p. 1 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 2, No. 35. (8/17/1876)

Signs of the Times

Aug 17, 1876

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Aug 17, 1876

The Atonement.—No. 12.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

Besides the dignity of our sacrifice, there are other reasons why it was necessary that the exalted Son of God should die for our sin.

As a man could not make an atonement for himself, being himself under condemnation, so no one of the race could make atonement for another, all being alike involved in sin. And we may go further than this: Were a part of the human race unfallen, or free from sin, they could make no atonement for the other part, inasmuch as they would still be the creatures of God, and the service of their lives would be due to him. Therefore, should they offer their lives to God for their fellow-creatures they would offer that to which they had no absolute right. To illustrate: He who owed all that he possessed, could not justly use his possessions to pay the debts of another.

And the same reasoning would hold good in the case of the angels. They are but the “fellow-servants” of all on earth who serve God. Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9. The life of an angel would be utterly inadequate for the redemption of man, as the angels are dependent creatures as man is, and as really owe to God the service of their lives as man does.

And again, as man has been in rebellion, were it possible for him to extricate himself from his present difficulty, he could give no security—no satisfactory assurance—that he would never again turn from his duty. And of the angels, we must say that sin has entered their ranks; the “Son of the Morning” lifted up himself against God. Any redemption wrought by them, or by beings of that order, would still leave distrust in regard to the security of the government from any future attempts against its authority.

But there was one Being to whom this reasoning and these remarks would not apply. It was the Son of God. He was the delight of the Father; glorified with him before the world was; adored and worshiped by angels. Prov. 8:30; John 17:5; Heb. 1:1. All creatures were made by and for him, and he upheld all things by the word of his Father’s power. John 1:1–3; Col. 1:15–17. Heb. 1:3. Enjoying the glory of the Father, he sat with him upon the throne from which all law proceeded. Now it is evident that he to whom such remarks will apply could make an offering that would meet the necessities of the case in every respect. He possessed the requisite dignity to magnify and vindicate the honor of the law of his Father in suffering its penalty. He was so far removed by nature and position from the rebellion that he could not be suspected of any complicity with it. He was so well acquainted with his Father’s holiness and justice that he could realize, as no other could, the awful condition of the sinner, and the terrible desert of his sin. He was so pure and exalted that his sufferings and death would have the desired effect upon the minds of those who were the recipients of his grace, to produce in them an abasement of themselves and an abhorrence of the sins which caused him to suffer, and thus to guard against a future rebellion amongst them whom he redeemed. And he left that throne of glory and of power and took upon him the nature of fallen man. In him were blended “the brightness of the Father’s glory,” and the weakness of “the seed of Abraham.” In himself he united the Lawgiver to the lawbreaker—the Creator to the creature. He was a connecting link between Heaven and earth; with one hand on the throne of God, and the other reaching down to grasp the poor, ruined creatures under the condemnation of a holy law. He “humbled himself” as it is not possible for any other to do. “He was rich” in a sense, and to an extent, that no other was. He had something to offer, of value far beyond our comprehension, and he freely gave it all for us. For our sakes he became poor. He left that glory to take upon himself grief, and toil, and pain, and shame, and to suffer even unto death.

“O Lamb of God, was ever pain, Was ever love, like thine?”

Well might an inspired one exclaim, “Oh! the depths of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” Well might he pray that we “may be able to comprehend with all saints, what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge.”

With this clear testimony before us, we are better prepared to appreciate the Law of God, to the honor of which such an amazing sacrifice has been offered. If we estimate it according to the price paid for its vindication, we are lost in wonder, and can only pray with David, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Ps. 119:18. The law is holy and just, and without a sacrificial offering, man must have perished. And what an offering! the brightest ornament of Heaven, by whom the Eternal Father made all things, who was worthy to receive the worship of angels, became obedient to death to redeem guilty man from the curse of his Father’s law, thus showing to a wondering universe that the law cannot be set aside, nor its judgments reversed. Truly has the Lord fulfilled his promise to “magnify the law and make it honorable.” Isa. 42:21. All the statements of the Bible writers are shown by this to be fully warranted, in regard to its perfection, its completeness, as containing the whole duty of man, and therefore the elements of justification, being a rule of holiness, etc.; also the remark previously made, that the holiness of this law, and of course of those who would keep it perfectly, is that which grows out of the attributes of God, as pure and changeless as Heaven itself.

