Manuscripts and Memories of Minneapolis

THE SUBJECT CONSIDERED

The question before us is one of interpretation. In the brief letter of the apostle Paul to the Galatian church, we have at the commencement some historical facts given concerning himself and his apostleship, and an argument concerning “the law,” and in the latter part, practical instruction concerning various Christian duties. Running all through the epistle are expressions in which the apostle finds fault with them for their course of conduct after he left them, caused by Jewish teachers who had led them astray, so that they had really taken positions contrary to the gospel of Christ. In these censures the apostle makes constant reference to some law concerning which the Galatians had taken a wrong position. As a people, we believe that there are two laws, or systems of law: (1.) The moral law and the principles of moral duty which grow out of it; (2.) The ceremonial law, embracing the typical remedial system pointing forward to Christ, and the civil laws growing out of the special relation existing between God and the Jewish people to the cross. We hold the former to be ever binding upon man, while the latter passed away. MMM 34.3

Our inquiry is now as to which of these laws the apostle has principally in view in the letter to the Galatians. The question is an important one, and is therefore well worthy of consideration. Truth, for its own sake, is important concerning the meaning and application of any scripture; and the truth concerning the law in Galatians is especially so, because the apostle’s references to the law in this letter are used by our opponents as a strong support to their Antinomian doctrines. It is evident that the position which is a truthful exposition of the apostle’s argument is in every way preferable, and will be easier to defend than one which is erroneous. It will enable us to meet our opponents more successfully, and thus the great system of truth which we hold will be strengthened. All our people ought to greatly desire that we come to a unity of position on this subject. MMM 34.4

We hold that the letter to the Galatians was written to meet one of the greatest difficulties with which the gospel MMM 34.5

[Selection of pp. 42-53]
Moses. They received it when faith in Christ as their only Saviour was cherished.

Verse 15: “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. MMM 35.1

“16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. MMM 35.2

“17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. MMM 35.3

“18. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. MMM 35.4

“19. 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.” MMM 35.5

The apostle first speaks of the sacredness of a covenant, compact, or promise. Even a man’s covenant, if confirmed, is sacred, and cannot be set aside. He then refers to the promises to Abraham, and bases an argument upon the fact that in making the promise God uses the singular number instead of the plural, when he brings to view the expected seed. The promise was not to “seeds” (plural), but to his “seed” (singular), showing that the promise was not fulfilled in all of Abraham’s descendants according to the flesh, but that it was to be met in the one descendant, Christ the heir. And this promise, properly confirmed by God, cannot be set aside by a law given four hundred and thirty years after. The promise has the precedence in time and importance. And this promise of the “seed,” Christ, is the foundation, of our hope of the future inheritance. Our hope of that does not originate with this law made four hundred and thirty years later. How foolish, then, that the Galatians should ignore the promise, and go back to that law for their hope of salvation, thus virtually setting aside Christ, the real foundation of their hopes for future good. The great fact that God gave the inheritance by promise to Abraham through this Seed, four hundred and thirty years before this law was given to which they looked for justification, conclusively shows their folly in basing their hopes upon this law. MMM 35.6

“Wherefore then serveth the law?” that is, this law of which he is speaking, what was its object or purpose? What use did it serve?” 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.” This verse is a great central illuminator in the apostle’s argument. He here gives us the design of that law of which he was speaking, the time when given, the point to which it extended, the agencies by which it was brought into existence, and the reasons why it was given. If these conditions reasonably, naturally apply to the moral law, then our friends who hold that view concerning the law in Galatians should have the benefit of the evidence. Let us examine this scripture carefully. What law is intended by these expressions? MMM 35.7

1. It is reasonable to suppose that this reference to the law will be in harmony with Paul’s argument in the preceding part of the letter, which clearly brings to view the ceremonial law and not the moral law. MMM 35.8

2. This law was given four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abraham. Could it, therefore, be the same as “my commandments, my statutes, and my laws” which Abraham kept? Genesis 26:5. They were evidently the moral law; hence this is not. MMM 35.9

