JUSTIFICATION BY THE LAW.
By Editor
UNDER this heading will be found in another column an article on which the readers as well as the writer may be entitled to a word of explanation. Some time since, the writer, Wm. G. Springer, wished to engage with us in an investigation of the perpetuity of the moral law. We replied that, for our part, our views were already set before the world in our books and pamphlets; that if he took any exceptions to these and would name them, we would endeavor to defend the doctrine of the books. He answered that he preferred the living writer, because he could explain when called upon; but the pamphlets could not. Again, to this we replied, that wherein he wished explanation from the pamphlets, we would answer in their place; that he might consider said pamphlets the opening argument in the affirmative, and follow with whatever strictures he might see fit to make in the negative. The article referred to is his opening argument. As such we are somewhat surprised at it. It partakes so much of a personal nature, that, were it not for seeming to transfer the controversy, we should hand it over to Bro. Waggoner to answer the imputation of looseness and license in his quotations of holy scripture, as he might think the occasion demanded. In our remarks on Righteousness by the Law, in Review of March 24, we concealed Bro. S. under the cognomen of "friend" for his own sake; for we apprehended that it would save him no small degree of mortification should we suppress his name in connection with a misapprehension of so plain an item of our faith. If he has no sensitiveness on this point, we are confident we shall leave him nothing in the end over which to glory. The burden of his objection to the perpetuity of the law(!) seems to be the idea he has that by it we seek our justification. It will be sufficient to meet his remark on Ex. xxxi, 13 with a simple denial. The Sabbath as quoted from that passage, in "Law of God," page 28, is not used in a sense different from that in which Moses used it, as we shall presently show. He takes exceptions to the remark that if we strike from existence the Sabbath, we search in vain for a substitute as a sign of our sanctification. Having patiently "hearkened" and heard, we will notice the texts he quotes to sustain himself here. They are, 1st. Eph. v, 26. On this text we agree that Christ gave himself that he might cleanse and sanctify the church. 2d. Acts ii, 28. On this we also agree that baptism is one of the steps of obedience for (in order to) the remission of sins. 3d. Rom. viii, 16. Here the witness of the Spirit is spoken of, that we are the children of God. But who has this witness? Is it law-keepers or law-breakers? the observers, or the transgressors of the Sabbath? Assuredly the former; for it is of the children of God that the Apostle speaks. 4th. 1 Cor. i, 30. In this text it is said that Christ is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption. To which we reply, Most true! and in this fact we rejoice and glory as much as others. To sum up the evidence of these texts, we find that they speak of Christ through whom we obtain sanctification; of baptism as one of the steps by which we obtain it; and of the Holy Spirit as the agent in the accomplishment of the work: but they say nothing of the sign by which we may know that it is the Lord that doth sanctify us. The passages therefore are nothing to the point in question. Thus far Bro. S. himself has searched "in vain." The proposition will stand until he meets with better success than is here presented. But says S., "It is Sabbaths (plural) in Ex. xxxi, 13, and not 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, to get a knowledge of our sanctification." True, it says Sabbaths, in Ex. xxxi, 13; but mark, it says also, "My Sabbaths!" and when we reflect that God never applies this expression to the ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews, but always restricts it to the seventh day of each week, which is his Sabbath, we see at once the falsity of our friend's conclusion. But verses 16 and 17, set the matter in its true light on his own ground of reasoning. Hear them: "Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath (singular number) throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It (the Sabbath, singular number) is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever." Here is singular number enough, it would seem, for even Bro. Springer himself. But all this he ignores in his hot haste to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. We would therefore inquire of him whether the sanctification of the Jews was accomplished by a different means from that of the church now, that it should require a different sign; or how the Sabbath could be a more appropriate sign of the sanctification of the Israelites anciently than of that of the true Israel of God at the present time. The remainder of Bro. S.'s article has reference to our remarks in Review No. 18. He still understands us as seeking to be justified by the law. And considering all that has been said on the subject, and the access he has had to our publications, we are at a loss to conjecture by what means we can rend the veil and let a ray of light into the chambers of a mind, which seem to be thus lamentably darkened. He has succeeded completely in turning from its legitimate meaning, nearly every passage to which he has had occasion to refer. If he is thus unfortunate in his understanding of the holy Scriptures, we cannot wonder at his conclusions. To be sure, we believe that God gave to man at first a perfect and immutable law, and that that law is the basis and conditions of the promises of God. But why does W. G. S. accuse us of saying that man could not keep it, and therefore necessarily became a transgressor. We have never said