Review of Wellcome and Goud.
By J. H. Waggoner
THEIR argument on the atonement they commence thus: “The subject of atonement is revealed to us, in the Scriptures, in two parts, or branches; the first being accomplished by the death of Christ under the first, or old, covenant, or law of works (to redeem man from the curse of that law, Christ being made a curse for man) and is unconditional and universal in its application to, and its effects upon, all our race. The second is accomplished by the blood of Christ in the new covenant, or law of faith, and is conditional (1 John 1: 7, 9), being limited in its application to adults, and in its final blessings, to believers.” This view has the merit of novelty, if that be a merit, but no other. The argument to sustain it is exceedingly weak, the texts quoted in its favor failing to justify their use of them. They start out with the definition of atonement and atone, as given by Webster, which is strongly at variance with their position. Atone “signifies to unite, or agree,” say they; and “Atonement—agreement, concord, reconciliation after enmity or controversy.” In the chapter preceding, on the necessity of atonement, they quote Rom. 5: 10, with a comment as follows: “When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death (not the blood) of his Son.” Now if this reconciliation by the death of Christ, be on the part of the sinner toward God, as the text asserts, (enemies reconciled to God), and consists in placing him in “agreement, concord,” with God, by the removal of the enmity, as the definition teaches, and if it is “unconditional and universal in its application to, and its effects upon, all our race,” as they assert; then it necessarily follows that all the race are reconciled to God; that the enmity of all the race is removed, and all the race will be saved. This text alone, Rom. 5: 10, is sufficient to disprove their theory, unless we are prepared to pervert it to prove Universalism. It looks to no such contrast as is presented by them, that is, of death and blood. See the whole verse: “For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” This assuredly refers to the removal of enmity, or to a reconciliation, of which salvation is the consequent. And that our personal sins do stand thus related to the death of Christ is shown by the apostle’s remarks on baptism, in the same letter. Now baptism has no relation to original sin, or to the general condition of the race, otherwise infant baptism would be valid and necessary. Baptism is for the remission of sin, and is the duty of penitent believers, the followers of Christ, and of them exclusively. But the apostle says, “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?”—not into his blood. If such a distinction exists as they claim; if the death of Christ was only for the resurrection of the race, without regard to condition or character, and the blood of Christ is for remission of personal sins, why is it that baptism, which is for the remission of personal sins, is into his death, and not into his blood? The texts they quote in introducing the first part of the subject, the death of Christ, are remarkably inappropriate to their purpose. 1 Cor. 5: 7. “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” The connection shows that Paul was there treating of the purification of believers, and not of a work which is accomplished without regard to character, as is the case in the resurrection of the race. Heb. 9: 26. “But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” This text they properly refer to the death of Christ, for the idea of sacrifice necessarily includes that of death. But if there is such a distinction and division of the subject as they claim, they have been unfortunate in the selection of a scripture to show it; for the ninth chapter of Hebrews is treating of the remission of sin, and the sanctification of believers. See verses 14, 22. And the text itself is a positive proof against their theory. It says that the sacrifice, or death, of Christ was “to put away sin.” But in the plan for the resurrection of the race, according to their division of the subject, putting away sin has no place; for if it be true that the wicked dead will be raised, the majority of those resurrected never have their sins put away at all. It is true that a part of those resurrected have their sins put away, but they say the death of Christ is not for that object; the text says it is. Which shall we believe? And this text is parallel with many others. “Christ died for our sins.” 1 Cor. 15: 3. “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” Heb. 10: 10. “Offered one sacrifice for sins.” Verse 12. “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” Verse 14. “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins.” 1 Peter 3: 18. And that which in these texts is ascribed to the death of Christ, in other texts is ascribed to the blood of Christ. The distinction claimed by Messrs. Wellcome and Goud is merely fanciful. But their argument must further be noticed. Thus they write: “All sacrifices requiring the slaying of the victim show that the law under which they are offered has been broken, and that its penalty is death; and as the law of works could not give life (Gal. 3: 21), it knew no mercy. Heb. 2: 2; and 10: 28. Therefore it did not require, of necessity, the shedding of blood, but the death of the victim, which might have been accomplished without the shedding of blood. But the atonement of Christ contemplated not only the redemption of our race from death, but also the forgiveness of the sins of the people against the new covenant, which would be an act of mercy through his intercession as high priest by his own blood. ‘For without the shedding of blood there is no remission.’ Heb. 9: 22.” Pages 107, 108. In all this singularly inconsistent book perhaps there is not another paragraph so filled with inconsistencies as the above. 1. Their quotations to prove that the first covenant knew no mercy, and is therefore contrasted with the new, are irrelevant, for both Heb. 2: 2, 3; and 10: 28, 29, show that the incorrigible under the new testament are in danger of sorer punishment. Not that the law is changed in its nature or obligation, but to their guilt in the transgression of law, they add that of insult to the offer of grace. To neglect such a means of salvation manifests a love of sin such as could not be shown under any other circumstances. In proportion as the Lord magnifies the law, Isa. 42: 21; and as it is established by faith in the gospel, Rom. 3: 31; so is their guilt aggravated who choose yet to live in its transgression. 