Preble.—“So much on the subject of the moral law, from Paul's letter to the Romans. Now let us turn to his letter to the Galatians, and see what we can find there. In the first place, I wish to quote again, as applicable to the 'law,' what I have already quoted as applicable to the Sabbath: 'But there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.' Gal. i, 7–9.
REPLY.—The reader has seen thus far, and has still further proof here, that Eld. P.'s reasoning is altogether based on assumption. He accuses us of perverting the gospel of Christ. Why does he not show that our views of the moral law are contrary to the gospel? He certainly understands them, or should, before he pretends to write against them. He knows we believe with the apostle that by the moral law is the knowledge of sin. God's great standard of righteousness, the ten commandments, shows that we are sinners. He knows, then, that being convinced of sin, we fly to the gospel for the remedy, and look for redemption and salvation to Jesus Christ. How is this perverting the gospel of Christ, or preaching another gospel, and so subjecting ourselves to the curse? Eld. P., though unintentionally, we doubt not, abuses both Paul and us by such applications of scripture.
Again he assumes, on opening the book of Galatians that Paul there treats exclusively of the moral law. This needs to be proved. A few facts borne continually in mind will help us to understand what Paul has written to the Galatians. It appears from the whole tenor of that epistle that the Galatians had been troubled with Judaizing teachers; that is, those who were endeavoring to enforce upon them the necessity of observing the Jewish ritual, and that through that they were to have justification from their transgressions of the moral law. Here is where the Jews stumbled. They mistook remission in figure through the ceremonial law, for remission in fact, and hence were satisfied with the former, and saw no need of the Saviour. Paul labors to confute this idea, and show them that they can be justified only through Christ. Hence Paul in Galatians frequently uses the word law in a broader sense than merely the ten commandments, and includes in it, those ceremonies which were connected with the transgression of those commandments under that dispensation—a system through which atonement was shadowed forth in figure, and which the Jews had fallen into the error of supposing was atonement in fact. In the light of these statements, which we think will stand the test of criticism, it will be seen as we proceed that Eld. P. in the main portion of his reasoning on Galatians entirely misses the mark.
Preble.—“One more passage I will quote from Paul's letter to the Galatians, which I think applicable to our times, in regard to the 'law,' as well as the apostle's times:
'But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.' Gal. ii, 14–16.
“UNDER THE CURSE.—'For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.' Gal. iii, 10–14.
“How important this testimony of the apostle. And we solemnly warn all those who are trying to 'be justified by the deeds of the law,' to make their escape as soon as possible, and get out from 'under the curse.'
REPLY.—We are not trying to be justified by the law in any sense whatever; hence, Eld. P.'s quotation and remarks are in no wise applicable to us.
Preble.—“But the apostle continues: 'For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.' Then the apostle inquires, 'Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.' Gal. iii, 18, 19, 21–23.
“Thus we see that, although faith is come, yet many keep themselves 'under the law—shut up!' And while they are thus 'shut up' in the old prison-house of the 'law,' yet they still try to teach others who have come out into the broad daylight of the gospel! Take heed, ye teachers of the 'law,' for you 'are under the curse.' Gal. iii, 10.
REPLY.—Still missing the mark. We do not teach the law as those did against whom Paul was writing; hence, there is nothing here applicable to us.
Preble.—“But now let us seriously inquire, WHAT WAS THE LAW FOR? Let us all give audience, and the apostle Paul shall answer: 'Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master.' ”
REPLY.—If we understand Eld. P., he here argues on the assumption that the moral law was the school-master. Being under the school-master, would of course be under obligation to obey the precepts of that law, or the ten commandments; and not being under it, would be to be free from all obligation to obey those precepts. But, says Eld. P., “We are no longer under a school-master.” Then we shall understand him, shall we not, that we need no longer refrain from having other gods, making graven images, taking God's name in vain, breaking the Sabbath, and violating the other six commands which regulate our duty to our fellow men?
