Replies to Elder Canright’s Attacks on Seventh-day Adventists

ASSUMPTIONS VS. FACTS

In coming before the public as the champion opposer of Seventh-day Adventism, Eld. Canright has seen fit to preface his statements with quite a glowing account of his former services among us, and an imposing array of the positions and offices he has held, in proof that he now possesses the very qualifications necessary to overturn the whole system. RCASDA 21.1

His new attitude strikes some as quite anomalous. He preached in favor of the system, with some occasional vacations, very confidently for some twenty-two years; he led many to embrace it; he often debated it with able opposers, and every time achieved a marked victory; but he suddenly finds that he was all the while entirely wrong, not on one point only, but on every essential feature of the system he had been promulgating. Accordingly he now steps forth and challenges the attention of the public by virtually saying, I have been teaching error for the past twenty-two years; I have deceived hundreds into the adoption of a position for which there is no foundation in the word of God; I have sustained the most transparent error against the strongest opposition; I have asserted positively that this scripture proved such a point, and that history sustained such a view, when it was all contrary to reason and Scripture and history, and there was nothing to it; and, I am, consequently, now prepared to teach all people the right way; just come to me, and now I can show you the truth Simon pure. RCASDA 21.2

There are some who naturally look with distrust upon such qualifications in a public teacher. They wonder how it is that the twentieth time he read the Bible through, and in all the previous nineteen times, it seemed to teach very clearly the views he held; but the next time he read it through, suddenly the whole thing collapsed, and now the Bible on all the distinctive points of his faith teaches just the opposite. How could so sweeping and radical a change be accomplished in so short a space of time? and the query will arise whether such a change must not be the result of feeling and policy, rather than of reason and real conviction. Such radical and wholesale transformations do not usually occur so suddenly from rational causes. RCASDA 22.1

Again, he says that he had supposed till just lately that the seventh-day Sabbath was a brand new doctrine, reserved for the close of the gospel dispensation; that so we hold, and so he had been taught to believe; but as he comes to read church history he finds that view entirely exploded, and no truth in it. How is this? Are we to understand that he preached for twenty-two years without reading church history? or shall we suppose that when he read it he didn’t believe it? or is it this way, that he understood years ago that his views were not sustained by any evidence worthy of belief, and yet continued to preach them when he did not believe them? There is a dark penumbra hovering about the situation, which must be quite embarrassing to one occupying such a position. S.D. Adventists hold no such position on the Sabbath as that mentioned above; and if he held it and if this is a specimen of his understanding of our position on other, it is no wonder that his theoretical structure has, like the house founded upon the sand, gone down in ruins. The only wonder is that it stood so long. RCASDA 22.2

The laudations of himself which Eld. C. produces are quotations from various papers published in different parts of the land. To these papers he of course furnished the alleged facts; for they had no other source from which to learn them. But aside from this, when he causes them to be quoted in other papers, he accepts and indorses them as declarations of his own; and when he commenced his series of articles in the Michigan Christian Advocate, he did preface them with just such quotations from the Kalamazoo Daily Telegraph, the World’s Crisis, the Christian Oracle, the Christian Herald, and the Otsego Union. RCASDA 22.3

To say nothing of the kind of taste involved in setting one’s self forth as “one among their ablest leading men,” “decidedly the ablest debater in the denomination,” “and able, zealous, and remarkably successful advocate,” “the peer of any man they have ever had in their ranks,” etc., etc., there are some statements contained in the extracts which, to be appreciated, should be viewed in the light of facts. For instance, the quotation from the Christian Herald, Baptist paper, Detroit, Mich., says:— RCASDA 23.1

“Rev. D. M. Canright was for many years one of the leading ministers among the Seventh-day Adventists, and until his change of denominational relationship he was professor of Biblical exegesis in their College at Battle Creek.” RCASDA 23.2