3. This law was “added because of transgressions.” The original word signifies “to pass by or over; to transgress or violate.” This law, then, had been “added” because some other law had been “passed by,” “transgressed,” or “violated.” It was not “added” to itself because itself had been “violated.” This would be absurd if applied to the moral law; for none of us claim there was any more of the moral law really in existence after the ten commandments were spoken than there had been before. They all existed before, though Israel may have been ignorant of portions of them. If the word rendered “added” in both the old and revised versions be rendered “appointed,” as some do render it, the conclusion is equally clear. It could not properly be said that the moral law was “appointed” four hundred and thirty years after Abraham, when we see that it existed and he fully kept it at that time. It would be absurd to suppose this law was “added” to itself. It does apply reasonably to another law, brought in because the one previously existing had been “violated.” A law cannot be transgressed unless it exists; for “where no law is, there is no transgression.” MMM 35.10

The law “added because of transgressions” unmistakably points to a remedial system, temporary in duration, “till the seed should come.” The moral law is referred to as the one transgressed. But the “added” law, of which Paul is speaking, made provision for the forgiveness of these transgressions in figure, till the real Sacrifice should be offered. MMM 36.1

“Till the seed should come,” limits the duration of this remedial system, beyond all question. The word “till,” or “until,” ever has that signification. The “added” law, then, was to exist no longer than “till the seed should come.” This the language unmistakably declares. Did the moral law extend no farther than the full development of the Messiah? No Seventh-day Adventist will admit that. But this was precisely the case with the other law. MMM 36.2

The “added” law was “ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” All agree that this “mediator” was Moses, who went between God and the people. The original word for “ordained” is rendered “promulgate” by Greenfield, who cites this text as an illustration. Was it true that the ten commandments were “ordained, or promulgated,” “by angels” “in” or by the hand of Moses? God himself spoke them with a voice that shook the earth,” and wrote them with his own finger on the stone tablets. But the other law was given through angels, and written in a “book” by the “hand of Moses.” If the reader desires to see some of the instances where the same expression substantially is used when speaking of the “law of Moses,” we refer him to Leviticus 26:46; Numbers 4:37; 15:22, 23; and especially Nehemiah 9:13, 14, where the distinction is clearly made between the laws which God spoke and the “precepts, statutes, and laws” given “by the hand of Moses.” Many others might be cited. MMM 36.3

These reasons seem very clearly to prove that the law concerning which the apostle is speaking, is the law of Moses written in a book, especially the typical remedial system. MMM 36.4

Our friends who hold the view that it is the moral law, of course make every effort possible to avoid this conclusion. They claim that the typical law was also in existence long before the law was given on Sinai; that it was recognized when the patriarchs offered sacrifices, even from the time of Abel, and that it would be as proper to speak of the “ordaining” of the moral law at Sinai as of the ceremonial, since both had a previous existence; that the principles of both laws had been lost sight of through sin and the captivity in Egypt. We know this is measurably true. But there remains this difference: the language unmistakably refers to a remedial system. “It was added because of transgressions.” A previous law existed to be transgressed, and this added law was to provide a temporal remedy “till the seed should come.” This language can never reasonably apply to the moral law; but it does apply to the ceremonial. No matter whether added at Sinai or as soon as man sinned in the Garden of Eden, it remains true of the typical remedial system that it was “added because of transgressions,” but is not true of the moral law. MMM 36.5

We also contend that the typical remedial system was not really “ordained” before Sinai and understood by the people in any such sense as the moral law was. We admit they did make offerings of beasts in sacrifice, and knew of some other services afterward incorporated into the law of Moses. But as a system it was not known to any such degree as were the principles of the ten commandments. We can find constant references to these, where persons well understood their existence. Cain knew very well he had broken God’s law and was guilty. Abraham kept these statutes, commandments, and laws. The antediluvians and Sodomites were destroyed as “sinners;” i.e., transgressors of them. Joseph understood as well as we the wickedness of adultery, and would not commit this “great wickedness, and sin against God. Enoch and Noah were “perfect” men and “walked with God.” They must, therefore, have been well acquainted with the principles of the moral law. MMM 36.6

