In Defense of the Faith

18/133

Essence of the Law Examined

There is a very strange thing about Mr. Canright’s “essence” of the law. It seems that after the letter disappeared, this essence looked just like the former, but for the fact that it had a new rest day. On this point he says: DOF 49.2

“Excepting the Sabbath, the other nine commandments are in the New Testament, either in the same words or in substance.” —Ibid. p. 362. DOF 49.3

“The observance of the Lord’s day [Sunday] meets the end of the fourth commandment!”—Ibid., p. 332. DOF 49.4

So this essence is beginning to take shape again, and, lo! it appears just like the old abolished letter of the law which the Jews had, except for this one point: it has Sunday for a rest day instead of the original seventh-day Sabbath! DOF 50.1

The point seems to be that this “essence” stage of the law was intended by Mr. Canright to cover only a brief transition period. Some means had to be found by which to get rid of the true Sabbath, so the dissolving view effect was resorted to. The whole law was made to fade out into an “essence.” Then a waving of the wand, a command from the juggler, and, lo! it takes definite form again-changes back into real substance, but the holy Sabbath of God has disappeared, and the first day of the week has taken its place. DOF 50.2

While Mr. Canright was still a seventh-day Sabbath observer, he wrote as follows regarding the argument that nine of the Ten Commandments are re-enacted in the New Testament, but that the fourth one is left out. Note how fully Mr. Canright the Adventist answers Mr. Canright the Baptist in the following statements: DOF 50.3

“Those who hold this theory teach that all the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross, and nine of the ten re-enacted at the same instant! DOF 50.4

“Of course this must have been done simply to get rid of the Sabbath, as the law would have been all right, but for that. DOF 50.5

“Or, as some claim, the law was abolished at the cross, and re-enacted at Pentecost, which leaves an interregnum of fifty days without any law at all. ‘Where no law is, there is no transgression.’ Romans 4:15. All the crimes committed during those fifty days must go unpunished, as there was no law to condemn them ... DOF 50.6

“The world was in rebellion against the law of the Father. God sent His Son to reconcile the world to Himself. Says Paul, ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.’ 2 Corinthians 5:19.... DOF 50.7

“Men cannot be judged by an abolished law; hence all those before the cross will go free in the judgment, having no law to condemn them. Will God judge the millions of Hebrews who lived from Moses to Christ by an old dead law which, according to our opponents, was always only a yoke of bondage, grievous to be borne? It would be a violation of every principle of law. Thus I read in the decision of the supreme court of Iowa, 1862 (‘Iowa Reports,’ Vol. XII, p. 311): DOF 51.1

“‘The general principle relied upon, independent of some statutory rule, is not controverted, that when a statute is repealed it must be considered as if it had never existed, except with reference to such parts as are saved by the repealing statute.’ This refers to the criminal code, not to the civil law. But our opponents claim that all God’s law was abolished-no part saved. Hence it cannot be a rule in the judgment. DOF 51.2

“It assumes that the Ten Commandments has been abolished, when no record of its repeal can be found. Notice how carefully the record is made when even human laws are abolished.. DOF 51.3

“Law repealed. ‘Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa, That section 2498 of the Revision of 1860, be and the same is hereby repealed.’ Approved Feb. 7, 1870. Session Laws of the Thirteenth General Assembly of Iowa, p. 112. DOF 51.4

“Let our opponents bring something like this for the repeal of God’s law, and we will believe them. DOF 51.5

“Laws which are to decide the eternal destiny of billions of souls should be given in the plainest possible manner. They should not be left to inference and guesswork. Beyond dispute, God did give one law-the Ten Commandments. He delivered it in just that solemn, public, and definite manner which we would expect in so all-important a transaction. DOF 51.6

“Our opponents claim that Jesus gave a new code of laws in place of the old, yet they can produce no record as to when it was given, where it was given, how many precepts it has, which is the first, or the last, who gave it, to whom it was given, what its penalty is, wherein it differs from the old, or any other particular. DOF 51.7

“Of all documents, a law should be given in the plainest manner. But in what book, chapter, and verse is this new law to be found? Was it given during Christ’s life? Was it at His death? Or was it after His resurrection? Was it delivered in the temple, by the seaside, or elsewhere? Has it only nine commandments now, or has it a dozen? Which is the first commandment? Was it given in private, or in public? To the disciples, or to the world? Surely if this law has a real existence, all these questions ought to be easily answered. But the Bible reader knows that the New Testament is entirely silent upon all these questions. It neither knows nor says anything of such a new law.”—D. M. Canright, The Two Laws, pp. 102-106. DOF 52.1