Untitled article by W. G. SPRINGER

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 12, 1859

PERPETUITY OF THE MORAL LAW NO. 2.

By W. G. SPRINGER

BRO. SMITH: The Herald of April 14th is at hand. Your remarks in reference to concealing me "under the cognomen of friend," and concerning my "personalities," I will try to cover with the veil of charity and let them pass. I suspect however, that you are some like the fish that swallowed the baited fish-hook; he thought the bait did well enough, but was rather pointed. Let us keep the spirit of the Master, Bro. Smith, in all that we say.

The proposition we are discussing is, is the law perpetual. From the number of points raised, and the side-issues formed in your last, I perceive the question is growing more and more complicated.

What do you understand, and therefore mean by the term "the law?" 2nd. By the term "the moral law?" 3d. By the law of Moses? My reason for calling on you for Bible definitions of these terms is that you charge me with making "unwarrantable use of your language." Perhaps the trouble is that I do not understand you. For as the clown was by the Indian, I know very well what you say, but I do not know what you mean. You say, "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 condition 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. Adam could and should have kept the law." Now in the name of reason what does Bro. Smith mean here. God gave Adam an immutable, (unchangeable) law; that law is (present tense), the condition of the promises of God. Yes! we are under the law given to Adam in the paradisiacal garden; the law pertaining to the forbidden tree in the midst of the garden; and that law is the condition of the promises of God now.

I confess myself inexpressibly surprised at this. Are there no "dark chambers" in Bro. Smith's mind here? Is there any "hot haste" in this? Of course then so far as my present article is concerned, I must go upon the supposition that the term

"the law," in our proposition means the law regulating the relation that existed between the fleshly Adam, and the literal fruit of the garden of Eden. This also fixes the meaning of correlative terms. "Obedience" for example. This, Bro. Smith indicates that I deny, because I deny the perpetuity of the law; as though Paul never spoke of the "obedience of faith," the "obedience of the gospel" &c. When this "first law" was in force, that there was a Sabbath command in existence, no man can prove. Then the obedience of the law was eating apples, and not eating of the forbidden tree. So the observance of the Sabbath forms no part of the obedience of "the law" which Bro. Smith says is the condition of the promises of God. Thus he is stranded according to his own showing. I would fain wait here until Bro. Smith has time to take this back and express his views more advisedly.

Bro. Smith reasons as though there never was more than one dispensation, as though God never gave a law that expired of its own limitation; as though all the laws God ever gave were all perpetual. He says, "Adam could, and should have kept the law; his violation brought death upon us. But could men keep the law after the fall? 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 for this service." Service indeed! What service? Why keeping the law. What law? Why the law given to Adam regulating his eating apples in the garden. There never was but two persons under that law—viz. Adam and Eve.

Shall I say that if Bro. Smith has no sensitiveness on this point, I am confident I shall leave him nothing in the end over which to glory?

But two more points here. 1st. The disability of man accruing to him in the fall per consequence.

2nd. The faith and grace of Christ, placed by Bro. Smith 4003 years before Christ was born.

1 How was man disabled to obey God in consequence of violating a command of God? This Bro. Smith has not shown. Nor can he show it. It is an old fogyism that has been sung upon the "harp of a thousand strings" until many have been made to believe it. The Bible knows nothing of such a declaration. Man in regard to ability, can only be disabled or disqualified to obey a law, or command of God, in one or all of these ways, viz. 1. Mentally, 2nd. Physically, or 3d. to be debarred the privilege. Bro. Smith cannot take the ground of the first or second, for Adam was not injured mentally when God came to reckon with him; he very well understood the next command, to go forth out of the garden; and the next to "earn his bread by the sweat of his face." He was not physically disabled, for he went out of the garden, and did ever after earn his bread by the sweat of his face. As to the 3d. we are debarred from privileges of blessings in consequence of violation; but it is an absurdity to say, that because we have disobeyed God once, he will debar us from ever obeying him afterwards.

It is an admitted fact, that the same cause under like circumstances will always produce the same effect. Then if God placed man under a law or command, requiring obedience, and he violated it, and by consequence was disabled to obey God afterwards; then, as Christ has given us the commands of the gospel, and we disobey them, we are by consequence ever after unable to obey them. Oh fatalism!

But to make it clear that I have not overwrought the point, notice the like circumstances of the parties.