Oh, no, he will exclaim, there is the “moral law of the New Testament.” But hold. If the moral law of the New Testament enjoins upon us these same things, as it must do if it is a perfect law, and if it places us under the same restrictions, then it is just as much a school-master as the old law, and being under it, we are just as much under a school-master as before. There is no use in trying to make any distinction, or to evade this point. Let the reader test these arguments of the opposers of the law and Sabbath with this one question. When they bring up such expressions as “justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” “not under a school-master,” &c., ask yourself, Do they mean to teach, by quoting such scriptures, that we are released from the moral duties enjoined in the ten commandments? If they do, then they betray a system of morality that is exceedingly rotten; and if they do not, they are guilty of a style of reasoning that is exceedingly shallow.
But to speak definitely on Gal. iii, 24, Paul does not mean by the word school-master, the ten commandments. What is there in the ten commandments to lead us to Christ? True, they reveal sin, and show us that we are transgressors; but they point out no way of escape, and lead us to no Saviour. What law then did lead to Christ? Answer, That law system by which the sacrifice and priestly work of the Saviour was so clearly shadowed forth. By this it was continually foreshown that a sacrifice was to be made which could take away sin, and a genuine Saviour provided for the world. See how Paul reasons from this system, in the book of Hebrews, to establish the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ. And we are no longer under that system of types and shadows that pointed us forward to a coming Saviour, but under the dispensation in which that Saviour himself acts as our great High Priest above.
Preble.—“May the Lord be praised, we have at last reached the grave of the old dead 'school-master'!
“Now let us take heed, and follow no more the teachings of an old dead 'school-master'! For we170are 'no longer under a school-master,' but under JESUS CHRIST, the Son of God. For 'when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying Abba, Father.' Gal. iv, 4–6. 'Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.' For 'Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.' Gal. v, 1, 4. Therefore, whosoever shall follow that old dead school-master—the 'law'—instead of following Christ: we will say of them as the apostle said of the Galatians: 'ye are fallen from grace.'
REPLY.—Another quite lengthy quotation, having no application to the case in hand; for we repeat again, we seek no justification through the law in any sense; and therefore do not belong to the number whom Paul accuses of falling from grace.
Preble.—“'The Lord forgive me for the error of my head which led me to fall from grace,' and thus go back and try for three years to be 'justified by the deeds of the law,' by keeping the seventh-day Sabbath!'”
REPLY.—We now have a definition of the expression 'justified by the deeds of the law;' it is 'keeping the seventh-day Sabbath!' It is a pity that Paul, who has had so much to say against attempting to be justified by the law, had not forever settled the question, if he meant the keeping of the Sabbath, by simply informing us of the fact!
But if Eld. P. was so blind, even though it was nineteen years ago, as to try to be justified by keeping the Sabbath, we join in his fervent request, that the Lord may forgive him. And we will also add, The Lord forgive him for endeavoring now to be justified while living in disobedience to the requirement of the Father, unaltered and unrepealed, which still says, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
Preble.—“Let us take heed, and attend to the warning the apostle gave to the Philippians:
'Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.'
“Why, Paul, 'no confidence in the flesh,' or in the 'law!' 'No confidence,' whatever, although he had tried it thoroughly, as he continues and says:
'Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law blameless.' Verses 4–6.
REPLY.—We are astonished that Eld. P., having once acknowledged the clear distinction between the ceremonial and the moral laws, should now betray such utter confusion on the subject, as to apply the word 'flesh' to the moral law. Is the moral law ever called the flesh, in the Bible? Is it numbered among the carnal ordinances? Never. Paul says, Rom. vii, 14, that the law is spiritual, not carnal, or fleshly. What law then is designated by the term, the flesh? Answer, That law 'which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal [fleshly] ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation,' Heb. ix, 10, or 'added till the seed should come.' Gal. iii, 19.
And Paul, in the very scripture that Eld. P. has quoted, signifies, as plainly as language can do it, what law he is speaking of. He says, 'If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more.' Then follows the reason: 'Circumcised the eighth day.' Ah! then, circumcision forms a part of what Paul here denominates the flesh. But was circumcision any part of the moral law? No; and Eld. P. has once admitted this. Paul goes on to say, that he was of the stock of Israel, and of the tribe of Benjamin, and a Pharisee. In the light of these statements there is no excuse for mistaking the law that Paul here refers to.