it. We have not the hardihood, which he would impute to us, to charge the Almighty with giving man a law which he could not keep, and then taking vengeance on him for not keeping it. This charge belongs on other shoulders. Adam could, and should, have kept the law. His violation of it "brought death into the world, and all our woe." But how was it after the fall? Could men then keep the law? Of themselves they could not. Must they then necessarily violate it? Not even then; for help was immediately laid upon One that was mighty, and by God's grace through faith in him, they could receive strength sufficient for this service. This is the very doctrine of that note which Bro. S. holds up as an absolute declaration that man could not keep the law, and is therefore necessarily a transgressor. Let us read it. Law, p. 57. Note: "By this we would not be understood as teaching that any one since the fall of Adam, can do the law unaided by faith in Christ." This note then has no reference to the time before the fall of Adam, but since. It says that unaided by faith in Christ we cannot now keep it. What is the converse of this? Aided by faith in Christ we can keep it. Yes. Then is any man, even now, necessarily a transgressor? No! Why then does W. G. S. make such unwarrantable use of the language! He further represents us as saying, after the sinner is justified by Christ, "Know also that this does not release you from the law, (the very thing which was the burden)." We did not say that, being justified by Christ, we were not released from the law; but, that we were not released from future obedience. We are released from the law as a conditional covenant of life, but not as a rule of moral obligation. Second. The law is not the very thing which constitutes the "burden," as our friend has it, but the sinner's sin and consequent condemnation; and from this we are freed; for says the Apostle, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." Rom. viii, 1. The law we say is the basis and condition of the promises of God. To inherit these promises, then, men must be law-keepers either in reality or by imputation? Yes. Law-keepers in reality they are not; for they have all transgressed it. How then shall they become such by imputation? Answer, Through Christ. Through him their past transgressions are pardoned; from him they receive strength to render obedience in future; and thus in the eye of God they can be regarded as though they never had transgressed his law, and their title to the promises be redeemed. So God can be just and yet the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Thanks be to God for this wonderful and benevolent plan! As regards S.'s closing extract from Bro. Waggoner's pamphlet, on the justifying nature of the law, which he triumphantly, though blindly, holds up as a clincher on us, we have only to remark that those are the very ideas we were trying to present, when, in our remarks in Review No. 18, we made reference to Adam in the garden of Eden. We thus asked the question, If Adam had not sinned, what would have been the ground of his justification? We showed that it would have been obedience, and that justification would then have been by the law, and Christ need not and would not have died. Bro. Waggoner presented the same idea, when a few lines following the quotation our friend has made, page 58, he says: "If any are yet disposed to deny the justifying nature of the law, we would inquire of them, if man had never broken the law, would he have needed a Saviour? Or, if Christ had broken the law, could he have been a Saviour?" Did Bro. S. read as far as this? Has he ever tried to answer this question? Let him show us the result if he has. To say that the law would have justified its observers had they never broken it; and to say that we have now placed ourselves in a position by sin where we cannot be justified by it, are two distinct things as all must see; and there is no contradiction between them. If he still takes exception to the declaration that only the doers of the law shall be justified, his controversy is with the Apostle, not with us; for it is the Apostle who says this. And if any wish to inquire into the philosophy of this—how it is that a man must be justified by Christ, and yet cannot be justified without doing the law—a few considerations will make it plain: The first step towards justification by Christ, is repentance. Repentance of what? Our former sins or transgressions of the law. And when we repent and ask pardon, we do it with an implied promise, and on an implied condition, that we will live in obedience for the future. There is no repentance nor pardon separate from this. Then when we repent of our past transgressions and promise, through grace, obedience for the future, then and not till then can we be justified by Christ. Thus it is that only when we do the law can we be justified. To think to be justified while living in sin is the most blind and presumptuous folly. We have now noticed every point in Bro. S.'s article which needs comment. In conclusion, let us ask him a few questions to be answered as the next step in this controversy: First. As we are required to develop moral character must not God give us a standard by which to do it? Second. Where do we find this standard? Third. If man had never broken the law would he have needed a Saviour? Fourth. Will God judge the world at last by diverse rules of judgment? Fifth. After we are justified by Christ, shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Sixth. If we do not continue in sin what shall be our course of action? We thus transfer to his shoulders the onus probandi in this matter. We thus place in his hand the laboring oar, and wait to see what headway he will make against the mighty current of reason and revelation with which he has to contend.