But by far the largest portion of the typical remedial system owed its very existence to the time of Moses. The passover, the new moons, the sanctuary services other than offerings, the day of atonement, the pentecost, the special laws concerning uncleanness, the feast of tabernacles, various death penalties, the immense number of ordinances, etc., growing out of the priesthood work of the Levites and the civil laws of the Jewish nation, the special offerings connected with the scape-goat, and many other things too numerous to mention here connected with that system, were never heard of, indeed had no existence, before the book of the law was given. They were “ordained” at that time, as Paul indicates. MMM 36.7

Another argument, a very late invention, designed to avoid the conclusion that the “added” law terminated at the cross, we briefly notice. It is the claim that “the seed” has not yet come, and will not come till the second advent of Christ. It would be hard for the writer to really think that any believer in Christ would take that position, had we not read it in our own beloved The Signs of the Times, July 29, 1886. It is seriously argued through two or three columns that the expression “till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” cannot be fulfilled till the promises made to the Seed are fulfilled. A large number of these are cited. MMM 37.1

But does the language indicate this? The coming of the Seed is one thing, and the fulfillment of the promises made to that Seed quite another thing. If the Seed never comes till the promises made to him are fulfilled, we shall have to wait a long time for the coming of the Seed; for some of them reach through eternity. “For unto us a child is born [the birth of this child by the woman, and his development until an offering for the sins of men is provided, is the coming of the Seed], unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever.” Isaiah 9:6, 7. The promises to this Seed, many of them, reach beyond the second advent,-as does this one,-even into eternity. So, according to this reasoning, we may wait to all eternity for the Seed to come. But the apostle, in the expressions used, does not say promises, but “promise,” referring directly to the promise made to Abraham. But in the promise made to Abraham (Genesis 12:1-7; 17:1-8; both promises are really one), he agrees to make him and his seed a blessing to all the nations of the earth, and to give him the land of Canaan, which Paul, in Romans 4:13, enlarges to include all the “world.” MMM 37.2

Shall we conclude that a part of this promise is not already in process of fulfillment? Are not the nations of the earth already being greatly blessed in that seed by virtue of the way of salvation being opened to them all, and because of the precious influences of the gospel? Who dare deny it? If a part of these promises are being fulfilled in this present state, then according to that writer’s own reasoning the Seed has already come. If we must wait till all that promise made to Abraham is fulfilled before we look for the Seed, then the Seed cannot come till the end of the one thousand years; for the land is not inherited by Abraham till that time. The earth is a waste, a howling wilderness, for one thousand years after Christ comes. We can but regard such a position as this as utterly untenable and absurd. MMM 37.3

The coming of the Seed is one thing, and the fulfillment of the promises after the Seed comes, quite another. Indeed, of necessity the Seed must come before any of the promises made to the Seed could be fulfilled. A portion of them are already being fulfilled; hence the Seed has already come. Paul says (verse 16), “And to thy seed, which is Christ.” The “seed” and Christ, then, are one and the same. Therefore if the “seed” has not come, Christ has not come, in which case we are all in our sins, lost, without hope. To such preposterous conclusions does this position in the Signs lead. MMM 37.4

Again, if the Seed does not come till the second advent, as the existence of the law was to terminate when the Seed came, if that law is the moral law, we must of necessity conclude that God’s law ceases when Christ comes the second time-a conclusion but little less erroneous than the one which teaches its abrogation at the first advent. But why are such astonishing and erroneous positions as this taken?-To escape in some way the conclusion of Galatians 3:19, that this “added” law was to terminate at the cross. The Seed has come, born of a woman, the God-man, partaking of our nature. He can never become to all eternity any more “the seed of the woman,” the promised “seed of Abraham,” than he is already. We should like to have any one tell us how Christ becomes any more the “seed of Abraham” at the second advent than he was as at the first? Is he to be born again of another descendant of the great patriarch? The whole idea is preposterous. This promised Seed made his great sacrifice for the race, by which they are being blessed, and there this “added law” terminated. MMM 37.5