And we leave it to the candid judgment of those who lightly esteem and wantonly break the law, if God in justice spared not his Son, his well-beloved Son, in whom he greatly delighted, but let him suffer its penalty when he took its transgressions upon him, how can you hope to escape his justice and his wrath in the great coming day, if you continue to transgress it? Can you hope that God will be more favorable to you if sin be found upon you in that day than he was to his Son? Do not abuse his mercy, because he grants the “remission of sins that are past,” by claiming indulgence for sins in the future. Be warned in time, for Christ is not the minister of sin, but of righteousness. He will not save you in sin, but from sin. While the carnal mind is enmity against God, and not subject to his law, the Christian can say, “I delight in the law of God.” Rom. 7:22; 8:7.

As an excuse for rejecting the law of God it is often said that we cannot be justified by the law. That is at least as much as an insinuation that they who keep the law seek to be justified by it. But this is a great mistake. They who know enough of the principles of this law to love it, well know that it is too holy, just, and good, to justify a sinner. And because all have sinned against it, all are condemned by it, and none can be justified by it. See Rom. 3:19, 20. It is not the fault of the law that man is not justified by it; had he obeyed it, as was his duty to do, he would have been justified by it, for the apostle says, “The doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2:13.

Charity leads us to presume that they who offer this objection do not realize that the Scriptures make a distinction between justification and salvation. If we only had regard to original justice, there could be no difference; i. e., if a man had never sinned he would have been justified, and of course saved, by his obedience. But this original or personal justice no one now possesses. Hence, while the principles cannot change, and the rule of justification is ever the same, the means are entirely different from what they would be if man had never sinned. Here is where many err. They suppose, or seem to suppose, that if the law ceases to be the means of justification, it ceases also to be the rule. They do not judge of the law by its nature or original object, but from a partial view of the position of its transgressor. The law, as a rule of right, will form a perfect character, but cannot reform an imperfect one. The rule of the mechanic will determine or point out a right angle on the end of a board he is framing; and if the board is square—if the angle is right, it is justified or proved right by the rule. But if the angle is not right, the rule will point out the inaccuracy, but will not make it right. That must be effected by another tool. But if the saw is the means of making the proper angle on the board, does the saw therefore become the rule of determining angles or measurements? By no means. And there is precisely this difference between the law and the gospel. “By the law is the knowledge of sin;” but the gospel is the remedy. The law points out the errors of character, the gospel reforms them. The law being the only rule of right, “the doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2:13. This is but plain justice, for no one can suppose that the man who did the law—who obeyed God in all his life—would be condemned. But Paul also says that all have sinned; and from this he draws the very evident conclusion, “Therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified.” Rom. 3:20. So we are justified now “freely by his grace;” entirely by faith; works do not enter into our justification. And why not? Because, as the apostle shows, this justification by faith has respect to “the remission of sins that are past.” Rom. 3:25. Over these our future acts of obedience can have no influence or control.

It seems as if every one ought to see how absurd it is to infer that the sinner justified by grace or pardon is under no further obligation to keep that law by which, as a sinner, he cannot be justified. They who thus teach cannot realize how destructive is that view of every principle of right and justice; how it dishonors the gospel of Christ; how it tends to pervert a holy gospel of love to a mere system of license. Of all the abuses the gospel has ever received at the hands of its professed friends, this is the deepest. It is contrary to Scripture and to all just reasoning. Ask the advocate of that theory if the law of his State will justify the thief in stealing, or the murderer in killing. He will answer, No; the law condemns such actions. Ask him how the criminal can escape the true desert of his crimes, and he will reply, Only by the governor’s pardon. Ask again, If the law condemns the transgressor, and he can be justified by pardon, does that pardon release him from obedience to the law, so that he may thereafter disregard its claims? Will he affirm this? Will he tell you that that pardon thereafter becomes the rule of life to such a man? And if the pardoned one should again be committed for crime, will the jury try him and the judge condemn him by the governor’s pardon, or by the statute of the State? Could we get any to take the same unreasonable position in regard to the law of the State that many take in regard to the law of God? Not one. If angels ever weep at the blind folly of mortals, it seems that such teachings furnish an occasion. To see men of talent, of learning, of apparent piety, strip the plan of salvation of every principle of justice, pervert it to a system of license, draw conclusions directly contrary to reason and common sense, and argue on the divine government as they would be ashamed to argue in respect to the government of the State; surely this is enough to fill the Heavens with astonishment.

