kept without circumcision. Verse 26.
Hence it is not the ceremonial law. See Ex. 12:43–48.
Men will be judged by it. Verses 12, 16.
If uncircumcised Gentile Christians keep this law they will please God and condemn the Jews. Verses 25–29.

These are all strong points in favor of the perpetuity of the law. In harmony with this position, Paul says in the next chapter, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. 3:31.

Eld. Shick went to Rom. 7 for proof on his side; but an examination of the chapter turned it so effectually against him that he never referred to it afterward.

James 2:8–12, is also a strong chapter in favor of the law of God. Notice the following points:—

The apostle goes to the Old Testament Scripture for authority.
This quotation is found in Lev. 19:18. Hence it is not a new law.
He quotes two of the ten commandments, which is the only law in all the Bible containing these words.
The apostle directly says that every commandment of this law is binding.
This law convinces of sin. Verse 9.
It requires love to fulfill this law. Verse 8. This scripture shows that to fulfill a law means to keep it.
Men will be judged by this law in the Judgment. Verse 12.
And this is the law of liberty; and hence the ten commandments are not a yoke of bondage. 1 John 5:3, says that “this is the love of God that we keep his commandments.” Many more scriptures were quoted upon the same point.

Eld. Shick gave a long list of sins which he said the old covenant, meaning the moral law of the Old Testament, did not condemn. I will here name the principal ones, and give the scripture in the Old Testament condemning them, thus showing how false was his position.

He said it did not condemn hatred (Lev. 19:17), intemperance (Deut. 21:20), strife (Prov. 16:28), wrath (Gen. 49:7), envy (Job 5:2), evil speaking (Acts 23:5, where Paul quotes the Old Testament), pride (Mal. 4:1), backbiting (Lev. 19:16), boasting (Ps. 94:4), witchcraft (Ex. 22:18), cheating (Micah 6:8).

But the Elder got himself into an amusing dilemma by naming two particular sins. He very triumphantly asked, “Where does the old covenant condemn bigamy and selfishness?” Of course any one knows that both these sins are directly condemned in many places in the Old Testament, but not exactly in these words, i. e., the words bigamy and selfishness are not used. But is not bigamy adultery? Any man knows that it is. But, unfortunately for the Elder, neither does the New Testament name either of them; so I turned on him and demanded that he should show where bigamy and selfishness were condemned in the New Testament. If he could not find it there, then, according to him, the word of God nowhere condemns bigamy or selfishness. Well, of course he could not find it. So, what did he do? After I had thrown this at him till he had got sore over it, he forgot that he first proposed the question, and then he turned upon me. “Sir,” said he, “Is not bigamy adultery? don’t anybody know that it is adultery? and don’t the New Testament repeatedly condemn adultery? And so of selfishness. You know, sir, that it is condemned there in many ways, and here you sit and call on me to find the words bigamy and selfishness, and nothing will do, sir, but exactly those words. Mr. Chairman, this is just as unreasonable as my opponent is,” and thus he went on.

But the Elder felt a little chagrined when I called up the fact that he himself was the very man who had raised the objection, and called for the words bigamy and selfishness.

Then I asked him for his New Testament law showing that it was wrong for a man to marry his sister, his niece, his aunt, &c. Of course he could not produce any. When I pressed him upon it, he said it was condemned by the law of decency! So we must go to the law of decency to supply what the New Testament has omitted. I also challenged him to find where the New Testament condemned usury. He turned to our Lord’s parable where the slothful servant was condemned because he had not put his Lord’s money out to usury. But, lo! and behold! this was in favor of usury instead of against it, if it had any bearing upon the question at all.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

*(To be Continued.)