Review of Wellcome and Goud by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 28, 1870

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 36, No. 2.

Read the full edition

Review of Wellcome and Goud.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

I have now to notice some things of quite a different nature.

THE LAW IN THE FLESH.

It seems scarcely possible that our authors, after plainly declaring that the law exposes guilt and condemns sin; that it gives the knowledge of man's relations to God; that there would have been neither sin nor death in the world if it had been kept, should also say of the same law that it is in the flesh. On page 56 are the following words:

“The first law or covenant was given for the government of man in the flesh, and is by Paul sometimes called ‘a law in the flesh’ ‘the law of sin and death,’ which is in my members, constantly condemning and killing, but never justifying and giving life.”

Also on page 142, as follows:

“The penalty of this covenant brought death; and not being susceptible of amendment after being broken, and knowing no mercy, and being in man's flesh, it is powerless for man's help; under it man had no right but to die.”

There are several most singular errors in these extracts.

1. That the law is not susceptible of amendment after being broken. This would give the idea that the law was injured or invalidated by being broken or transgressed. Any one who has the least conception of the nature of law, knows that this is an absurdity. Properly, it should be said, that the law being holy, just, and good, the sinner cannot escape the penalty by any effort of his own. Pardon, free, unmerited pardon, is his only hope. But let it be remembered that pardon is not license.

2. The “right to die,” or to suffer the penalty of the law, is a most singular right! The truth is, the sinner dies because he has forfeited all rights by his rebellion.

3. That the law is in the flesh! But the law is not in the flesh! Sin, or transgression of the law, is in the flesh. Do the law and its transgression dwell together? Can they harmonize? If so, why does the law condemn the transgressor, and demand his life? But if not, why do our authors make such an absurd statement? Paul says, “The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good.” Rom. 7: 12. And in the same chapter he says, “For I know that in me, (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing.” Verse 18. If no good thing dwells in the flesh, does the holy, just, and good law dwell there? Again, when the same apostle enumerates the works of the flesh, he mentions idolatry, murder, adultery, &c. These are forbidden by the law; and they are opposed to the law. Therefore not the law, but opposition to the law, or transgression of the law, is in the flesh, Rom. 8: 7, for “the carnal mind,” has the marginal reading, thus: “Gr. the minding of the flesh.” Carnally minded, and fleshly minded, mean the same thing. But the carnal or fleshly mind is not subject to the law, because “the law is spiritual.” Rom. 7: 14. Messrs. Wellcome and Goud profess to have given this subject a thorough examination. Can it be possible that the above scripture truths have escaped their notice? These things are so plainly set forth by the apostle Paul, and are so reasonable and evident, that, if the statements of the foregoing quotations are made in ignorance, it seems quite inexcusable. I am willing to leave it with the candid reader.

4. The apostle does not call the law of God or ten commandments, “the law of sin and death.” That law is opposed to sin—condemns it, as our authors have themselves confessed. Note what Paul says: “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin and death which is in my members.” Rom. 7: 22, 23. The law of sin is in the flesh; but it has already been shown that the law of God is not in the flesh. That is not a “law of sin;” it is a law opposed to sin. The motions of sin, of opposition to the law, in his members—in his flesh—is that other law to which Paul referred, and the only one which he called the law of sin and death. The contrast is directly shown in verse 25, between “the law of God,” and “the law of sin,” and also in chapter 8: 1-4, wherein it is shown that they fulfill the righteousness of the law (of God—compare verse 7,) who are made free from the law of sin and death. Sin is the transgression of the law of God; and to be made free from sin is to be brought into obedience to the law; for by obedience only is the righteousness of the law fulfilled.

It is seldom that so much error is found in so small a compass as is contained in the foregoing extracts from the book under review.

PROMISES OF THE NEW COVENANT.

On this subject the authors say:

“We will now read Ps. 37: 22. For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off. Christ also promises the same. Matt. 5: 5. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Now be it remembered, that the foregoing promises are those embraced in the New Covenant, and are some of the ‘better promises’ upon which it is established. See Heb. 8: 6.” Page 37.

The two covenants of which I shall speak more particularly hereafter, have some things in common, and there are some things peculiar to each. The “better promises” are not the promise of the land, for that was promised to Israel when they came out of Egypt. Paul speaking of the new covenant, specifies the better promises, to wit: writing the law in the heart, and forgiving sins. These two necessarily go together; one does not exist without the other. For, to forgive sin without putting the law in the heart, would leave the heart with a lawless or sinful disposition, so that the righteousness of the law could not be fulfilled by it. Or, to put the law in the heart without forgiving sins, would leave the person still under condemnation for the past. These blessings are peculiar to the new covenant, as the apostle argues; because the blood offered under this covenant—the blood of Christ—is the only blood that can purchase forgiveness. With the exception of these, the promises of the old covenant are identical with those of the new. Not one blessing can be referred to as matter of promise in the new covenant that was not also promised in the old, except as above specified. Our authors have admitted that, if the law had been kept, no other covenant would have been required; obedience to the law would have secured the same blessings that are now conferred in the gospel. But if Aaron, with the blood which he offered, had been able to take away or blot out sin, man would thereby have been restored to the same relation to the law which he would have sustained had he never transgressed it; of course the necessity of the gospel would have been obviated, all of God's purposes of grace being then fulfilled without it. It seems strange that in a book, the avowed object of which is to explain the difference of the covenants, should be found such vague and erroneous views of the subject, while it is made so very plain by the writings of Paul.