Preble.—“Now, for a few moments, let us attend to the apostle's rule of working out 'loss and gain.'
'But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith; that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.' Phil. iii, 7–11.
REPLY.—Another irrelevant quotation. We know of no observer of the seventh-day Sabbath who thereby depends on his own righteousness. We all look to Christ for righteousness, and seek it through faith in him. Our only apology for so frequent a repetition on this point, is that our opponents so continually persist in misrepresenting us here.
Preble.—“Let us now attend to the apostle's conclusion of this whole matter; for he says: 'Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.' Phil. iii, 15–17.
“Here I must repeat: 'Let us, therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded;' and let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing;' and let us 'mark them which walk so,' as we have the apostle 'for an ensample.' But did Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, ever teach them to observe 'the seventh-day Sabbath?' Never! Did he ever shun to declare to them 'all the counsel of God?' Never! Did he ever keep back any thing 'that was profitable' for the people to hear? Never! But he surely did keep back the seventh-day Sabbath! Therefore, it was not 'profitable' for him to teach it; and as we have him for an ensample, we had better 'mind the same thing, and walk by the same rule.' Amen. But those who choose to follow the teachings of the old dead 'school-master,' instead of following Christ and the apostles, will probably teach the seventh-day Sabbath.”
REPLY.—In answer to such language as this, from a strenuous Sunday-keeper, we have only to say, “Did Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, ever teach them to observe the first-day Sabbath? 'Never!' Did he ever shun to declare to them 'all the counsel of God?' Never! Did he ever keep back anything 'that was profitable' for the people to hear? Never! 'But he surely did keep back' the first-day Sabbath!—'Therefore, it was not profitable for him to teach it; and as we have him for an ensample, we had better 'mind the same thing, and walk by the same rule.' Amen. But those who choose to follow the teachings of the 'Mother of Harlots,' instead of following Christ and the apostles, will probably teach the first-day Sabbath.”
Preble.—“When, or at what point of the world's history did the old school-master die? To answer this question, I will begin with a few words of the closing part of the Old Testament:
'Remember ye the law of Moses, my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb, for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah, the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord; and he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.' Mal. iv, 4–6.
“What law is here spoken of? The one the Lord commanded unto Moses in 'Horeb.' For whom was this law given? 'For all Israel.' Will this law come to an end when 'Elijah' comes? Let us now pass to the New Testament, and we shall see: 'For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' Matt. xi, 13–15. Hence, 'if ye will receive it,' 'Elijah,' (Hebrew) or 'Elias,' (Greek,) has come; and the law given to Moses 'in Horeb' then, and there, in the time of 'John,' deceased? 'For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.' Here, then, is the place where the old 'school-master' died. 'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' But 'Elijah,' or 'Elias,' or 'John,' was only to 'prepare' the way of the Lord Jesus; and thus it is said:
‘John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake. He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for he was before me. And of his fullness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.' John i, 15–17.
“Hence the apostle says: 'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doeth those things shall live by them. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down from above; or, Who shall descend into the deep? that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' Rom. x, 6–9.
“So we see that Christ is the end of the old law of works; but he is also the beginning of the new law of faith. And so it is written of Christ: 'There ariseth another priest, who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.' Heb. vii, 15, 16. Praise God! 'Not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.' Amen.”
REPLY.—We find in the above another bundle of fallacies, which have become so numerous that we have ceased to number them. The principal ones contained in this last quotation from Eld. P., may be mentioned as follows:
1. The law spoken of in Mal. iv, 4–6, is the law which God commanded to Moses in Horeb, for all Israel, &c. Was that the ten commandments? By no means; for God did not command that law to Moses, for him to make known to the people, but spoke it to the people, direct, himself, from the summit of Sinai; neither did he trust the writing of it to Moses, or any other man, but wrote it himself on the tables of stone. Thus Eld. P. is again entirely off the question by marvelously confounding laws which he has once acknowledged to be separate and distinct.