Let it be distinctly noted that a moral duty, whether it be called law or gospel, cannot justify a sinner. That law which points out sin, which is therefore the rule of right, will not justify. This is the teaching of Rom. 3:20, 21. It is singular indeed that they who teach the abrogation of the original law, and its insufficiency to justify, and who hold that all that is binding in the law is incorporated in the gospel, really teach justification by law—by the same system that points out sin, which Paul calls “the law.” This is contrary to reason, and to the apostle’s words in Rom. 3:20. The truth is evidently this: The gospel upholds the law and enforces it upon the conscience, and incorporates it into the life of the believer. But it does not abrogate law, nor release the believer from obedience to it; nor does it incorporate law into itself so as to have a blending of the two in one. The difference between the law and the gospel is as distinct now as it was in the days when the gospel was preached to the sinners in the wilderness. Heb. 4:1. The law is moral; sin is immorality; the gospel is the remedy. Medicine may restore health, but health is not medicine.

This matter may be tested by the following plain statement: The blood of Christ, the blood of the covenant, is that whereby we have remission of sin. See Heb. 9:22; Rom. 3:25. And this is freely and exclusively by faith or grace. Hence, baptism may be a gospel condition of justification because it is not any part of the original obligation or moral duty. If it were moral duty it could not be performed for remission of sin, simply because as such it would be required on its own account. So the commandment which says, “Thou shalt not steal,” cannot be incorporated into the same system and take part in the work of remission, being itself a moral duty. How reasonable is the conditional plan which says, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin.” And how absurd it would be to read, Thou shalt not kill for the remission of sin; or, Honor thy father and mother for the remission of sin. It appears absurd, as I have stated, whether these be called law or gospel, to claim justification or remission through them. But they who teach the abrogation of the law, and the incorporation of these commandments into the gospel are responsible for this absurdity. It belongs to their system.

The Signs of the Times.

The Lord's Prayer.

[The following beautiful paraphrase is credited to M. Pierre Bernard.]

Our Father By right of creation, By bountiful provision, By gracious adoption;

Who art in Heaven— The throne of thy glory, The portion of thy children, The temple of thy angels.

Hallowed be thy name— By the thoughts of our hearts, By the words of our lips, By the works of our hands.

Thy kingdom come— Of Providence to defend us, Of grace to refine us, Of glory to crown us.

Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven— Toward us without resistance, By us without compulsion, Universally without exception, Eternally without declension.

Give us this day our daily bread— Of necessity for our bodies, Of eternal life for our souls.

And forgive us our trespasses— Against the commands of thy law, Against the grace of thy gospel;

As we forgive those that trespass against us— By defaming our characters, By embezzling our property, By abusing our person;

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil— Of overwhelming afflictions, Of worldly enticements, Of Satan's devices, Of error's seduction, Of sinful affections;

For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever— Thy kingdom governs all, Thy power subdues all, Thy glory is above all.

Amen.

As it is in thy purpose, So it is in thy promises, So be it in our prayers, So it shall be to thy praise.

—Western Home Journal.

Protestantism.

MR. DOWLING in his History of Romanism uses the following emphatic language concerning Protestants:—

The Bible, I say, the Bible only, is the religion of the Protestants! Nor is it of any account in the estimation of the genuine Protestant how early a doctrine originated, if it is not found in the Bible. He learns from the New Testament itself that there were errors in the time of the apostles, and that their pens were frequently employed in combating those errors. Hence, if a doctrine be propounded for his acceptance, he asks, Is it to be found in the inspired word? Was it taught by the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles? . . .

More than this, we will add, that though Cyprian, or Jerome, or Augustine, or even the fathers of an earlier age, Tertullian, Ignatius, or Irenæus, could be plainly shown to teach the unscriptural doctrines and dogmas of Popery, which, however, is by no means admitted, still the consistent Protestant would simply ask, Is the doctrine to be found in the Bible? Was it taught by Christ and his apostles? . . .

He who receives a single doctrine upon the mere authority of tradition, let him be called by what name he will, by so doing steps down from the Protestant rock, passes over the line which separates Protestantism from Popery, and can give no valid reason why he should not receive all the earlier doctrines and ceremonies of Romanism upon the same authority.

WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH?

(Concluded.)*

A CUTTING REPROOF.

In another Catholic work, called a “Treatise of Thirty Controversies,” we find the following cutting reproof:—

“The Word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy; you [Protestants] without any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose, against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the week. Acts 20 : 7; 1 Cor. 16 : 2; Rev. 1 : 10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory, prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained that they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written Word of God.”

