Law and Gospel by J. O. Corliss

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Apr 9, 1885

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 11, No. 15.

Law and Gospel.

By J. O. Corliss

How strange some modern theories appear when compared with the Bible; and how inconsistent, too, are their advocates in choosing methods of reasoning. This is only true in certain cases—where the words of God point out duty that conflicts with worldly interests. It is hard to believe that men wrest the Scriptures knowingly; yet on matters pertaining to other subjects they will reason logically, and adopt sound conclusions. There is only one satisfactory explanation of the question; they want it so, and force themselves to the position; then, to justify their course, they affirm that their attitude is the only correct one, and by refusing to candidly weigh counter arguments, they become settled in ways that will not bear the test of Bible measurement.

The contrast sometimes drawn between the moral law and the gospel well illustrates this. A correspondent in a late exchange says: "The law was an external application—a liniment to regulate the gait of folks—a remedy for unrighteous limping. It never effected a cure; it had to be constantly applied." Although the writer of these words no doubt thought his statements conclusive, it would be hard to find such glaring contradictions in the logic of a ten-year-old school boy. The law was "a liniment," "a remedy for unrighteous limping," yet in the next sentence we learn that it was not a remedy at all, for it "never effected a cure." And still the writer says in the very next breath: "It [the law] had to be constantly applied."

Webster says a remedy is "that which cures a disease; any medicine or application which puts an end to disease and restores health." Surely here is an anomalous position—that God gave to the world a remedy for unrighteousness that never effected a cure! And yet it must be constantly applied. Since the writer believes the remedy for sin that God provided in the old dispensation was a failure, what assurance has he that the plan now in operation will be a success?

The fact of the matter is, the first statement in the above quotation is untrue. The law of God was never designed as a remedy for sin. It was only a rule by which sin might be detected. "Thou shalt not" can do no more than this in any age. If the Jews had no other remedy for sin than the law, not one of them could be saved. The case is the same with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; yet the Saviour said that they will be seen in the kingdom of God when others are cast out. There must be a remedy to cure or take away the sin pointed out by the law. But before the remedy can be applied, the disease must be determined, and only one process has been marked out by which this may be done. The apostle says: "I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom. 7:7. But now suppose that after Paul knew his wrong he simply stopped violating the law, would that prove a remedy for his past transgressions? Everybody will at once answer, No. Those transgressions can only be taken away by the application of the remedy—the precious blood of Jesus Christ.

Then it follows that those who lived under the old dispensation, must have had a remedy for the sins which the law pointed out, if they became eligible to a place in Heaven. The Bible points out only one remedy, and that is the gospel. Paul says (Gal. 3:8) that Abraham had the gospel preached to him; that the children of Israel also heard the same (Heb. 4:1, 2), and that Moses himself believed in Christ. Heb. 11:25, 26. Now if, as we are told by some, the gospel "does all that the law did and infinitely more," why was the law delivered to the Israelites from Sinai more than four hundred years after the gospel was preached to Abraham? It would certainly be a useless appendage if the gospel would perform all that the law could do.

But some may object that the gospel which Abraham had, was not the gospel of Christ that we now have. And yet it was the same, as shown by the argument of the apostle to the Galatians. He says (chap. 3:16): "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Then in verse 29, he sums up the argument: "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." It is therefore plain that the promise of the gospel to Abraham, that in him all nations should be blessed, was the promise of Christ to redeem them from the curse brought upon them by their transgressions of the law.

The article referred to, plainly says that "The gospel does not destroy the good effect of the law; it does all that the law did." But in the name of reason and common sense, we ask, What "good effect" did the law ever have if it never effected a cure, and yet was constantly applied for fifteen hundred years? Strange effect that, if the law was designed as a remedy for unrighteousness. With all the shifting and turning by some to put away the law, all are obliged to admit that the law was given for some wise purpose, and for some "good effect," or else the character of the Lawgiver suffers at their hands. But we inquire, What "good effect" was the law designed to cause? Simply to turn men from transgression to obedience; to cause them to yield to God's requirements.

This was truly a good effect; one that would prove them penitent, and make them eligible to receive pardon through the gospel, which has ever been the remedy for sin and uncleanliness. But does not the blood of Christ take away sin without the sinner obeying the requirements of the law? "I had not known sin, but by the law," said the venerable apostle; "for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom. 7:7. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3:20. If a man by the law is shown his sins, and then he does not change his attitude toward the law, he is still a sinner. He has not shown the least sorrow for his wrong course. What claim has he upon the mercy of the Lord? Evidently none whatever. Now suppose the Lord should pardon such an individual, what effect would it have, but to confirm him in his wickedness? That would make Christ a partner in the transgressions of the individual so pardoned.

This is just the way the Bible puts it. Paul says that a man cannot be justified by the law, neither can he be justified by Christ while he lives in sin. Hear him: "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid." Gal. 2:17. "Sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4); therefore the man who violates the law is a sinner, and in the text just quoted, it is shown that Christ will not justify the one who continues in sin (transgression of the law), because that would make him the minister of sin. It is true, as the antinomians maintain, that "the gospel does not destroy the good effect of the law;" certainly not, the law is established through faith in the gospel. Rom. 3:31.

But can the gospel alone regulate the movements of men? Some seem to think so, and affirm in the face of such texts as the one last quoted, that the law is no longer necessary, because, with gospel grace in the heart, one will not desire to do wrong. One writer illustrated it in this way. He said the law of God was a sort of injunction prohibiting certain things, well illustrated by signs in public parks which read, "Keep off the grass," "Do not cut or mar the trees." These are only for the unruly; well-disposed persons would keep off any way, so the signs would be useless to them. From this it was argued that a Christian will stay where he belongs, and do what is right, because he has a kind of common sense inside. Profound logic, indeed! That is as conclusive as the statement of a certain minister, who, upon being asked if he thought the Bible would warrant a certain decision rendered by him, said: "We do not need Bible for that; common sense teaches it is so."

Common sense is a good commodity, and one of which many have little or none to spare, judging from the loose way they reason. Now with reference to well-disposed persons keeping off the grass without the prohibition being kept before their faces, we ask: Suppose such persons came from the dusty city to a park, for the first time, and no signs were posted forbidding to walk on the grass, how many would forbear doing so? How many would know it was forbidden? Not many, surely. A man's good intentions do not always keep him in the right way. He must be educated upon points of duty, to be well up in "common sense."

But why waste time in reasoning in the line referred to? While it is evident such writers are only trying to lay a foundation to abolish God's commandments, their reasoning legitimately carried out would only establish every part of the law of God. If the gospel does not destroy the good effects of the law (which were only obedience to God), and if the Christian will do right any way, because he has "common sense" in his heart, does not this argue that the principles of the law are, and must be, still maintained by the Christian? Then why not accept what the New Testament says of the law, and regulate life's actions by it.

But the law greatly offends some people. It could not do so if they were in harmony with it. And the only reason we have ever learned why they do not agree with it is because of the requirement of its fourth precept, which says that the seventh day is the Sabbath. This is the particular point that offends; take that away, and the controversy over the law would immediately cease. But we are obliged to leave it as the Bible transmits it to us. It is in the law, placed there by God himself, and he has never divorced it from the law; contrariwise, the Saviour said: "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18. When professed Christians will heed this saying of Christ, they may then exclaim with the psalmist: "Great peace have they which love thy law; and nothing shall offend them." Ps. 119:165.

J. O. CORLISS.