LETTERS TO AN ANTINOMIAN.—6.
By J. H. W.
DEAR SIR: In my last I promised to show the fallacy of the idea of the change of constitution with the change of dispensation. But “fallacy” is too mild a term to use of this stronghold of Antinomians. It is worse than an absurdity to speak of the “Christian constitution,” and of its having superseded the constitution of former dispensations. It is virtually charging the Saviour with sin and rebellion, as I shall make appear. You say:— “No jurist enforces a precept in the Constitution of the United States, by virtue of the fore-ordained authority of British law.” This illustration has been used by so many, and so many times has its tendency been exposed, that I cannot hold you innocent in its reiteration. If it does, as I remarked, place the Saviour in the position of a rebel and traitor against the authority of his Father, then it is blasphemous. After its being exposed so many times, you should either omit it, or show yourself able to produce some reason to justify it. As you are well aware, I had occasion to point out its tendency some twenty years ago, in answering a writer in an Antinomian journal, who assails my position in the little tract call “Truth Found” (first edition). Therefore it does seem to me that you were aware of your great error when you penned those lines. I do not say that the sentence quoted is blasphemous in its terms, but it is decidedly so in the conclusion that you draw from it. The only way in which you can escape from the censure placed upon you, because of your using such an illustration, is to show that there is a parallel between the position and work of Christ when he came to the earth, and that of the founders of the Government of the United States. I think that, when the facts are presented, every reverent reader of the Bible—every true follower of the Saviour—will admit that the language I have used is not by any means too severe. I will show the dissimilarity, and the irrelevancy of your illustration, by a few well-defined points. 1. When Christ came to the earth there was a rebellion existing against the Government of his Father, and he came to oppose and to overthrow the rebellion. Contrast.—But the founders of this Government inaugurated a rebellion against Great Britain, and carried it on to success, even at the hazard of their lives. 2. Christ said he came not to do his own will, but the will of his Father. Contrast.—Our fathers determined to do their own will, and resisted by every possible means the will of the king of England—“the fore-ordained authority.” 3. Christ was sent of the Father to save his Government from dishonor and reproach—to glorify him,—and to save men from further acts of rebellion. Contrast.—The founders of this Government were not sent by the king of Great Britain; they did not try to save him and his Government from reproach, but heaped reproach upon them. 4. Christ said he did always the things that pleased his Father. Contrast.—Our fathers denounced King George as a tyrant, and refused to obey him. 5. The Father acknowledged Christ as his beloved Son, and commanded all to hear him. Contrast.—King George denounced the founders of this Government as traitors, threatening them with death, and did his utmost to put his threat into execution. Now if you could show that Christ denied allegiance to his Father; that he arraigned his Father as a tyrant, and declared himself and his followers “free and independent” from his Father’s Government and rule; that he set up a Government of his own on this repudiation of his Father’s authority; and that he trampled upon the Constitution of his Father’s fore-ordained authority, and enacted a new Constitution of his own, quite the contrary of that of his Father, then there would be consistency in your illustration. But what a price to pay for consistency, to present the Son of God in the same attitude toward his Father that the founders of our Government201maintained toward “the fore-ordained authority of British law”! I appeal to every unprejudiced reader, if I am not correct in saying that Antinomians ought to be ashamed of their theory of a “Christian constitution” in distinction from the will and law of our Heavenly Father. And, sir, what do you say? Will you stand upon your argument and illustration, and thus place the Son of God in conflict with the fore-ordained authority of his Father’s law? If you dare to do this, may God pity you, and open your eyes to the error and danger of your course. But if you dare not do it, then do you not think you owe it to your friends who have accepted your tract as the words of truth, to confess your error, and exhort them to choose “a more excellent way?” I leave it to your conscience, which, I hope, is now so enlightened that you will deal faithfully with yourself and others as holding in view the Judgment of God. The inspired word says: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” And every word, every action of the Saviour is a denial of your assumptions, and a negative to your reasonings and conclusions. In further illustrating your ideas of the “new constitution,” you say, “the law gave place to the gospel as the great rule of faith and obedience.” When we speak of faith as it is everywhere used in the Scriptures when Christ is its object, we do not mean such faith as angels have in the integrity of God, or such faith as Adam had in the word of the Creator, before he fell, but such faith as a sinner needs in order to his justification. But the law never was such a rule of faith. The law is a rule of obedience, but was not and cannot be a rule of faith. See Gal. 3:12. “And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.” Compare Lev. 18:5, and others. The law is a rule of obedience, solely. Therefore, when you say that the law gives place to the gospel as a rule of faith, you show that your own mind is confused in regard to the application of the terms you use. To prove your statement you refer to Rom. 3:20-28. But the passage gives no warrant to your language. Indeed, there can be no warrant for it, as your expression is loosely made, as I have shown. Inasmuch as I shall have to notice Rom. 3 with some care, I will here call attention to your effort to show that “all the world” in verse 19 does not include the Gentiles, but refers to the Jews alone. The words of Paul are directly against you. In chapter 2 he instituted a comparison between the Gentile who keeps the law, and the Jew who transgressed the law. He opens chapter 3 by showing that the Jew had the advantage of receiving the oracles of God (comp. Acts 7:38). In verse 9 he begins his remarks on the equality of the two classes, which idea runs through the whole chapter. “What then? are we [Jews] better than they [Gentiles]? No, in no wise; for we have before proved [charged, margin] both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.” Bearing in mind that “sin is not imputed when there is no law,” and that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” we see that Jews and Gentiles alike were transgressors of the law. And we shall find this idea confirmed as we proceed. How does Paul prove his charge? Listen to him: “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” He continues to quote from the Old Testament, which is also proof that the Gentiles were transgressors of the law contained in the Old Testament. At the end of his quotations he says: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under [within the sphere of] the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Verse 19. It does seem strange that you should read this argument of the apostle, the intent of which is to prove what he has directly said, that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners, and then assert that “all the world” in verse 19 does not include the Gentiles! I will now return to your remarks on verses 20-28. The first of these verses says: “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.” This is a conclusion drawn from the preceding argument that all the world, Jews and Gentiles, are sinners—transgressors of the law. The law is just, and always condemns its transgressors; and, as all are sinners, no one can be justified by the law. But you would have us understand that this proves that the law is done away. If so, how can the knowledge of sin be by the law? Can a knowledge of sin be imparted, or can men be convinced of sin, by an abolished law? Remember, before the law all—“all the world”—are guilty. It is indeed a truth that the knowledge of sin is by “the rule of obedience.” Or, would you convict a man of sin by a law which he ought not to keep? If, as you assert, the gospel is now the rule of obedience, then it is undeniable that the knowledge of sin is by the gospel. That which commands obedience will convict of sin if it is disobeyed. Then, to suit your faith, we must read “the gospel” in verse 20 instead of “the law.” Formerly the law was the rule of obedience, and convicted the transgressor; now the gospel is the rule of obedience, and it convinces and convicts of sin. That is your doctrine. Now we will read this scripture to conform to your Antinomian theory: “Therefore by the deeds of the gospel there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the gospel is the knowledge of sin.” Of course you will accept this! It is a clear statement of your position. I could only accept it on one condition, namely, that it be referred to such a gospel as is taught by Antinomians. A gospel—or what is called such—based on the abolition of the immutable law of God, is too far removed from the elements of justice to be able to justify anybody. In my next I will continue to examine your position on this third chapter of Romans. J. H. W.