Verse 20: “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. MMM 38.1

“21. 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. MMM 38.2

“22. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. MMM 38.3

“23. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. MMM 38.4

“24. Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. MMM 38.5

“25. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master. MMM 38.6

“26. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. MMM 38.7

“27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. MMM 38.8

“28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. MMM 38.9

“29. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” MMM 38.10

In these verses the apostle continues to discuss this “added” law with special reference to the object it was to accomplish. It was not against the promises of God, but rather designed to provide a temporary help to the people till in the “fullness of time,” when the “seed should come,” and the promises through the Seed should begin to be fulfilled. During all this time preceding the coming of the Seed, this promise of the Seed was the great hope of the people. The law given four hundred and thirty years after, by the same God who made the promise, of course would not stand in the way of, or set aside, a most glorious promise given by a God who could not lie. This “added” law would conduce to the same end by preparing the minds of the people for the full fruition of the promise. The promise that all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in this Seed was the greatest hope ever vouchsafed to the race. This law was secondary to the promise, not “against” it. It was impossible, in the nature of things, for a law to be given which could give life to a race of sinners who had violated the divine law, the great moral rule which had ever been in force. The hope of the promised Seed, a more efficient agency than any law that could be given, was provided by infinite wisdom to meet that want. Doubtless many Jews believed that “life” could be obtained by obedience to the “added” law of types, ceremonies, offered beasts, and blood streaming down the altars. But they did not see clearly the object of this law. They did not realize that it was only a temporary arrangement, shadowing forth darkly in figures, types, and allegories, the coming of the Seed and his great sacrifice. And even after Christ had come and died, many did not comprehend it who professed to believe on him. They still said, “Except ye be circumcised,” and “keep the law of Moses,” “ye cannot be saved.” MMM 38.11

This kind of teaching followed Paul wherever he went. God had raised him up with special reference to clearly explaining this great transition from the old to the new dispensation. And now he presents the matter to these Galatian brethren who had been bewitched by this Judaizing teaching. “If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law;” and the terrible sacrifice of the Son of God would not have been necessary. These Galatians had taken the contradictory position of believing in Christ, and at the same time going back for salvation to services which, if in force, would make his death unnecessary; looking for salvation to obedience to a law whose main object had been to point out Christ’s great sacrifice for sin. MMM 38.12

“But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” The revised version and the Diaglott say, “shut up” all under sin. This is the meaning of the original Greek word. All are sinners, Jew and Gentile alike. All need a Saviour. Though the Jews had kept this “added” law, and taught it to the Gentiles as necessary to salvation, yet they needed a Saviour just as much as did the Gentiles. How inconsistent, then, for the Galatians to go back to a law which would not save those who had kept it! “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” Is this text speaking of individuals previous to conversion, under the condemnation of the moral law till faith in Christ dawns upon their hearts? or does it speak of Paul’s nation, the Jews, under guardianship as wards, under a provisional temporary system until Christ should come? Much turns upon which of these positions is the true one. We take the latter view unhesitatingly. The revised version reads: “But before faith came [the faith, margin], we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” Being “in ward,” Webster defines as “the state of being under guard, or guardianship,” “the condition of a child under custody.” The Diaglott renders it, “And before the coming of that faith, we were guarded under law, being shut up together for the faith being about to be revealed.” MMM 38.13

There can be no question but that the text brings to view a peculiar provisional arrangement, a “guarding” of a body of people, a “shutting them up together,” an “enclosing of them,” as the original Greek word signifies, until a certain time is reached when “that faith” will be revealed. We confidently assert that the word “faith” here is not used in the sense of a person’s individual belief in Christ as a means of personal pardon for his sins, but is used in the sense of that great system of truth devised by God for the salvation of man-the belief in a crucified Saviour and kindred truths growing out of this central fact. Jude writes of the “common salvation,” and that we “should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Verse 3. We speak of keeping “the faith of Jesus.” Paul, in his closing words, said he had “kept the faith.” And in this same epistle to the Galatians he speaks of the faith which he preached (chap. 1:23), and of the “household of faith.” Chap. 6:10. Indeed, in a large number of instances where the word “faith” is used in the New Testament, it has this sense, as any one can see by taking his Concordance. MMM 39.1