And finally, W. Lockhart, B. A., of Oxford, in the Toronto (Cath.) Mirror, offered the following “challenge” to all the Protestants of Ireland; a challenge as well calculated for this latitude as that. He says:—

“I do, therefore, solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland, to prove, by plain texts of Scripture, the questions concerning the obligation of the Christian Sabbath. 1. That Christians may work on Saturday, the old seventh day. 2. That they are bound to keep holy the first day, namely, Sunday. 3. That they are not bound to keep holy the seventh day also.”

This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church; and they claim it as a token, or mark of the authority of that church; the “very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday” being set forth as proof of its power in this respect.

That many should suppose that Christ wrought this change is not strange; for they have been so taught. But this misapprehension should no longer exist; for, according to the prophecy, the only change ever to be made in the law of God was to be made by the little horn of Daniel 7, and the man of sin of 2 Thess. 2; and the only change that has been made in it is the change of the Sabbath. Now if Christ made this change he filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul—a conclusion sufficiently hideous to drive any Christian from the view which leads thereto.

But why should any one labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath? Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. And no truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted that it should do, and so that the prophecy has failed, and the Scriptures are unreliable. The matter had better stand as the prophecy has placed it; and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth had better be granted. When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of God, and that very power in due time arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence? The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the theology of our day has come. Would it then be anything strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded ere the Reformation will be complete?

A. Campbell (Baptism, p. 15), speaking of the different Protestant sects, says:—

“All of them retain in their bosom, in their ecclesiastic organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, various relics of popery. They are, at best, reformations of popery, and only reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands.”

Therefore, let the reader beware, lest he make the mistake of supposing he is following the Lord Jesus Christ, while he is only following his pretended vicegerent, the Antichrist of Rome.

It may be proper to add a word respecting the testimony of history on this question, and answer an objection that may arise in some minds.

1. The whole theological world are assiduously taught that the first day of the week has been called the Lord’s day, and unanimously observed as the Sabbath by Christians ever since the days of Christ. This claim is not sustained by either the Bible or history.

Rev. 1 : 10, is the only scripture that is brought forward to prove that the term “Lord’s day” had become the familiar title of the first day of the week in the days of the apostles. There are a number of objections to such an application of this text.

First. John does not say that it was the first day of the week which he here calls the Lord’s day, nor does he make the least statement from which such a conclusion can be inferred.

Secondly. John wrote his Gospel two years after his Revelation (see Thoughts on Revelation, p. 28); and in his Gospel he twice speaks of the first day of the week, and calls it, not Lord’s day, as he would have done if that had come to be the general name for that day when his Revelation was given, but simply “first day of the week.”

Thirdly. The seventh day of the week is in the most express manner called God’s holy day. It is the one day of the seven which he has reserved to himself. And the Son of man, through whom the worlds were made, John 1: 3; Heb. 1: 2, and who was consequently associated with his Father in the institution of the Sabbath at the beginning, expressly styles himself the Lord of the seventh day. Mark 2: 28. Hence we say that the Lord’s day of Rev. 1: 10, is the seventh day of the week, not the first.

No ecclesiastical writer previous to A. D. 194 gives the title of Lord’s day to the first day of the week. The so-called epistle of Barnabas is spurious. The letter of Pliny to Trajan speaks of a stated day, but does not specify which day of the week it was. The epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians is itself a forgery; and the passage which is made to speak of Sunday as the Lord’s day has been interpolated into that forgery. Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, does not use the term Lord’s day, as is so often asserted. Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, uses the term ambiguously, perhaps referring to the first day of the week. Victor, bishop of Rome, A. D. 196, attempted to honor the day by an effort to have Easter uniformly celebrated on that day. Tertullian, A. D. 200, furnishes the first evidence of abstinence from labor on that day. In A. D. 321, Constantine made a law in behalf of the “venerable day of the sun,” which was the first Sunday law. But this was a pagan edict, Constantine not yet having become even nominally Christian. At his so-called conversion, two years later, in A. D. 323, this law for Sunday as a heathen festival, being unrepealed, was made use of by Sylvester, bishop of Rome, now reckoned in the line of popes, to enforce Sunday observance as a Christian institution.

These are the indubitable facts of history, authenticated by a reference to the original authorities in the History of the Sabbath, by J. N. Andrews, to which the reader is particularly referred:—

2. The objection. The papacy was not fully established till A. D. 538, more than two hundred years after Constantine’s law. How, then, can Sunday be called an institution of popery, and the change be attributed to the little horn, according to the prophecy of Daniel, which is a symbol of the papal power?

