ADVENTISTS DECAPITATE THE DECALOGUE
Seventh-Day Adventists say that the Catholic Church has cut out the second one, the one against images, has changed the Sabbath precept, and divided the tenth one into two to make up the ten. How do they try to prove this? They quote from Catholic catechisms, small ones, where only a few words of the longer commandments are given, while the rest is omitted. The short ones are given in full and our tenth divided into two. Then they compare these commandments in the Catholic catechisms with those in our Bible. Is this fair? No. They should compare the commandments in Catholic Bibles with those in our Bibles, and those in Catholic catechisms with those in Protestant catechisms. This is the only fair way. If they did this, they would find no material difference in either. I have both Bibles before me. Opening to Exodus 20 all the ten commandments, every word of each one, images, Sabbath, the tenth, and all, are given in full in the Catholic Bible; not a word is omitted. Get one and see for yourself.
Now compare Catholic catechisms with Protestant catechisms. Is there any material difference between them in quoting the commandments? None at all. In order to be sure on this point, I have spent much time to thoroughly investigate it. I have gathered a large number of Catholic catechisms. Have them here now. Then have gone to the pastors of many Protestant Churches, as Baptist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Dutch Reformed, etc., and have examined their catechisms. In all these I find they have done practically the same as the Catholics have. In the Protestant catechism for small children, generally only a few words from the long commandments are given, while the short ones are given in full. This is to save space and memorizing. The Catholics have done the same thing and for the same reason. Then each Church, Protestant or Catholic, explains these their way; but the commandments themselves are given as full in one as in the other.
On one side of my home is a Catholic family, on the other side is a Protestant family – Lutheran. I borrowed catechisms of both. Here are the ten commandments in the small Catholic catechism:
Say the ten commandments.
I. I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shall have no strange gods before me; thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth. Thou shall not adore them nor serve them.
II. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
III. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
IV. Honor thy father and thy mother that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
V. Thou shalt not kill.
VI. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VII. Thou shalt not steal.
VIII. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
IX. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.
Notice here that Catholics include in the first commandment what we call the second commandment. Then our tenth is divided into two. Lutherans divide them just the same way. Further on I will give the reason for this. Observe that the command against images is given in full. And this is a small Catholic catechism used by my neighbor.
Now here are the commandments as given in the small catechism used by my Lutheran neighbor, a Protestant:
I. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. II. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
II. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
III. Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day holy.
IV. Honor thy father and thy mother that thou mayest live long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
V. Thou shalt not kill.
VI. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VII. Thou shalt not steal.
VIII. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
IX. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s house.
X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.
Notice in this Protestant catechism that our second commandment is omitted entirely. Why? Was it to get rid of that one because it forbids images? No, for Lutherans use no images, but oppose them. They include our second in their first, the same as do Catholics. So they give only the first words and omit the long explanation. That is all. Then the tenth is divided into two, the same as the Catholic. None of this was done, whether by Lutherans or Catholics, to “mutilate the law of God,” as Adventists say. It is one of the ways of dividing them, that is all. (See explanation and table at close of this chapter.)
My Catholic neighbor, mentioned above, also loaned me a larger catechism which his daughter studies in the Catholic high school here. It is entitled, A Full Course of Instruction in Explanation of the Catechism, by Rev. J. Perry, for Colleges, Academies, and Private Families. Endorsed by the Archbishop of St. Louis. Notice, this is used in high schools, colleges, academies, and families. Beginning on page 151, there are fifty-nine pages given to the ten commandments. Each one is given in full. The first one begins, and properly too, with “I am the Lord thy God,” etc. Then all, every word, of our first and second commandments, is given in the first one; not a word against images is omitted.
Coming to the Sabbath precept, our fourth, but their third, I read: “Recite the full text of the third commandment.” Then every word of the Sabbath precept is given in full, not a word omitted or changed, and so of the whole ten. Obedience to each of these is taught as Catholics understand them.
What now becomes of the assertion that Catholics have “mutilated the law of God” or have expunged one of the ten commandments? It is not the truth. All that can be truthfully said is that they explain them differently from what protestants do But they believe in them all, teach all of them and print all of them in full in their Bibles and in their larger catechisms. In their small catechisms they do just as Protestants do in their small ones, viz., give a few words of each. Hence it is unfair to compare these little catechisms with the whole law in our Bible.
