p. 140 | Abolished---Re-enacted by E. Goodrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 4, 1865

Abolished---Re-enacted.

By E. Goodrich

For the men of this world who are engaged in the various pursuits of pleasure and interest to lose their footing, stumble and fall, is comparatively a small matter. Sometimes we laugh at their calamities, sometimes we lightly condemn their wrongs, and at others we lend them compassion and say, "Try, try again."

Again a man may tolerate wrongs in himself, he may lightly esteem the ignorance and errors of others, or he may even teach that God winks at the sins of mortals; and be deserving of but little censure. But for those who are old in years, and one would suppose correspondingly old in religious experience, for such as these professed ministers of the Lord Jesus Christ, to mangle the moral law of God by teaching that it has been abolished, and then in the next paragraph teach that it has been re-enacted and "thank God we have a new code," is a work too contemptible to admit of excuse or toleration. And every man of moral courage should bear a pointed testimony against all such manifest immorality.

If the law of God by which is the knowledge of sin was ever abolished, it must have been for the very best of reasons: First because it could be killed, and, secondly, because it ought to die. If the law of God was ever taken out of the way, it must have been for the reason that it was in the way. And if the law was ever in the way and it was necessary that it should die and like a carcass be removed out of the way, one would very naturally suppose that the same reasons existed now, and that to re-enact would be but to bring it in the way again.

What would one think of a case in which a Major General for charges of cowardice and desertion should be tried and condemned to-day, yet on the morrow be released and re-instated in his former place of trust and honor? Certainly every one would say that either there was some mistake in the charges and trial, some wire-working to get him re-instated or else in the interim (a thing extremely doubtful because hard to demonstrate) a very important change must have been wrought in the man.

But admitting that the law of God was ever abolished, why do not those who thus believe and teach, take up and answer one by one (as the little boy would count so many dollars) the following questions: When, where, by whom, and for what purpose, was the law of God abolished? And having answered these questions concerning the time, place, and object of the death, turn to the next page and answer the same questions touching the resurrection, of the law of God.

But most seriously, was it possible to repeal and then restore the moral law of God? But two positions can be taken of the law of God: either that it is fallible or infallible. And touching the commandments of the decalogue that are commonly understood as constituting the moral law, either that they are moral precepts, and, as such, express truths that exist in the nature of things---those rights and duties that grow out of moral relations sustained by creatures, or else that they are but arbitrary enactment, and their existence a mere matter of circumstance.

If the former view is the correct one, it is consummate folly to talk of their ever having been suspended even for one moment; but if the latter position is the right one then verily there is scarcely a shade of difference between Christianity and infidelity.

But suppose we turn our attention for a few moments to the scientific world and see what we can find there to instruct us. And if we stop and inquire of the mechanic and machinist, he will tell us that the laws and principles by which he is governed in his work are as immutable as eternity itself. He will further say that if all the machinery of the world was combined into one vast instrument, it could not generate power enough to move the least imaginable particle of dust. And in continuing to discourse he would demonstrate the truth that creatures have no power to intermeddle either in the making or rescinding the laws of their Creator; but it is man's province to obey and be blessed, or disobey and reap the fruits of his own negligence or open rebellion.

Again if we should listen to the recitation of a class in mathematics and hear the teacher say that upon a certain time and for some reason the truths that pertain to, and that are embraced in the right-angle-triangle were all abolished, but after a few days they were re-enacted, we should without hesitation say that the man was either a fool or a madman.

Well it would be just as rational to talk about the suspension and re-adoption of a mathematical truth as it is to talk about the death and resurrection of moral truth: for it is no more in the power or jurisdiction of men to create, abolish, or re-enact religious and moral truth than to kill and resurrect philosophical principles. And when we hear men speak as though silence or even a neglect to utter the truth, kills it, or that a mere quotation of any truth creates or resuscitates the same, patience no longer is a virtue.

But the great fault seems to be that men do not apprehend or seriously believe in the existence of moral and religious principles, and a God whose laws in these as well as every other department of truth are supreme and unchangeable. The result is that many of the professed ministers of the gospel preach a low and uncertain faith, whereas it is both our privilege and duty to be as morally certain of the existence of God and Heaven, and of our final salvation as mechanically sure of building a house.

The Saviour in praying that his disciples might be sanctified through the truth added the sublime comment, Thy word is truth. Every correct representation of facts is truth, yet the word of God has a higher form than this. It has also the form of life. It is represented as living and abiding forever. And whether it exists in the form of precepts or in the form of promises or threatenings, there is no possibility that it can fail to exist and accomplish all that is expressed even to the least and last jot and tittle.

As a practical application of the foregoing remarks, we may read and interpret a few such commandments and promises as the following: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Honor thy father and thy mother. Ex. xx, 3-12. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matt. v, 7-8.

Now in what light shall we view these? Shall we accept them founded upon and as containing principles that are unchangeable (principles are always unchangeable)? or shall we regard them merely as enactments that may be changed to suit the pleasure or interest of those who may read them?

If we endorse the former position as the right one, then all that has been said and written about the moral law of God having been abolished, nailed to the cross, and so on (the reader should always bear in mind that there is no dispute about the ceremonial law) can only be regarded as the work of designing men, for the purpose of avoiding an unpleasant truth; but if the latter view is the correct one, then morality and faith rest upon but an uncertain and pitiable foundation.

Edinboro, Pa.