What idea would any one gather from this statement? It would be nothing less than this: that during the “many years” while he was a leading minister among this people, he was, if not the sole, at least the responsible, occupant of the chair of Biblical exegesis in the College at Battle Creek. No one could understand it otherwise. Of course the Herald doubtless published it honestly, as it would give the information furnished it; but he who took it from the Herald and furnished it for the Advocate, must have done so with a full knowledge of the impressions it would convey and the conclusions which people would gather from it. Whether it was published with any such design or not, we leave the reader to judge. But what are the facts in the case? They are simply these: Three weeks before the close of the long winter term in the spring of 1886, the one who occupied the position of instructor in Biblical exegesis, found it impossible to finish the work of that term in addition to his other duties, on account of failing health. It was therefore decided to call in some one to serve the three remaining weeks and complete the course of that year; and Eld. Canright was employed for that purpose. The class in this department having now become so large that more than one instructor was needed to carry it forward properly, it was decided by the College Board, in the summer of 1886, to employ an assistant and Eld. Canright’s name was inserted in the catalogue for that position. At the opening of the next lecture course, Nov. 18, 1886, the former occupant being then busy at the session of the General Conference, as secretary, Eld. Canright organized the class, and continued his work there till Dec. 24, — five weeks. That closed his connection with the College — three weeks as temporary supply in the spring of 1886, and five weeks as assistant in the autumn and winter of the same year: eight weeks all told! Yet he chooses to let the people entertain the idea which they must gain from the quotation that he “was for many years one of the leading ministers among the Seventh-day Adventists, and until his change of denominational relationship, he was professor of Biblical exegesis in their College at Battle Creek.” We leave the reader to wonder at the small residuum of fact that is left, after all the foam of this statement is evaporated. RCASDA 23.3

In the quotation taken from the Kalamazoo Telegraph, we find this statement: “At the time he dissolved his connection with them, he had the charge of eighteen churches in Michigan.” The facts in this case are these: Seventh-day Adventist churches maintain their regular worship without the assistance of any located pastors, leaving our entire ministry free to act as evangelists in new fields. As a consequence, many of our churches pass long periods without any preaching, and consequently Conference committees aim to arrange the labor in the State so that ministers will occasionally be at liberty to visit the churches, to help and encourage,them in the Christian life by a few meetings. At a general meeting for the State of Michigan, held at Ithaca during the closing days of 1886, Eld. C. was present, and it was there arranged that the ministers of the State should spend a little time not favorable for other work in making brief visits to the churches, each one being requested to take a certain district, so that the whole State might be covered. The district which Eld. Canright was requested to visit, though no special charge was committed to him, contained, we presume, eighteen churches; we take his count for it. To enter upon this duty he left his work in the College, to which he never returned, and commenced the visitation of these churches, which he never completed. And this is the extent of his “charge” of eighteen churches. RCASDA 24.1

He has also set the trumpet ringing through all the land over his wonderful achievements in authorship, keyed up to the following high pitch: “He is the author of more than a score of books and pamphlets published in the interest of the denomination.” On this the shrinking process will be equally marked. His books are two: “The Bible from Heaven,” 300 pp., and the “History of the Doctrine of the Immortality of the Soul,” 186 pp. The first is simply a revision of a volume on the same subject originally written by Moses Hull, and not materially enlarged or improved; the second is a compilation of unequivocal historical testimony showing that a doctrine which he was obliged to swallow in entering the Baptist Church, is of heathen origin. His pamphlets are four: “The Two Laws,” 126 pp.; “Ministration of Angels,” 144 pp.; “Morality of the Sabbath,” 96 pp.; and “Matter and Spirit,” 66 pp., all doctrinal works, the arguments of which he can never overthrow, and compared with which his present efforts against them are as pewter compared with steel. His tracts are fifteen: One 32 pp., two 24 pp. each, and, the remaining twelve, necessary to make out the formidable array of “more than a score,” are tracts of only 8 pp. each. Against the matter of any of these, we have nothing to say. They are readable and logical, and in some of them the arguments are exceedingly well put. But when the matter is represented in a way to convey the impression that the bulk of our literature has come from his pen, and that his departure is calculated to materially weaken our cause in this respect, it is proper that the reader should know the facts on the case. RCASDA 24.2