2. It is an error to suppose that sin under the old covenant was not taken away because the law did not allow of forgiveness. The truth is, sin was not then taken away because the priests of that covenant had no blood sufficient to take it away. Heb. 10: 4; and others. But that law was consistent with mercy, as is proved by the second commandment; and that sin against it may be removed by efficient means, is proved by Heb. 9: 15; the death of Christ was “for the redemption of the transgressions under the first testament;” and this not merely for temporal blessings, as Messrs. Wellcome and Goud affirm that the first covenant looked no further than these, but for an “eternal inheritance.” 3. They strangely err in their statement of the comparative objects of the offerings of the two covenants. They affirm that because the law “knew no mercy,” and “could not give life,” “therefore it did not require the shedding of blood, but the death of the victim, which90might have been accomplished without the shedding of blood.” But Paul, in his argument concerning the Aaronic priesthood and the offerings of the Levitical law, while contrasting them with that of Christ, says: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood.” Heb. 9: 22. In Lev. 17: 11, the Lord said to Israel, “I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” The atonement was the great central point of that whole system, without which all their offerings would have been meaningless. But this was effected only by blood, and the life of the victim was taken that the blood might be presented upon the altar. See Lev. 16; Heb. 13: 11; &c. It is not possible for any one who has an intelligent view of the Levitical economy to make or believe such a statement as they have here made. 4. Their reasoning is illogical and inconclusive. For the reason they offer why blood was not required in the old covenant is, that blood is for remission of sin; and as no remission was there granted, no blood was required. Consistency would require them to further reason thus: The offering of the life or body of the victim was to restore to life; but as the law could not give life, therefore no offering of life was required. But the whole truth on the point is this: that as the priests in the Levitical law “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” Heb. 8: 5, typifying the offering and priesthood of Christ, so Christ, a sacrifice on the cross, and a priest in the heavenly sanctuary to plead his own blood, was represented in the death of the sin-offering and the blood thereof sprinkled on and before the mercy-seat by Aaron and his sons. Heb. 13: 11, 12; 8: 1–5; 9: 23, 24; 10: 1. In respect to the offering of both the body and blood, and to the objects for which they were offered, there is no contrast in the Scriptures between the sacrifices of the two covenants. The contrast is in regard to the efficacy or power to accomplish the object proposed. The object given in the Scriptures, which must be the true one, for the offering of blood, is to make atonement. See Lev. 16, and many other places. But the blood of Christ is for the same object; with this difference, one is but a type of the other; one atones in figure, the other in fact. The only marvel is, that any who read the Bible, and have even a faint idea of the gospel, and its types, should take a position which renders it necessary to give proof of this kind. 5. They reiterate their stale assertion that the blood of Christ is for “the forgiveness of the sins of the people against the new covenant.” They also say that the transgression of the new covenant is unbelief. Pages 139, 275. But they also say, “God extends forgiveness under the new covenant on conditions of repentance and faith.” Page 132. But if faith is a condition of forgiveness of sin, it is easy to see that sin must lie back of the requirement of faith. But if the introduction of faith made void the pre-existing law, as Messrs. Wellcome and Goud affirm, (but which Paul denies, Rom. 3: 31), all sin back of the system of faith would thereby cease to exist. Then faith, if given as a duty, would become an original or elementary principle of the government; and as such they represent it. But as such it could not possibly be a condition of forgiveness. Here we confidently take issue with their whole theory. This is a question of the principles of government the decision of which we would willingly leave with the jurists of the land. It is astonishing how these writers deal in assertions without regard to principles. They seem to have a settled determination not to see the necessary connection between the law and the gospel—“the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14: 12. 6. The prominent error of their theory, and on which, indeed, their theory of atonement is based, is here repeated; viz., that there is a scriptural difference in design between the death of Christ and the offering of the blood of Christ. It has been shown that what is ascribed to one, in the New Testament, is ascribed to the other. I now notice it in another form, to show that they are, not only identical in design, but, identical in point of fact. On this the Scriptures are very explicit. Let us see how the case stands. “The wages of sin is death.” That is, by sin life is forfeited; of course justice, or the demand of the law, is not satisfied without the taking of life. This, say Messrs. W. and G., could be “accomplished without the shedding of blood.” But what say the Scriptures: “The blood is the life.” Deut. 12: 23. This being so, how can one be taken to meet the demand of the law, and the other not taken? It is true that without shedding of blood is no remission; Heb. 9: 22. But this statement of the apostle is founded upon that made through Moses in Lev. 17: 11. “It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” But this points to another fact. Why is an atonement needed? Because sin has been committed