2. There is nothing in Mal. iv, 4–6, to intimate that even the law of Moses, of which it speaks, (not the ten commandments,) would come to an end at the commencement of John's ministry.
3. The expression, 'The law and the prophets prophesied until John,' does not teach that the law there ceased. Luke says, The law and the prophets were [were preached] until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, &c. Luke xvi, 16. But if this shows, as Eld. P. claims, that the law there ceased, it shows just as much that the prophets also ceased. If the law 'there, in the time of John, deceased,' the prophets then and there deceased also; and to be consistent he must abandon his teaching relative to the book of Daniel, and every other Old Testament prophet.
What then does the expression mean? Simply this: The law and the prophets prophesied, or were preached, until John, but since then the kingdom of God is preached. That is, all that the people had, up to the time of John, was the law and the prophets, but since then they have had the preaching of the kingdom of God, in addition to the law and prophets.
4. There is only one point mentioned in all the New Testament where anything is said to have ceased, to have been done away or abolished; and that is at the cross of Christ. Seemingly aware that this fact is essential to his purpose, Eld. P. then endeavors to throw an air of indefiniteness over the whole, as though John and Christ were about the same, and the testimony concerning either equally applicable to the case in hand. This method of reasoning will not do. If the law ceased at John, it did not cease at Christ; and if it ceased at Christ it did not cease at John. But Eld. P. has declared positively that in the time of John, the law 'there deceased;' and yet he quotes the testimony of Paul, as applicable to the same event, that Christ is the end of the law. If the law ceased at John's ministry, John was the end of it, not Christ, using the word end as Eld. P. understands it; but if Christ is the end of the law, the end of its existence, as Eld. P. holds, then it ceased with him, not with John. Both positions cannot be true. Our opponents are called upon to state definitely which they will take. Such indirect modes of argument will not answer.
We have given the true meaning of the expression, 'The law and the prophets were until John,' and will now say a few words relative to the expression, 'Christ is the end of the law for righteousness.' Rom. x, 4. Our opponents almost uniformly quote as much as this, 'Christ is the end of the law,' and there stop, intending to convey the impression that Christ put an end to the existence of the law. But the reader will notice that Paul is careful to add, 'for righteousness;' 'Christ is the end of the law for righteousness;' and he does not stop there, but continues, 'To every one that believeth.' Christ's being the end of the law, then, has to do only with believers; and if end there means, end of existence, the171law is only abolished for Christians, and is still binding on the great mass of the world, who are yet in unbelief and sin. This is a sufficient condemnation of Eld. P.'s theory, which is that the law has never been binding on the Gentiles, be they saints or sinners. But we will not leave it here. The expression, 'for righteousness,' shows us in what sense Christ is the end of the law to the believer. It shows us that the law spoken of is the standard of righteousness, or that which is designed to secure righteousness. It shows that we in our lives have come short of that righteousness, and that Christ comes in to fill up the complement for us; that is, he accomplishes in the believer the purpose of the law, by securing to him perfect righteousness. Thus we can see how it is that this action of Christ affects only the believer. It is only to those who come to Christ for the pardon of their past transgressions of the law, that he becomes the end, object, purpose, or design, of the law, by imputing to them his own righteousness. If Eld. P. has ever consulted Webster on the word, end, he has found a definition like this: 'The ultimate point or thing at which one aims or directs his views; the object intended to be reached or accomplished by any action or scheme; purpose intended; scope; aim; drift.' And if he has ever looked for its definition in Greek, he has found Greenfield giving one meaning as follows: 'End, scope, object, principal point, the sum of anything;' and then referring to this very passage, Rom. x, 4, as an example of its use in this sense. And if he has ever consulted such passages as Rom. xv, 9; 2 Cor. ii, 9; 1 Tim. i, 5; Heb. xiii, 7; Jas. v, 11, &c., he has seen some instances of a like use of the word in the Bible. As for instance, 'Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord;' surely not the end of his existence.