Let it be remembered that Sunday, as a subject of prophecy, is Sunday as a Christian institution. The question, then, is, What power or influence established this observance in the Christian church? Not Constantine; for his legislation referred to it as a heathen festival; although he furnished a means which was shrewdly manipulated by pope Sylvester in enforcing it among Christians. But it was brought in by the working of that influence which finally resulted in the establishment of the papacy. The papacy existed in embryo long before Constantine’s time. The mystery of iniquity worked even in Paul’s day. 2 Thess. 2: 7, waiting only the removal of the restraining influence of paganism, to reveal in its full strength, the papacy before the world. The root of this monstrous system of evil runs back far into the centuries before its open development, like the tree which sends its tap-root far down into the earth beyond the sight of the observer. Through that root the Sunday has found its way into the professed church of Christ; and on that tree it appears as one of the most characteristic fruits. As an institution, Sunday is both pagan and papal; as a rival of the Sabbath of the Lord, it is wholly papal.

Facts about the First Day of the Week, or Sunday.

By J. H. W.

CHRIST rose from the dead on that day. Mark 16:9; Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; John 20:1. (But he did not say that it was therefore the Sabbath.)

The women brought spices to the grave of the Saviour on that day. Luke 24:1. (Which they would not do on the Sabbath. See Luke 23:56.)

Christ appeared to his disciples on that day, the doors being shut for fear of the Jews. John 20:19. (They were not assembled to keep the Sabbath, but had closed the doors for personal safety.)

Paul once preached on the evening of the first day, Acts 20:4, corresponding with our Saturday night. (But the next morning, answering to our Sunday morning, he continued his journey toward JERUSALEM, nine hundred miles distant!)

The Corinthians were commanded to lay by a “collection for the saints” on the first day. 1 Cor. 16:2. (This might be money or goods. It was not a public donation, but a private setting apart.)

The foregoing, dear reader, are ALL the texts which speak of “the first day of the week.” There are just eight of them. But what do they prove? Nothing at all, in favor of Sunday. Carefully examined they prove the reverse.

The Bible tells us that “sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. But what law do we “transgress” when we work on Sunday? If the reader will find a text which says, “Thou shalt do no work on the first day of the week,” or, “Remember Sunday to keep it holy,” or its equivalent, then will his Sunday observance, in place of God’s Sabbath, stand the test of the Judgment; otherwise it will not. Will you consider this point?

The Saviour says, “Blessed are they that do His [i. e., God the Father’s ten] commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14. But where is that commandment that speaks about Sunday? It is not in the Bible, but it is in the Roman Catholic catechisms. Read your Bibles through a hundred times with reference to this subject, and you will each time become more and more convinced of the truthfulness of the following notable facts:—

1. There is no divine command for Sunday observance.

2. There is not the least hint of a Sunday institution.

3. Christ never changed God’s Sabbath to Sunday.

4. He never observed Sunday as the Sabbath.

5. The apostles never kept Sunday for the Sabbath.

6. There is no prophecy that Sunday would ever take the place of the Sabbath.

7. The word Sunday never occurs in the Bible.

8. Neither God, Christ, angels, nor inspired men, have ever said one word in favor of Sunday as a holy day.

These are the facts in the case in regard to the first day, or Sunday, and it is hoped the reader will search the Bible to see whether these things are so. (See Acts 17:11.)

BIBLE REASONS FOR THE SEVENTH DAY AND THE CLAIMS OF FIRST-DAY CONTRASTED.

God claimed the seventh day as his own in many scriptures, and at many different times. He never so claimed the first day but gave it to man for labor.

He blessed and sanctified the seventh day. He neither blessed nor sanctified the first day.

He commanded that the seventh day be kept holy. He never commanded to keep the first day. There is but one commandment in Bible for a weekly Sabbath, and that says the seventh day.

God uttered fearful threatenings against those who profane the seventh day. He has spoken nothing against laboring on the first day.

He has given great and precious promises to those who keep holy the seventh day. He has not spoken one word of promise or blessing for keeping the first day.

Everything that is necessary to give importance to the day—that is calculated to induce a proper observance of the day—is produced in favor of the seventh day. But nothing of this kind can be produced in favor of the first day—no sanctity, no commandment, no penalty, no blessing.

J. H. W.

The Coming of Death and the Lord Jesus

THE coming of death and of the Lord Jesus are not, as some say, the same; for the approach of the first kills, while the coming of the second gives life.