and life is forfeited. And why is the blood given to make atonement? Because the life (that which is forfeited) is in the blood. Nothing but the blood can make atonement, for nothing else represents the equivalent of the forfeiture. And Christ by laying down his life, or shedding his blood, which is the same thing, to meet the demands of the violated law, purchased the right of control over the lives of all those who have sinned. See Rom. 14: 9. “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.” When God said to Noah, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed,” Gen. 9: 6, he certainly did not design to teach that the surgeon who draws a few ounces of blood from the arm of a swooning man should have so much drawn from his own arm in return. The intent of this declaration is shown in verses 4, 5. “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require.” It was to teach and enforce a proper regard for life that all the instructions of the Scriptures concerning the blood were given. And this is so prominently set forth in the Scriptures, especially on the use of the blood for atonement, Lev. 16 and 17, that it seems strange that any should attempt to draw a distinction so directly in conflict with the declarations of the Bible. And the wonder is increased when we consider that they who attempt to draw this distinction profess to have the truth also on the subject of life and death, as the statements which they contradict lie at the very foundation of Biblical psychology. Had men never lost sight of the fact that “the life is in the blood,” they would not have sought by false philosophy and vain speculation to find the life is an imaginary entity that man never possessed. And were this truth that “the blood is the life,” always acknowledged and kept in view, the Bible plan of atonement by blood for the redemption of them who had forfeited their lives would appear reasonable to all. But having lost sight of this fact, and having substituted fables for truth, the divine requirement of blood for atonement appears then quite arbitrary and almost meaningless. Messrs. Wellcome and Goud seem to do all in their power to perpetuate this error. Thus they say: “If Jesus had died without shedding one drop of his blood, the law would have been satisfied.” Page 111. How do they know that this statement is true? They do not quote any scripture to prove it. There are only two methods by which the truth on this point may be known, to wit, by scripture declarations to that effect, or, by examples in the types in the Levitical law. But (1). The word of the Lord is this: “Your blood of your lives will I require.” Gen 9: 5. And, “For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof.” This is the divine requirement in regard to satisfaction, and it is only presumption to assert that the law would have been satisfied contrary to this requirement. (2). In the types, satisfaction by substitution was made by shedding of blood. And so all Scripture evidence is against them. In connection with the assertion above quoted, they say: “If no other object had been in view but redemption from the grave, no blood need have been shed, for the shedding of blood implies remission of sin.” This is not so. The shedding of blood implies satisfaction to the law, and renders the remission of sin possible. And how do they know that any plan would have been possible for the redemption of the race from the grave, that did not insure remission of sin? Is there any hint of such a plan in the Bible? No! Such a plan would neither honor God nor benefit man. It would not honor God, because no principle of his government would be vindicated by such a transaction. It would not benefit man, because it would not admit of any probation. But the great reason for the resurrection of all men lies in the fact that they are on probation; and it is the extreme of folly to assert what would or what would not have been necessary to raise the dead without probation or the possibility of the remission of sin, as such a plan would have been the result of caprice and not of reason, and so unworthy of the divine government. I am aware that this view of atonement is presented in this book for the purpose of proving the doctrine of the resurrection of the wicked. But I consider it an utter failure. Were that doctrine dependent upon their argument, I should be forced to abandon it, because they have removed from it every Scripture reason on which it is based, and, instead, based it on considerations not known to the Scriptures nor sustained by reason. I consider it unfortunate for the cause of truth that, while the resurrection of the wicked is being denied by many, an argument so labored should be presented in its favor, so entirely destitute of foundation in truth, while there are so many plain Scripture arguments in its favor, none of which they notice. In the eyes of opposers it is equivalent to an admission of the weakness of their cause, and is, therefore, an injury instead of benefit to the cause of truth which they professedly advocate. Other passages in the book under this head I had marked for notice, but as I designed this for the closing article of the series, and have already gone beyond my desired limit, I leave them. It is no pleasure to me to follow up such vagaries. And as I consider the wondrous amount of contradictions of the Bible, and of itself, that this book contains, I am led to inquire, How is it possible for men who have read the Bible so much to throw together so many follies and inconsistencies? How can men of apparent intelligence and judgment recommend such a book as a consistent exposition of Bible truth? I can only find an answer in the fact that prepossession and prejudice have a power to bind the minds of men and “make the worse appear the better reason.” The evidence of prejudice over the minds of the writers appears in very much of the book. It is much to be regretted that men will suffer their powers to be so perverted where eternal interests are at stake. There is no safety in this age of delusions but in a teachable spirit, and a childlike reliance on the Spirit of God to guide into the truth. May the Lord help us so to live that we do not grieve it away, but ever be guided into, and sanctified through, the truth.