We quote again: “At the time he dissolved his connection with them, he... was assistant editor of the Gospel Sickle,... and was writing the lessons for their Sabbath-schools throughout the world.” At the time of which he speaks, the Sickle was conducted by an editorial committee of five, of which he was one, but was not the chairman. As to the Sabbath-school lessons, the permanent lessons are contained in a series of books of which he is not the author. The current lessons going through our youth’s paper are furnished by various writers. Different ones had written up the subjects committed to them, and Eld. C. was then furnishing his quota, eleven in number, and the only ones he ever wrote. When persons are contemplating a strike, they generally choose a time when it will most embarrass their employers. So Eld. C. whether designedly or not, took a time to leave when there was opportunity to create the greatest sensation. A few months later he would not have been “professor” in the College, nor had “charge” of eighteen churches, nor been “writing the lessons for their Sabbath-school throughout the world.” RCASDA 25.1

In replying to Eld. Butler on reference to being considered for some years past “unreliable,” he says: I “was teacher of theology in their Battle Creek College, where I has a class of nearly 200 under me. who studied my lessons,” The force of the expression “my lessons” will be appreciated by the reader when we state that the lessons were the same that had been used in the College for years; he simply copied from notes furnished to him, introducing but one new subject. But worse than for him now to claim their authorship, was the evident misgiving which he manifested on some points before the class itself. So calculated were his hints and innuendos to unsettle the minds of the students, that some of them came to the writer to know what it meant, asking if he was unsettled on such fundamental points of our faith. Speaking of Colossians 2:16, he says:— RCASDA 26.1

“I have often wished that this text was not in the Bible, and it troubles my Seventh-day Adventist brethren as much as it did me,say what they will.” Jewish Sabbath Abolished, p.6. RCASDA 26.2

Among the most surprising things connected with this case is the confession that he has long been doubtful about certain fundamental positions, and troubled over certain texts, Colossians 2:16 being one of them. We never had any trouble over this text, and we never knew a Seventh-day Adventist who had, till this surprising confession. But now he says he knows they all have trouble over it as much as himself; and if any should deny it, that would make no difference; he has had trouble over it, and hence everybody else has. The conceit which can thus lead a man to set himself up as the standard for a whole denomination, even to the extent of overriding any avowals which they may make to the contrary, is beyond comprehension. We shall claim the privilege of being the exponent of our own views, and setting forth authoritatively the position we hold on every text. There is scarcely a portion of Scripture in the New Testament simpler and easier to explain than Colossians 2:14-17. RCASDA 26.3

But it may be asked. Why mention at all the matters referred to in this article? Why not let them pass? The only occasion is that they are thrust before the public in a manner to give to the advocacy of error more prestige than it is entitled to. It is made to appear to the uninformed that the Adventists have lost “their leader”; and this supposed fact is vigorously used not only in this country, but in foreign lands as well, to block the way of those who are zealously laboring at no small sacrifice to advance the cause of Bible reform. Under such circumstances duty demands that some of these bubbles of arrogance and conceit be punctured, and the world be permitted to understand how much of a leader we have lost. As elsewhere stated in this Supplement, the time was when Eld. Canright was a growing and promising man among us. We loved him as a brother, rejoiced in his successes, made the best of his mistakes, and stood ready to help him in every way possible. For many estimable qualities, unless he suffers them to be perverted to ignoble ends, we shall still esteem him. But since he turned against his former views, and began his efforts to tear down the work, and hedge up the way of his former co-laborers his course and his words have been most astonishing. U. SMITH. RCASDA 26.4