Does Fulfill Mean to Abolish?

By E. S. Webber

Not long since I heard a first-day Adventist preach. He took the position that the law of God was abrogated, or done away; and for proof he used language as follows: “The law and the prophets were until John,” and “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He claimed that fulfill means to do away, to abolish, and that of a necessity those that keep the law must reject Christ, and seek salvation some way by the law, and not by the gospel or through Christ.

This seemed to me to be a perversion of the Scriptures, and a false view of our position.

We do not reject Christ, nor expect salvation through any but Jesus Christ, the Son of God. But by the law is the knowledge of sin. Paul said, “Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Hence, the law teaches the necessity of salvation, because by it we learn that we are sinners, and need salvation; for the “wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life [or salvation from death] through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Salvation strictly means deliverance. What, then, are we delivered from in the salvation of the gospel? Ans. From sin and death. Well, then, let us query a little: What is death? Ans. The wages of sin. What is sin? The transgression of the law. Then, where there is no law, there is no transgression. Where there is no transgression, there is no sin. Where there is no sin, there is no death. And where there is no sin nor death, there is certainly no need of salvation from sin and death. Therefore I conclude that those who reject the moral law, cannot claim the salvation of the gospel, nor preach it in a Bible sense; while those who embrace the law see that they have transgressed it, and thereby become sinners, and need salvation, as they must receive the wages of sin, which is death.

But did Jesus do away, or abolish, the law? Jesus said, Matt. 5 : 17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

It seems that some in those days thought he had come to do away the law; but he commanded them not to think so. He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy, to abrogate, to abolish, the law.” This is a plain command, and says Jesus, If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

But does fulfill here mean to abolish, to do away, to destroy? If it does, then Jesus plainly contradicts himself in this verse; for he says, I am not come to destroy. Then what does it mean? Let us examine a few passages of Scripture:—

Jesus came to John to be baptized of him. John forbade him saying, “I have need to be baptized of thee.” Jesus said, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” Matt. 3 : 15. If fulfill means to abolish, then all righteousness is abolished. Again, “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.” James 2 : 8. Again, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Gal. 6 : 2.

Now if fulfill means to abolish, to do away, we now have the law of God, the royal law, spoken of by James, the law of Christ, and all righteousness abolished, or done away. What a sad condition of things this must be. Again, the psalmist says, “He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him; he also will hear their cry and will save them.” Ps. 145 : 19. Is Christ going to do away, or abolish, the desire of them that fear him, and then hear their cry and save them? I think not.

Again, we read in Acts 13 : 22: “I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill all my will.” Did David do away, or abolish all the will of God before Jesus was born? If so, how could Jesus do the will of his Father who sent him?

We might continue this method of reasoning still further; but we think this will be enough to convince all that this is not the meaning of fulfill, in these passages.

Now let us give what we think is the meaning of the word. Dr. Barnes in his comments on the word in Matt. 5 : 17, says: “It means to accomplish what was in the law and the prophets.”

Worcester gives the meaning of the word fulfill, to accomplish, to perform. See Worcester’s Elementary Dictionary. Let us review some of the passages referred to, with this meaning.

First, the one found in Matt. 3 : 15: “Thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness;” to perform all righteousness. This sounds better.

Again, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill [perform] the law of Christ.” “If ye fulfill [perform] the royal law,” etc. “He will fulfill [accomplish] the desire of them that fear him,” etc. Ps. 145 : 19. “A man after mine own heart, which shall fulfill [perform] all my will.” Acts. 13 : 22. “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill [to accomplish].” Matt. 5 : 17.

By giving the word its proper meaning we find that the Scriptures harmonize, and that Jesus did not abolish, or do away, the law.

“For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Such are the words of Jesus. Matt. 5 : 18. Wherefore the law is holy and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Rom. 7 : 12. “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.” “For I delight in the law of God, after the inward man.” “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the mind, I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Rom. 7 : 14, 22, 25. “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8 : 7. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3 : 19, 20. “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. 2 : 13. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Rom. 3 : 31. See also Rom. 7 : 7; Ps. 19 : 7; 119 : 34, 126, 136; Prov. 28 : 4, 7, 9; James 4 : 11; 2 : 9, 10, 11; Zeph. 3 : 4; Mal. 2 : 9.

“Give me understanding, and I shall keep thy law, yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.” Ps. 119 : 34.—E. S. Webber.

Continue reading: Emotion and Principle