In Defense of the Faith

Pertinent Observations

Now here is a bewildering situation. In 1889 Mr. Canright, in his book in which he renounces Adventism, boldly states that “there was no such thing as two separate laws given to the Jews.” And he adds, “If there were two distinct laws given to Israel, so opposite in their nature, it is strange that there is no record of it, no reference to it in the Bible.”—Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, pp. 308, 309. But just three years before, in 1886, he had published the above table, listing many definite points of distinction between these two laws, and citing numerous Scripture references as proof that such distinction exists. He said, “This list might be greatly extended,” thus recognizing the fact that the Scriptures contain many more such evidences of the existence of two distinct codes of laws, and added that “all inspired writers have recognized and noted the distinction between the two laws.” DOF 78.20

Three years later he declares it impossible to find any such record of the existence of two distinct laws in the Bible! In 1886 he finds many references to it; in 1889 these references have all disappeared. In 1886 he recognizes many definite points of distinction; in 1889 there is no difference. There is only one law. We frankly admit that we cannot understand the process of a man’s mind when he can thus turn away from clear Scriptural evidence and renounce what he admittedly knew to be the teaching of the Word of God. DOF 79.1