Adam had the ability to obey or keep the law in his position; no more, no less. Since the fall we have the aid of Christ; by faith through grace we are enabled to obey the gospel; we have this ability restored to us; no more, no less. Then upon the hypothesis of Bro. Smith, if we disobey, we never can keep the commands of the Lord any more, unless by the aid of a greater and higher divine interposition than Christ. Get away from it who can. But 2nd. Bro. Smith thinks that Adam immediately after the fall, had the faith and grace of Christ to "aid him," without which he could not obey God. Did faith in Christ enable him to go back into the garden and observe the forbidden tree? Did it enable him to go out of the garden at the command of God? Did it enable him to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow? Bro. Smith sees more here than he can find in the Bible. This "a mixture" of which he speaks, this merging of the various laws, conditions and provisions of the different dispensations into one, placing the faith of Christ in the day of Adam and saddling the law given to Adam upon us, is the veriest delusion.

"Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Tim. ii, 15. 'Tis true 'Abel offered his sacrifices by faith,' but it was faith in God who "testified of his gifts." So of all the patriarchs. So of ancient Israel. Adam and the patriarchs had the gospel in embryo. Abraham had the gospel in promise. He and his descendants had the gospel in type. But it remains for Christians to have the gospel in demonstration and in fact. We are not under the same dispensation, provisions and conditions that Adam was—that the patriarchs were—that the Jews were.

We are not under the 'old covenant' at 'Horeb' or law of Moses as such; but we are under the gospel, "the new covenant as such," which embraces as such, the whole duty of man, both religious and moral; here is an issue.

Next, I understand you to contend that the observance of the seventh day is the means by which we have "the sign" and "certain knowledge" of our sanctification, and that there is no substitute for it. And I understand you to take the ground (in your question) that we are sanctified in the same way and by the same means that the Jews were, and therefore should have the same sign.

Now this whole thing is an unscriptural, so out of keeping with the change of "priesthood," "of law," and especially the law of pardon, that unless you offer some feasible proof of it, I shall not consider it worthy of any future reference. My proof in the negative is as clear as need be. You admit that "the Holy Spirit is the agent in the accomplishment of this work, (sanctification.)" Did I not prove by Acts ii, 38, how we got the "gift of the Spirit" by repentance and baptism? Did the Jews get the Spirit in this way? not a bit of it. Did I not prove by Rom. viii, 16, "the Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God"? Can we be the children of God and have his Spirit as a certain knowledge of it, and yet have no knowledge of being sanctified, or set apart to the service of God? Downright folly to reason thus.

There is no Sabbath keeping in this matter under the new economy. Observing the "my Sabbaths" of the old dispensation was a sign between God and the Jews that he had taken them from Egyptian bondage and had set them apart to his service. But that these "Sabbaths," (ingeniously construed into the singular by Bro. S.) are made either a sign, or means, of our sanctification now, Bro. Smith will never show.

Again you say "If any wish to inquire into the philosophy of this—how 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 of our former transgressions of the law. And when we repent and ask pardon, we do it with an implied promise, and on an implied condition of our obedience (to the law I understand) in future. There is no repentance nor pardon separate from this."

This whole philosophy is false—premises and conclusion. Our repentance is not the first step towards justification by Christ—give the proof. This is inconsistent in the fact that it would make the Gentiles repent of violating a law that they were never under; will you take issue here? But even if both Jews and Gentiles were under the law, the conclusion in effect, makes Christ a mere expedient, not to redeem us "by a new and living way," but to reinstate us from a helpless condemnation by the law, into a condition where we can obey the law!! And upon the principle of like cause, like effect, when we violate this merciless law again—as bad as ever!! our whole redemption is to be worked out again. Why not Bro. Smith come right out and speak like an apostle?—why not say, "We are become dead to the law by the body of Christ?" Rom. vii, 4. Why not say like Paul "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." But Bro. Smith has in effect, given up this whole controversy. He says "We are released from the law as a conditional covenant of life." Very well; that is enough for me. That is just what I believe. Then what signifies observing the Sabbath? or keeping the law any way? since God has not promised "life" to us upon the condition of its observance. You may say it is a rule of moral action. But what signifies the rule, if God has placed no condition of life in it? So then I have proved both by Paul and Bro. Smith, that we are not under the law. There is no need then of answering your six questions at present. I will notice them in future.

W. G. SPRINGER.