The Jewish people and all proselytes who had any regard for the God of the Hebrews, were thus kept under this provisional system of the “added” law, “shut up,” hedged about by national barriers of distinction, from the rest of the world. They could not eat with them or associate intimately with them. A “middle wall of partition” divided them from others. They were “enclosed,” guarded on the right hand and on the left, till the great system of faith in a crucified Saviour was “afterwards revealed “by the coming of the promised “seed.” MMM 39.2

We would be much pleased to have our friends who hold that this “added” law was the ten commandments, tell us how the law against blasphemy, murder, lying, stealing, etc., “shut individuals up,” “guard” them “in ward,” in the relation of a “child to a guardian,” to a “revelation” to be made “afterwards.” But it is thought that in this verse the expression “under the law,” must refer to the sinner under the condemnation of the moral law. Lengthy arguments have been made in support of this: but we fail to see evidence to prove this position. We claim that this expression “under the law” has two significations: (1.) Primarily meaning under the authority of the law, or under obligation to keep it; (2.) Under the condemnation of the law, with its penalty impending over us, or already suffering it. The expression itself does not decide which of these meanings is to be understood; the connection must decide that. MMM 39.3

The Greek word rendered “under,” is hupo. It is used a great many times in the New Testament, and in the great majority of instances is rendered “of,” “with,” or “by,” as the reader will see by examining his Greek Concordance. Greenfield gives a variety of definitions, such as the sense in many places requires, one of which is, “Of subjection to a law,” etc. He gives no instance where it is used in the sense of being subject to the condemnation of the law; yet we are free to grant that it sometimes has that sense. But that is not the primary meaning of the term. MMM 39.4

We read in Matthew 8:9 of “a man under authority, having soldiers under” him; i.e., authority was over him, and he was in authority over the soldiers, and each was to obey; not that he was under the condemnation of authority or the soldiers under his condemnation. “Under” in both cases is from the same word hupo. In Romans 13:1 we read: “The powers that be are ordained of God.” “Of” is from hupo; i.e., under the authority of God. In Galatians 4:2 we read of the child living “under [hupo] tutors and governors;” i.e., they have authority over the child, not that it is under their condemnation. Other illustrations might be given of the same sense. Indeed, the very nature of the expression itself signifies this, “under the law” simply meaning the law being above or having authority over the persons who were under it. This is the primary, simplest meaning of this term; and unless strong reasons can be adduced to the contrary, we should always give the expression this signification. Where reasons can be given to show that the sense requires us to understand it to mean the condemnation of the law, then we will so understand it, and not before. But evidently in the text we are now examining, it means simply that the Jews were “shut up” under the authority of that typical remedial system, with its barriers, walls of separation, etc., till the system of faith should be revealed under which they could find salvation. MMM 39.5

“Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” “Wherefore” “expresses a consequence” from his preceding reasoning. The original Greek word requires this, as Greenfield states. The law” was [revised version, hath been] our paidagogos” (literal Greek), or pedagogue. The word occurs but three times in the New Testament, twice in this connection and once where it is rendered “instructor.” Greenfield defines it as follows: “A person, usually a slave or freed man, to whom the care of the boys of a family was committed, who trained them up and formed their manners, attended them at their play, led them to and from the public school, and, when they were grown up, became their companions, noted for their imperiousness and severity; in the New Testament, director, governor, instructor, leader. 1 Corinthians 4:15; tropically spoken of the Mosaic law. Galatians 3:24, 25.” MMM 40.1

We have no person in our domestic or educational system in this age answering to this term. It is not properly a “school-master” or an “instructor” in the sense in which we would understand those terms. This person led the boys to school to be instructed by others. They did not continue to occupy this relation to them after the boys were grown to manhood. They merely held a temporary position, to pass away when the boys were fully developed. They were “noted for their imperiousness and severity.” They had the boys especially under their charge merely for a season. Does the holy eternal law of God, the “law of liberty,” occupy such a position as this? Is its relation to man that of a slave, an inferior, in any period of his life? Is it severe, “imperious,” because endued with a little temporary authority? Is its position merely a temporary one, lasting till the Christian is developed, and then ceasing its claims? Was it the office of the “paidagogos” after he got the boys to school, to then turn around and become their instructor, their supreme authority, ever after? Such views of the relation of God’s law to the sinner or any body else, would be manifestly absurd. MMM 40.2

