Would He Have Believed? by Dudley Marvin Canright

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 26, 1864

Would He Have Believed?

By Dudley Marvin Canright

A SHORT time since, I was detained over night with a man who had a copy of “The Prince of the House of David.” He extolled it very highly as being a most excellent book, and wished me to read a chapter. I complied with his request, and read the conversation of Rabbi Amos and John, disciples of Jesus, with the learned Gamaliel and his disciple Saul, who were unbelievers.

All these had just witnessed the baptism of Jesus, when the Spirit rested upon him, and the voice came from Heaven in fulfillment of the Scriptures. Ps. ii, 7; Isa. xi, 2; xlii, 1. The former urged these signs as a proof that Jesus was the Christ. The latter tried to account for them on some natural principle, as unbelievers always do. Saul said that doubtless the voice was produced by a sorcerer whom he observed to be in the crowd. They also objected that, according to the scripture, Micah v, 2, the Christ must come out of Bethlehem, and of the seed of David, Ps. cxxxii, 11, which they supposed was not true of Jesus. They said if he had fulfilled these conditions, they might begin to have faith in him. But when John and Rabbi Amos proved that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea and of the house of David, they were not so ready to believe as they had professed themselves; but still objected that there were many born in Bethlehem of Judea and of the seed of David, who were nevertheless not all Christs, thus unwittingly objecting to the very proof they had demanded.

Here my host remarked, How blind Gamaliel and Saul were, and what very flimsy and senseless objections they opposed to the plain, convincing proofs that Jesus was the Christ. He thought any one must have been bigoted indeed who could not see the fulfillment of the prophecies in Jesus and his mission.

I then asked him if he thought that he would have believed if he had been there, and had seen all those signs? Oh yes, he knew that he would have believed with half the evidence. Thinking this a good opportunity to introduce present truth, I asked if he would believe the signs of Christ's second coming if they were as plainly fulfilled as those of his first advent? Certainly he would when they were fulfilled; though he did not think they were yet.

I then took the Bible and read concerning the signs in the sun, moon, and stars, which were to precede the second coming of Christ. Although he could not deny that these signs had transpired, and even said that he had often heard his parents speak of the falling stars in 1833, yet he was not willing to believe that Jesus was soon coming.

We then noticed the other signs, such as the warlike attitude of the nations, the phenomenon of modern Spiritualism, the three messages of Rev. xiv, the visions of Daniel, &c., &c. To all these he replied, “It may be as you say; but we can't tell anything about it. Any smart man may get up a theory, and make it look plausible enough. If I were as well versed in the Bible as some are, probably I could explain it in an entirely different way, and make it look just as plain.”

I seriously questioned the truthfulness of the statement that he would have believed the signs of the first advent if he had seen them. The Jews did fix up the prophecies, and explain away the signs so as not to recognize Jesus as the Christ; but they did it to their own destruction.

He thought that he could do the same with the present signs of the times if he was only smart enough. I could but admonish him of the fate of his predecessors whom he had just condemned for the same action.

But this man is not an exception; he has plenty of brethren to assist him in his arduous and perilous task. We meet almost daily with professors who are very liberal in their condemnation of the Jews because they rejected the first advent of Christ. Nevertheless, they obstinately close their eyes to the signs pointing to his second coming, which are now pouring in upon us from the heavens, the earth, the moral, religious, and political, worlds. Was there, according to the prophecy, Isa. xl, 3, one solitary voice raised in the wilderness of Judea, Matt. iii, 3, to announce the first advent? So, in obedience to the injunction, Joel ii, 1, hundreds have sounded throughout the four quarters of the globe, the glorious news of the second advent. Was the first advent definitely located at a certain period by one prophecy? Dan. ix, 25-27. Behold, we have numerous chains of prophecy locating the second advent, all terminating within a few years of the present time. See Dan. ii, vii, viii, ix, xi, xii; Matt. xxiv; 2 Thess. ii; Rev. xii, xiii, &c. Was the first advent heralded by the appearance of one star which was seen by a few men? Matt. ii, 2. Many prophets, Isa. xiii, 10; Joel ii, 10, 31; Matt. xxiv, 23; Rev. vi, 13, have predicted as a sign of the second advent, a great phenomenon of the stars which has been seen by millions.

Thus we see that many signs which proclaimed the first advent were to appear with vastly increased power to usher in the second. If men will not heed these signs when they are fulfilled before their eyes, what will they heed? I greatly fear that nothing but the voice of God, Heb. xii, 26, will ever awake them from that fatal slumber into which they have been betrayed by the cry of peace and safety.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

Burlington, Mich.