Presumptive Arguments by Dudley Marvin Canright

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Michigan · Aug 25, 1863

Presumptive Arguments.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

Edward Beecher, in his "Papal Conspiracy exposed," page 226, says: "Another presumptive argument that the system is a stupendous fraud, is found in the extreme scantiness of the scriptural proof by which it is sustained."

"There is no specific, formal and definite statement of the system in the Bible, such as a system of power like this ought to bear. Compare the statement of powers of officers in the laws of Moses, and the constitution of the United States, and in the case of Christ, with the statements claimed for this corporation as its scriptural proofs."

All Protestants will agree that he reasons well; and that papacy by this test must inevitably fall to the ground.

But the same reasoning will also undermine some of the main pillars of Mr. Beecher's faith: as, for instance, Sunday-keeping. If we search the Bible, we shall be astonished at "the extreme scantiness of the scriptural proof by which it is sustained." The most zealous defenders of Sunday are compelled to acknowledge that, "there is no specific, formal, and definite statement," of this institution in the Bible. Follow Mr. Beecher's plan and compare the scriptural evidences claimed for Sunday, with those claimed for the Sabbath in the Old Testament and how insignificant they appear! According to Mr. B., this "furnishes a strong presumptive argument that this institution is a stupendous fraud."

He continues, "Now how easy would it have been to have started right at the beginning, if the claims of this corporation are true. But alas! what an utter void is there where indisputable proof ought to be found! True, certain things are said to the apostles, and it is implied that they were to have successors of some sort, and that with them Christ would be to the end of the world; but not a step can be taken without begging the question, who these successors should be."

Plainly this is all true; but with Sunday-keeping it is still clearer; for not only is there an entire want of all "indisputable proof" on this subject, but no "certain things are said to the apostles," or any one else, from which it can be inferred that such an institution as a first-day Sabbath was contemplated.

How easy it would have been for any of the New Testament writers to pen just one text on this important subject. Thus they would have saved theologians so much trouble or perplexity in trying to defend this time-honored institution. But alas! how negligent they were.

Again he says, "Mr. Newman (a catholic) confesses that the passages of Scripture claimed by the papal see, are more or less obscure and need a comment."

The same is true of those passages claimed for the Sunday Sabbath. Without many comments and far-fetched conclusions they are of no use to the cause. For example, Rev. i, 10. "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." The Bible student reading this is led to inquire what day is meant by "Lord's day." Turning to Mark ii, 28; Isa. lviii, 13; Ex. xx, he learns that the seventh-day is claimed by the Lord as his day, and hence naturally concludes that that is the day meant by the term "Lord's day."

But how different a conclusion is arrived at, when he reads the necessary complement—a comment as follows "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, &c. i. e., the Christian Sabbath. John here calls the first day of the week the 'Lord's day.' This was the common name for it in the first centuries."

How wonderfully that helps it! All is plain now. A man must be bigoted indeed who will not yield to such evidence!

But the truth is, the passage claimed for the Sunday institution, like those claimed by the papal see, "needs a comment."

Mr. B.'s remark on the Bible evidence for papacy is also very applicable to that for the Sunday Sabbath. Plainly at first sight it is not there; and you may strain your eyes, and yet you cannot see it. If all this is not strong presumptive evidence of a stupendous fraud, I know not where to find it.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

Coldwater, Mich.