But this relation eminently fits if we apply it to that provisional temporary system of law in which the Jew and proselyte were “shut up,” “in ward,” till the “middle wall of partition” was “broken down.” It was a “severe” system, “yoke of bondage” which they could not bear, “against” them, and “contrary to” them. MMM 40.3

Paul draws his conclusion from his reasoning in the previous verses, which we have examined. The moral law never led a man to Christ and left him. It always stays with him. We may be delivered from its condemnation; but its supreme authority must be regarded then as before. Its claims never leave us. There is nothing in that law about Christ, not a hint. All the law does, is to condemn those who break it, and justify those who keep it. It is the sense of guilt in the man’s conscience which is acted upon by the Spirit of God, which makes him go to Christ, not anything in the moral law itself. But this “added” law did lead to Christ. Every type, every sacrifice, every feast day, holy day, new moon, and annual Sabbath, and all the priestly offerings and services pointed out something in the work of Christ. They were as a body “shut up,” “guarded,” under the control of this “severe,” “imperious” pedagogue, till the great system of justification by faith was reached at the cross of Christ. Mr. Greenfield could readily see that this pedagogue must be used as an illustration of the “Mosaic law.” It is strange that all others cannot see the same. “But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a [pedagogue, or] school-master.” The coming of “that faith” is the full development of the great system of faith or truth growing out of the death of Christ “We are no longer under a” “pedagogue,” i.e., no longer under his authority; his authority is no longer over us, because his office ceased when the “seed” came. Then all that accept

[End of pp. 42-53 selection]

[Selection of pp. 84, 85]
in harmony with his brethren, his tenderness of spirit toward the weak in faith, his reverence for the apostles who had been with Christ, and for James the brother of the Lord, and his purpose to become all things to all men as far as he could do this and not sacrifice principle,-when we consider all this, it is less surprising that he was constrained to deviate from his firm, decided course of action. But instead of accomplishing the desired object, these efforts to conciliation only precipitated the crisis, hastened the predicted sufferings of Paul, separated him from his brethren in his labors, deprived the church of one of its strongest pillars, and brought sorrow to Christian hearts In every land.” Many other expressions could be quoted to the same effect; but we should despair of being able to show how important this subject was regarded among the early church, if what we have presented does not clearly prove it.

We will only notice the remaining references to circumcision in the sixth chapter. Evidently Paul had finished his long argument, and was now giving the most precious Christian instruction for the benefit of the believers: but it seems that he cannot get this subject out of his mind. “As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.” There he shows how preaching the gospel with circumcision released one from persecution; but to preach the gospel without circumcision, not acknowledging its claim, brought persecuting elements upon him from every quarter. But he would rather preach the truth of God in its purity, whether persecuted or not. Circumcision saved no one, and uncircumcision saved no one; but there must be a new creature in Christ Jesus. Thus we see, from the beginning of the epistle to the end, this is the great theme that the apostle has in mind. MMM 41.1

We now leave the subject with the reader, claiming for our view that it makes one connected, consistent, harmonious argument throughout. The conclusions are all consistent with the premises. We have shown that there was a sufficient issue to demand such an argument; hence we conclude that the apostle has the ceremonial law mainly in view throughout this letter. Our brethren, with their position, though they may present quite an argument upon some detached passages of scripture, utterly fail to present that harmonious, systematic view of the whole epistle found in the position we have herein advocated, while there are many references throughout the epistle which utterly forbid their application of it to the moral law. MMM 41.2

This question which has long been in agitation among us is most unfortunate. As our brethren have presented their views in such a public manner, in a way which we cannot think is proper or consistent, we have felt it duty to present our view of the subject before our leading brethren. Yet we feel the same brotherly feeling as ever toward those who differ with us, believing they have been misled in regard to their duty. We ask our leading brethren to consider the points of this argument carefully, and weigh it well. We leave the result with them and God.

Battle Creek, Mich.,
Nov. 18, 1886.