Roman priests are guilty of withholding the entire Bible from their people, so that the great mass of them never see a Bible. When priests do quote the Bible, they quote it correctly enough, but explain it to suit Romanism. They quote the precepts about images and the Sabbath correctly, but explain both to fit their views. As they are accused of breaking the second commandment by the use of images, they are careful, as seen above, to put in every word of that precept even in their small catechisms. Then, of course, they have to explain it all away. They have perverted the entire Gospel as well as the Old Testament.
Neither the Popes nor the Roman Church had anything to do with dividing the Decalogue. Every word of the ten commandments is given whichever way they are divided.
It should be remembered that in the Hebrew, in which the Decalogue was written, the words all ran right along together. There were no marks whatever between the words or the commandments. Hence all were left to divide them as each judged nearest correct. So it happened that they were divided differently, that is all.
THE CATHOLIC DIVISION OF THE DECALOGUE
Seventh-Day Adventists have made a great ado over the way Catholics divide and number the ten commandments. They have gotten up a chart showing in one column the Decalogue “as changed by the Pope “and in another as “given by God.” Here they show how “the Pope has changed God’s law in fulfillment of Dan 7:25.” According to this, the Catholics included in the first commandment what we have in the first two. Then our third is their second, our fourth their third, and so on till our tenth, of which they make two. Adventists claim that the Pope did this to get rid of the second commandment and to change the Sabbath. But the whole thing is utterly false, as may be seen under the word decalogue in any religious encyclopedia. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: “There have been three arrangements of the Decalogue—the Talmudic (Jewish), the Augustinian (adopted by the Roman Catholic and Lutheran Churches), and the Hellenistic (Greek), the view of Philo, Josephus, Origen, the Greek and Reformed Churches, etc. The following table exhibits the differences, the record in Exodus 20 being used.
| TALMUDIC | HELLENISTIC | AUGUSTINIAN |
| 1. I am the Lord, etc. (v. 2) | 1. Against Idols, (v. 3) | 1. Against Idols and images |
| 2. Against idols and images (3-6) | 2. Against Images, (4-6) | 2. Blasphemy |
| 3. Blasphemy | 3. Blasphemy | 3. The Sabbath |
| 4. The Sabbath | 4. The Sabbath | 4. Fillial Obedience |
| 5. Fillial Obedience | 5. Fillial Obedience | 5. Murder |
| 6. Murder | 6. Murder | 6. Adultery |
| 7. Adultery | 7. Adultery | 7. Theft |
| 8. Theft | 8. Theft | 8. False Witness |
| 9. False Witness | 9. False Witness | 9. Covet neighbors house (17) |
| 10. Coveting | 10. Coveting | 10. The rest of v. 17 |
It will be seen here that the Catholics have simply followed Augustine, one of the early Fathers, in this, while we have followed the Greeks.
Augustine, A.D. 353-430, was neither a Pope nor a papist. Next to Paul, he was the most devoted and renowned minister Christianity ever produced. He had the most profound reverence for the Holy Scriptures. The Catholics and Lutherans have followed his division of the Decalogue. Hence this division was not made by a Pope nor by the Papacy. A little investigation of facts exposes the weakness of many of the Sabbatarian arguments like this one.
THE DECALOGUE DECAPITATED
Strange as it may seem, Adventists themselves are the ones who “mutilate” the commandments. They leave off the most important part of the Decalogue, viz., that part which tells who gave the law, when it was given, and to whom given. Consulting a lawyer, he tells me that every law passed by a state, or by the United States, in order to be of binding force, must begin with what is called, “The Enacting Clause.” Thus, opening to a law passed by the legislature of Michigan, February 16, 1882, I read : “Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the State of Michigan,” etc. Then follows the body of the law of which this “enacting clause” is a necessary part. That introductory clause tells who gave the law, when it was given, and to whom given. Leave these words off and the law is a dead letter.
Exactly so with the Decalogue. The enacting clause is there in plain words.
