Separate From the Ordinances of the Law of Moses

In his book Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, Mr. Canright makes a desperate but entirely fruitless effort to prove that the Ten Commandments was only a part of the ceremonial law of Moses. In order to show that they constitute only one law instead of two separate and distinct codes, it was necessary for Mr. Canright to overcome the impression created by the vastly different ways in which the two were given. One was spoken by God’s own voice, written by His own finger on tables of stone, and deals with moral issues only; the other was given through Moses, and was later written by him in a book, and dealt with rites and ceremonies, sanitary regulations, and civil relations.DOF 56.1

But Mr. Canright soon found a way out. “It would have been impossible,” he said, “to carry around the whole law if written on stones; hence only a few samples out of that law could have been selected and put on stones to be kept as a witness of that covenant.” Page 343.DOF 56.2

Surely this is a strange argument! Think of it! The only thing that deterred God from writing all the ceremonies, rites, ordinances, etc., pertaining to the sacrificial service, was the size of the load it would have made to carry!DOF 56.3

How unfortunate for Mr. Canright and those who share his opposition to the seventh-day Sabbath that the fourth commandment crept in among the samples and got onto the tables of stone! How much easier it would have been to have brushed the Sabbath aside, had it gone into the book of the “law of Moses” instead! The very fact that it got in among the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments and became a part of a strictly moral code would naturally give the impression that it belonged in that class and was not ceremonial in nature, as, were the laws of Moses. But, of course, if God only picked up a few samples at random and wrote them down on tables of stone, anything might have gotten in.DOF 56.4

But is this like God? Does the “Ancient of days” perform His work in such a careless manner? Would He give to men a rule of life and a standard of judgment, and then inform them that those He had given were only a few samples? Absolutely not. To argue thus is to charge God with folly. No, the Ten Commandment law of God is not a makeshift. It is “perfect” (Psalm 19:7); therefore it is complete. It is “holy, and’ just, and good” (Romans 7:12); therefore it cannot be improved upon. It is just as it should be, seventh-day Sabbath and all, and just as it will be when we stand before the throne of God at the judgment of the last great day, and find that this law is the standard by which our lives are to be measured.DOF 57.1

“Hence the importance of heeding the admonition of James When he says: “So speak you, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” James 2:12. But let us permit Mr. Canright to answer himself. When he was still a Seventh-day Adventist he wrote:DOF 57.2

“Those who deny the pre-eminence which we claim for the Ten Commandments, can give no reason why the Lord singled out the Ten Commandments, and gave them in so conspicuous a manner as He did. All God’s acts are in wisdom, and for a purpose. It was not by accident that He singled out and gave the Ten Commandments as He did. Evidently He did it to honor that law above all others.”—The Two Laws, p. 102.DOF 57.3