Review of Wellcome and Goud by Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 9, 1870

Review of Wellcome and Goud.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

THE LAW DISANNULED.

The words of Paul in Heb. 7:18, 19, are, by the opposers of the law of God, persistently applied to the decalogue. So our authors have applied them, and also confounded the law with the ministration of the law. They say:

“The foregoing testimony shows us that the covenant on stones—the decalogue law—killeth; its ministration is death; it is condemnation; thus its power, and its only power, is to convince of sin, and lay us in death, whither we all tend. Therefore the apostle says, ‘There is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof; for the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the which we draw nigh to God.’ Heb. 7:18, 19.” Page 142.

They who take every position are sure to be on the side of truth sometimes, and there is scarcely any conceivable position concerning the law which is not taken in this book. At one time they say the law was given to Adam for the race, and proves all men to be sinners. At another, they say that no well-informed person will pretend to claim that all have violated that law so as to be responsible before it. Again, in the above quotation, they say that its “power is to convince of sin, and lay us in death, whither we all tend.” Can it convince any of sin who are not under its jurisdiction? Can it be “condemnation” to any who are not under obligation to keep it? Paul closely connects the declaration, “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” with this, “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Certainly no one can deny the necessary connection of guilt with the conviction of sin; if the law convinces of sin it is only because guilt exists, and the guilt must consist in the violation of the law. This is too plainly true to need any argument. How then, can Messrs. W. and G. quote a text which speaks of a law disannulled, and apply it to this same law? Do they know no better than to talk of the “power” of a law to “convince of sin,” if that law be disannulled? Can a law be “condemnation”—can it “kill,” after it is “done away” or “abolished?” Can they not, or will they not, see that their system of theology conflicts with the plainest principles of government, and with common sense?

Paul’s letter to the Hebrews is an argument concerning the exalted nature and offices of Jesus Christ. In chapter 7, the argument is in regard to the difference of the priesthood of Aaron and of Christ, and the different methods whereby they were constituted priests. Just before the text quoted about disannulling the law, is this declaration: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Verse 12. No one can show a necessity for a change of the ten commandments, or of any one of them, on account of a change of the priesthood. They were then, as now, a moral code. They “convince of sin” now; they did then. But there was a law on the subject of which Paul treats in Heb. 7, the subject of the priesthood and of priestly service, which, if still in force, would prevent Jesus Christ’s being a priest, or any one of the tribe to which he belonged. Of course that is the law of which Paul is speaking. See Num. 3:10. “And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest’s office; and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” Chap. 16:39, 40: “And Eleazar the priest took the brazen censers wherewith they that were burnt had offered; and they were made broad plates for a covering of the altar; to be a memorial unto the children of Israel, that no stranger which is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense before the Lord.” Again, chap. 18:7: “Therefore thou and thy sons with thee, shall keep your priests’ office for everything of the altar, and within the vail; and ye shall serve; I have given your priest’s office unto you as a service of gift; and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death.” King Uzziah, of the same tribe of which Christ came, was smitten with leprosy for presuming to disregard the ordinance to do that which belonged “to the priests, the sons of Aaron.” 2 Chron. 26:16–21. Now to Paul’s argument. He says: “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.” Heb. 7:14. And again, “After the similitude of Melchizedek there ariseth another priest, who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” Verses 15, 16. This proves what I said: It was the law by which Aaron and his sons were constituted priests, of which Paul was writing; as he says again, “The law maketh men high priests which have infirmity.” Verse 28. This law must of necessity be disannulled, or Christ could never be accepted as a priest of God. How vain and foolish to take the words of Paul in Heb. 7, and apply them to the ten commandments!

This law is declared to be “carnal.” Now Paul in Rom. 7:14, says, “the law is spiritual.” But carnality and spirituality cannot both be attributes of the same law. And, therefore, Paul did not speak in his letter to the Hebrews of the same law of which he spoke in that to the Romans. But Messrs. Wellcome and Goud have quoted from Rom. 7, and applied it to the ten commandments; and if that application were correct, as I think it was, then the application of Heb. 7 cannot be correct. The law of Romans is a holy, just, and good law, spiritual, which convinces of sin, in the sight of which all, both Jews and Gentiles, are guilty. The law of Hebrews is a carnal law, concerning the ordaining of priests, meats, drinks, divers washings, &c.; a law of ceremonies and typical observances, and offerings for sin. But sin lies back of its offerings, and sin is the transgression of the law; therefore the law, by which “is the knowledge of sin,” or which “convinces of sin,” is before, and distinct from, the law of sin-offerings. But the law by which the Aaronic priesthood existed was unprofitable, for the reason that it had only the blood of bulls and of goats to offer, which could not take away sin. It was a shadow. Heb. 10:1–4. But it was not a shadow of moral principles; it consisted of typical observances, shadowing forth the priesthood of Christ. And the ministration of Christ is always presented in contrast with this; never in contrast with any moral precept or principle. Nor does the gospel of Christ introduce any new principle of morality; it enforces all morality, but originates none. And it bears precisely the same relation to the law that the service of Aaron did. That was in figure for the removal of sin, but had no blood with which to accomplish that object. This removes sin in fact, because the blood of Jesus, our priest, cleanses from all unrighteousness.

To say that the gospel of Christ introduces new moral principles, is to say that the principles of God’s government were defective and insufficient. To say that Christ abolished the law of his Father in his work of saving man, is to say that he destroyed the good for the accommodation of the bad; that he quiets a rebellion against a good government by abolishing the law against which the rebellion was waged; which would be to connive at sin, instead of putting it away.

TRANSGRESSION OF THE NEW COVENANT.

After having said that the law gives a knowledge of man’s relation to God; that it convinces of sin; that in its eyes all the world are guilty; they again say that it is not the eyes of the law, but of the gospel, in which men are guilty; that the law is disannulled—

notwithstanding it “kills” and “convinces of sin,” and that sin is now a transgression of the gospel! Losing sight of the inspired declaration that the law which condemns sin will not justify the sinner, they make the gospel a system of both condemnation and justification.

Of sin, they thus write:

“The transgression of this new law of life is willful unbelief.”

This presents a very defective and superficial view of the faith of the gospel. The gospel is “good news” of salvation—it is purely a remedial system. But the theory of this book makes it an elementary system. Every one knows that a pardon must recognize the strength of the government and the justice of the law transgressed; that it must “establish the law,” and not make it “void;” otherwise it would prove a license to sin, and thereby endanger the government. And again, pardon cannot be elementary; it must be based on a pre-existing law. But if the law which “convinces of sin” be “disannulled,” then pardon is a nullity. The position of Messrs. Wellcome and Goud really subverts the gospel, by denying its remedial nature, and making it the basis of government. Had not sin existed, Christ would not have died; there would have been no gospel system. This Messrs. W. and G. admit in the quotation given last week: Christ came to “save from sin”—from the transgression of the law. Faith in Christ is in order to remission of sin. As plain as this proposition is, it seems almost impossible to get a “no-law” teacher to appreciate it.