TEN COMMANDMENTS, THE OLD COVENANT.

The pertinacity of our opponents in affirming that the ten commandments are the old covenant, in the face of the clearest evidence to the contrary, is wonderful. But it is their only chance to maintain their unscriptural position. Take this refuge away and they have really nothing to which to cling—nothing

to urge against the law as a present rule of moral obligation. Our authors say:

“The Scriptures speak of two covenants, and only two, as being made with Israel and Judah. The one of ten commandments given on Sinai, with its ordinances, is called the ‘first’ and ‘old,’ because it was the first code given to that people, and in contrast with the new, of which we shall speak more particularly hereafter.” Page 41.

And again they say:

“We have shown that there was but one covenant made at Sinai, and that covenant was the ten commandments.” Page 51.

There are many covenants mentioned in the Bible; two of them were made with Israel, and are called according to their order, the first and second, old and new. These covenants are easily identified by their peculiarities or characteristics, as given in the Scriptures; and to apply what the Scriptures say of any one covenant to any other, is to take unwarranted liberties with God's word, and lay the foundation for very serious errors. No subject can be more important than that of the covenants; and it becomes us to be very careful in forming our conclusions thereon.

Jeremiah and Paul are the only Bible writers who have spoken of the two covenants, and of their relations. The latter quotes the former and comments on his words. Both distinctly state that the first covenant was nullified by the non-performance of its conditions. This proves positively that it was not a law; for a law is never nullified by transgression. Sin abolishes the sinner, but does not abolish the law. I marvel that Messrs. Wellcome and Goud have not marked this fact, as much as they had to say on the subject of life and death.

Before speaking more particularly of the old covenant, I will compare the statements of the book on the point. In the quotation already given, it is declared that only one covenant was given at Sinai, which was the ten commandments. Then Webster is quoted on the word covenant, who says it is “a mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons to do or forbear some act or thing.” In quoting and endorsing this definition, they virtually contradict their own statement, that the ten commandments were the first covenant; for the ten commandments were not a contract or mutual agreement between two parties, but a law. The commandments did not depend for their strength and perpetuity on the action of the party bound to obey them, but on the authority of God, the lawgiver.

But again they contradict their own statement, and themselves show that the ten commandments were not the old covenant. They admit that the first covenant was “a mutual agreement” (which the ten commandments were not), and affirm that no other covenant was made with Israel at Sinai, and yet they speak as follows concerning Ex. 19: 5-8:

“This is a proposition on the part of God that if they would obey his voice and keep his covenant, then they should share the blessings; to which when they had agreed, (verse 8,) the Lord directed Moses to prepare the people to witness his descent,” &c.

This transaction all took place before the ten commandments were spoken on Sinai; and this bears every characteristic of a covenant, according to the definition they quote. Here was certainly “a mutual agreement between two parties;” or as they express it, “a proposition on the part of God,” “to which they agreed.” And yet they can find no covenant in this! This proposition and agreement was the first covenant made with Israel; for its validity it depended on their performance of the agreement, as Jeremiah and Paul show was the case with the old covenant. Here we find plain, consistent truth on this subject.

Our authors have jumped at the conclusion that the ten commandments were the old covenant, merely because they are called a covenant. But in all their words they have not given one reason why this law should be considered the old covenant made with Israel. They seem to forget that the term covenant is applied to many things. And they ignore their own definition of covenant in so applying the Scriptures. They do not even attempt to show that the ten commandments bear the characteristics of the old covenant, according to the declarations of Jeremiah and Paul. Their only proof on the subject is their own assertion.

But what relation do the ten commandments sustain to this covenant, and why are they also called a covenant? Greenfield says, in his lexicon, a covenant is “any disposition, arrangement, institution, or dispensation;” and also, “meton., a body of law and precepts.” Thus we see the word covenant is very comprehensive, and may refer to things very dissimilar in nature; and therefore we need to be the more careful in making application of scriptures speaking on the subject. “A body of laws” is a covenant; hence, the ten commandments are properly called a covenant. But as has been proved, they are not the covenant or agreement made with the children of Israel, and which could remain only provided they fulfilled it.

Another definition given by Greenfield is this: “Mutual promises on mutual conditions, or promises with conditions annexed.” The covenant of “mutual promises” is found in Ex. 19; the “conditions annexed” are the ten commandments. A covenant of agreement, may, therefore, be founded upon a covenant of law. That one covenant may be thus based upon another, is proved by 2 Kings 23: 3. The book of the law was found in the house of the Lord, and when it was read the following occurred:

“And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all their heart and with all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book.” And just so in Ex 19, a covenant (agreement) was there made to keep the covenant (law) which God was about to proclaim in their hearing. Which of these was the “old covenant,” the “first covenant,” made with Israel, and which was nullified by their non-performance, all can judge.