JUSTIFICATION BY THE LAW.
By Wm. G. Springer
BRO. SMITH: Our love to you and all the brethren. Yours of March 17th is before me, and the contents noted. Also your article on justification in the Review of March 24th. You are on hand then, to explain and answer for those pamphlets on the "perpetuity of the law." Well, this will be economizing at any rate, to regard them as containing the advanced argument on the affirmation that "the law is perpetual." You have at last granted me an appearance in the Review under that very nice name, "A Friend." Thank you. I hold it as a truism, that we cannot understand the doctrine of an author, unless we first understand the import of the terms he uses. Now as per reference, I have been reading Bro. J. H. Waggoner on the perpetuity of the law. But he uses terms in a sense and with a license that I have not been accustomed to. The first thing with me then is, to understand the meaning of a number of his terms, and then I think I shall be able to judge of his doctrine. But first of all, he quotes the sacred text in such a loose manner as to confuse in my mind, the point he is trying to establish. On page 28th, he quotes Ex. xxxi, 13, using the word Sabbath, disconnected from the sense in which Moses used it, and thereby teaching a very different view. And he sagely comes to the conclusion from his own false premises, that unless we keep the Sabbath (seventh day), we have no sign, and hence no certain knowledge of our sanctification under the present (gospel) dispensation. And on the next page he says, "Strike this from existence, and we search the sacred page in vain for a substitute;" that is, for a sign, and certain knowledge of our sanctification. Do you indorse this? If so hark:—"Husbands love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." Eph. v, 26. Again, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts ii, 38. Again, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom. viii, 16. By these means we know that Christ is "made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption." 1 Cor. i, 30. Will the brethren in the face of all this, and much more, say that we have no "sign and knowledge of our sanctification under the gospel, unless we observe the seventh day." If so, I demur instanter. But how came Bro. W. to fall into the meshes of this net? Simply by being too intent on riveting upon us the perpetuity of the Sabbath law. Then how does the passage read? "Speak unto the children of Israel saying, my Sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you &c." Then it is Sabbaths, in the plural, and not "the Sabbath," in the singular. Then we must observe all the Sabbath days of the old dispensation, according to Bro. Waggoner's style of applying scripture. Yes! he would have us back walking among the shady shadows of the law; and that to in order to get a knowledge of our sanctification. And in conclusion he says, "Strike this from existence and you search the sacred page in vain for a sign, and knowledge of our sanctification." How straight he looked at the law! So much so, that he entirely overlooked the gospel!! Excusing Bro. W. for a moment, we will hear from Bro. Smith, in his article on "justification by the law," March 24th. I charge these brethren of requiring that justification and righteousness which is of the law. Bro. S. says I misunderstand him, and that there is no necessity for the misunderstanding &c. Now it does seem to me, according to his own showing, that he does require that righteousness and justification which is by the law. Notice what he says. "The dispensation under which we are now placed is neither all law nor all gospel, but a due admixture of the two." Now if I charge Bro. S. in view of this declaration with seeking to be justified by the gospel, will he deny it? Not he. Then why deny the other, since by his own showing we are as much under the law as gospel? But do these brethren believe that the law contains the principles of justification and that it is both the basis and the condition of the promises of God? Yes. Waggoner on the law page 26. "In our examination thus far we have seen, first that the law existed before the Jewish dispensation; hence it cannot be peculiar to that dispensation. Second, by the relation we sustain to the promises of God having the law for their basis or condition &c." Then if the law is the basis or condition of the promises of God, the promises cannot be obtained without complying with the law, it being the condition. This is what I call being saved or obtaining the promises of God by the law; and therefore is nothing less than righteousness or justification "by the law." But Bro. S. tries to escape this as follows: "Know then that we do not seek justification by the law nor expect it on this ground; for we have all sinned, and our justification must come through Christ. But know also that this does not release us from future obedience, (to the law, I understand) and that those only who do the law shall be justified Rom. ii, 13." Again, "When then he (man) transgressed he found himself staggering under a burden which of himself he never could remove." The picture then is before us. 1st, God gave man a perfect law, which contains the conditions of the promises of God. 2nd Man could not keep it. See Waggoner page 5-7. (Note at bottom). He therefore necessarily violated it. Now we see him under the curse, "staggering" under a merciless load that cannot grow lighter, as no obedience of his own can make amends. 3d. Christ comes to him and graciously takes the burden off, and bears it triumphantly away. Now the poor man rejoices as he sees Christ bearing the ponderous load. But alas! Bro. S. informs him that though justified by Christ, though by his grace you have been released, yet "know also that this does not release you from the law, (that very thing which was the burden) and that those only who do the law shall be justified." Thus Bro. Smith's justification by Christ is but nominal; while his justification by the law, is the real. But in conclusion I will just let Bro. Waggoner nail this on Bro. S. and clinch it. Page 57. "This holy law has so long been despised, and rejected of men that some of its friends have so far given way to popular prejudice and early education, as to suppose the doers of the law would not be justified by doing the law, but by faith in Christ; but we trust that all those who have followed us thus far in the examination of the nature of the law will see that it is fully sufficient to justify and protect the observer of it; if it is not, it is weak and unprofitable indeed, and the righteous might well say, it is in vain to serve God." Here, Bro. S., is righteousness, justification, and protection by the law in good earnest. Do you indorse it? If not, please "explain." More anon. "A Friend," WM. G. SPRINGER.