p. 180 | GOOD TESTIMONY

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 23, 1860

GOOD TESTIMONY.

It is instructive to learn the opinions of those men in reference to the perpetuity of the law of God, whose prejudices have not been excited, and whose judgments have not been biased by the controversy which at present exists in regard to the Sabbath; and to those who sincerely desire that the word of God may stand, the results of such investigation are invariably gratifying.

In reference to the distinction between moral and ceremonial law, Kurtz, a standard German author, in his Sacred History, page 296, says:—

“The moral law was of vital importance, and was given for its own sake, while the ceremonial law and the promises were not given for their own sakes, but for the sake of Him to whom they specially referred. In this distinction between the moral law on the one hand, and the ceremonial law and the promises on the other, the cause is found of the difference in the results when they are respectively fulfilled. When the moral law was fulfilled, its eternal inviolability was established, while the latter [the ceremonial law and the promises] ceased to be obligatory when they were fulfilled.”

What Sabbath-keeper could bear better testimony than this? And yet this is the invariable testimony of all christian men, before opposition to the Sabbath has led them to commit themselves to a theory which demands an opposite interpretation of this scripture. What theory could have or could require a higher commendation than this!

In these remarks we have taken an unqualified position. If there exists an exception to it, we have yet to learn it. If this be granted, an important, and to the parties implicated, a very serious, conclusion follows, namely this: that the opposition of our opponents arises not from an honest conviction of the truth of their position, not from the plain demands of reason, and revelation, but from the unworthy motive of maintaining a pre-adopted theory at all hazards. We would be as slow to do injustice to them as to any other class of people; and if this charge partakes in anywise of that nature, let them modify it by showing that any eminent christian has ever taken an unbiased view of Matt. v, 17, differing materially from our own, or that any such person has ever been led, from an isolated investigation of the subject, to oppose the distinction which we claim between moral and ceremonial laws.