Let us examine it. Moses says distinctly that all the words which the Lord spoke were written on the tables of stone: “And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone, written with the finger of God: and on them was written according to all the words which the Lord spake with you in the Mount, out of the midst of the fire ” (Deut. 9:10). This text is too decisive to be evaded. All that God spoke was written on the tables and was a part of the Decalogue. Here are the first words: ” And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord, thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,” etc. (Ex. 20:1-3). These words are as much a part of the Decalogue as any of the rest of it. They were spoken by God from heaven, written by His finger, were engraven on the stone, and put in the ark.
Adventists urge that the ten commandments are of higher importance than other parts of the law, because they were spoken directly by God’s own voice, written with His finger, engraved on stone, put in the ark and placed in the Most Holy Place. Very well. All this is true of these words in the enacting clause, or first words. These words were spoken by God, written by God, engraved on the stone, put in the ark, and then in the Most Holy Place just the same as all the rest of the commandments. Hence one is as sacred as the other and all should be kept together. These explain directly who the author of that law is, viz., The Lord thy God that brought thee out of Egyptian bondage. Nothing could be plainer. They should be left where God put them.
Now look at the law chart which the Seventh-Day Adventists hang up as the “Law of God.” Are these words on there? No, indeed. They are left off. If put on, they would spoil their whole theory of that law.
They assert that the Sabbath precept is the only thing in the Decalogue that tells who gave it. Thus: “Aside from this precept [the Sabbath] there is nothing in the Decalogue to show by whose authority the law is given.” (Mrs. White, in The Great Controversy, p. 284)
This is not true. The opening words of that law, “the enacting clause,” tell as plainly as words can tell who gave it, when it was given, and to whom given. See how clear it is: “I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of Egypt. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. “To whom does “Me” refer? Only one answer can be given: It refers to the Lord God who has just spoken. He first tells them who He is, and then all the commandments that follow are given on His authority.
But Adventists mutilate the law by cutting the head right off, by leaving off the enacting clause, and then assert that there is nothing in the Decalogue except the Sabbath precept to tell who gave that law! Is not this misleading?
Take an audience of one hundred people, hang up the law chart as Adventists print it with the introductory words left off, and how many of the audience would notice the omission? Few, if any at all. The preacher then asserts that there is nothing in that law except the Sabbath precept to tell who gave the law! No wonder people are misled. In the second copy of the law given in Deut. v. 1-22 all reference to creation is omitted while every word of the enacting clause is on there. This shows that deliverance from Egypt was the authority on which that law was made.
Adventists accuse Catholics of mutilating the Decalogue. It is exactly the other way. Catholics include all the introductory words in the first commandment, and then give the whole together. Thus A Study of the Catholic Religion, by Rev. Chas. Coppens, page 283: “The first commandment is thus: ‘I am the Lord thy God who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me,'” etc. You see Catholics always include all the enacting clause in the first commandment, just as should be done. In every Catholic catechism or doctrinal book when the commandments are quoted they all begin the same way with these words, just as God Himself began them: “I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of Egypt.” There are two hundred and fifty million Catholics, half of Christendom, who all quote the commandments that way. So also the entire Greek Orthodox Catholic Church, numbering one hundred and fifty millions, all include those words in the first commandment. I went to their priest and he showed me how they quote them. Then all the Lutherans, fifty millions, do the same. Then all the Jewish people, fourteen millions, do the same. So over five hundred million believers in the Bible all include those words in the first commandment. But Adventists leave off these words.
Leaving all the words of the ten commandments on just as God gave them spoils the argument that the Sabbath is the seal of the law. To prove this they assert that there is nothing else in that law that tells who gave it. But the first words tell who gave it. This squarely contradicts their position, as is readily seen.
I call on them to throw away their old charts of the ten commandments and print them just as God gave them.
Evidently originally the Adventists did not leave off these important words with the purpose of deceiving. Elders White, Bates, Rhodes, etc., the first leaders, were not scholarly men. In printing the law chart, they simply copied it after those used by the Episcopal Church and others in church service. By them the words were omitted to save length in repeating. While I was an Adventist minister I have, hundreds of times, preached from that law chart and argued just as they do now with no thought of deceiving. I simply did not then know any better, nor do most of them now. But their intelligent leaders should know better, because, for over twenty years past, I have called their attention to this unfair omission which plainly contradicts the argument that the Sabbath precept is the only thing that tells who gave the law.
“HE SHALL THINK TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS” – Dan 7:25.
Seventh-Day Adventists make great capital of this text. They argue that it means the Pope, or Papacy. Then they claim that the Papacy changed the Sabbath, the fourth commandment, and thus fulfilled this prophecy. To this we object. In Chapter 6 we have proved that the change in the day was made in the Apostolic Church, hundreds of years before there was any Papacy. In Chapter 7 we have shown that the change in the day was made in the Eastern Church, where the Papacy never ruled.
The wording of Dan. 7:25 shows that the text has a far wider meaning than merely changing the Sabbath. It was to change “times and laws”—both plural. To change the Sabbath would only be changing one time and one law. This would not fulfill the prophecy. But the Papacy has changed numerous “times and laws.” Read the following from Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion, by Chas. Coppens, page 318:
“THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE CHURCH
The laws enacted by the Church, in order to guide her members to eternal salvation, are many and numerous. They are contained in her Canon Law.”
Then follows a long list of holy “times” and church “laws” which are not in the Bible, and these
times and laws have been changed time and again through the centuries. (See any commentary on Dan. 7:25.)
The Roman Church has fulfilled this prophecy many times over outside of any reference to the Sabbath.
The Pope claims the right to change or annul the laws of beings or states and has often done so. He decrees holy days and holy times, then changes them at his will. All this has been prominent in the history of the Papacy during the Dark Ages. This has amply fulfilled the prophecy without any reference to the Sabbath.
This text, Dan. 7:25, is the one on which Adventists rely to prove that the Papacy has changed the Sabbath. They quote it on all occasions as proof positive on this point. But the careful reader will notice that they have to read into the text what the Lord omitted to put there. The Sabbath is in no way mentioned in the text. They have to go a long way and assume much to even make their theory look plausible.
Just so Rev. 14:12, “Here are they that keep the commandments of God,” is their great text to prove that the Sabbath is to be restored by them now. But here again they put in what the Lord left out—the Sabbath.
If the Lord meant the Sabbath in both texts why did He not say so instead of leaving it for Adventists to insert later? They make these texts play the tune which fits their theory, that is all. †
In 1867 he married Lucretia Cranson who had been orphaned and partially reared by Ellen G. White. Together they had two surviving children, but in 1879 Lucretia died of tuberculosis. Two years later Dudley remarried. He and his second wife, Lucy Hadden, had three surviving children.
For 20 years Dudley worked as a minister and evangelist for the Adventists and was a frequent writer for the official Adventist magazine Review and Herald (now the Adventist Review). He was also often called on to debate Christian ministers, defending the seventh-day Sabbath.
Canright gradually became unable to support the “autocratic” behavior of James and Ellen White. He grew to disbelieve Ellen White’s visions and realized that according to Scripture, the Ten Commandments were not binding upon the church. He believed the Adventists were putting the law above Christ, and in 1887, Canright and his wife Lucy left the Seventh-day Adventist organization. He pastored two Baptist churches after he left, first in the Otsego Baptist Church in Michigan, and then, in 1890, he became the Pastor Emeritus of the Berean Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
During these years Canright wrote Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, and two months after his death in May, 1919, his critique The Life of Mrs. E. G. White was published.
The Adventist organization invented a story that members still believe—that Canright repented of his “apostasy” from Adventism before his death and returned to the Adventist fold. In fact, he never "repented" nor returned. According to a close friend, E.S. Ballenger, who was with Canright days before he died, "He said he was so disgusted with the deceptions of Mrs. White, James White and other leaders that he wanted to wash his hands entirely clean of the whole system. He died very quietly and peacefully and never made any confession or expressed any regrets regarding his course after leaving the denomination."
- 23. Appendixes - September 23, 2021
- 22. The Nature of Man - September 16, 2021
- 21. Forty-Seven Prominent Texts used by Sabbatarians Examined - September 9, 2021