LETTERS TO AN ANTINOMIAN.—8.
By James White
DEAR SIR: You have directly denied that the law is the rule of obedience and of justification, and affirmed that the gospel is substituted for it in this dispensation. As before shown, it is the rule of obedience that condemns the transgressor and proves him a sinner. Verses 20, 21, of Rom. 3, are closely related; there is no change of subject. "The law" is the same in both verses; I accepted your rendering of verse 21, reading "the ten commandments" into it, because I accept the fact that a broken law cannot justify or forgive the sinner. Pardon must come by another instrument. And you must accept my rendering of verses 19, 20, if you believe that the gospel is a substitute for the ten commandments as a rule of obedience. But as verses 20, 21 are closely connected and refer to the same rule, I will quote again verse 20, and as much of 21 as you quoted, to further show the fallacy of your reasoning. "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. But now the righteousness of God without the gospel is manifested." This is just, according to your method of reasoning, and the logical result of your system. Of course I have no confidence in your system nor in your method. You make the apostle contradict himself, and you contradict every principle of law and justice. You refer to "Rom. 3:20-28." Why not include verse 31? It contains a very important part of the argument. It is the result of the whole argument preceding it. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Now, sir, can you in candor say that this is the tendency and conclusion of your argument? I am happy to say that my faith, my argument, agrees exactly with the conclusion of the apostle. Why is it that Paul's argument does not make void the law, but establishes it, while yours does not establish it, but makes it void? No doubt you would like to be in harmony with the apostle, if your theory permitted; but it does not. Paul says the law would justify the doer; you say it could not. Paul says men will be judged by the law; you say they will not. He says both Jews and Gentiles are condemned by the law; you say they are not. He says the knowledge of sin is by the law—it being "the rule of obedience;" you say it is not. He says faith does not make void the law, but establishes (confirms) it; you say faith supersedes it, and it is made void. Paul says the law is holy, and spiritual; you say it is not. Paul delighted in the law of God; you do not. And this is only a partial view of your disagreement with the inspired servant of God. If there is anyone who thinks my language is yet too severe, let him follow you still further on the subject. You say:— "The law of faith, in contradistinction to the law on which the Jews relied, is the divine rule of justification." And again in another place you say:— "He calls what is written upon the fleshly tables of the heart, the new covenant, in contradistinction to the old covenant, which was written upon the tables of stone." First I will say that your doctrine is untrue, for there is no scripture that says the new covenant is written upon the heart. Under the new covenant the law is written in the hearts of God's people. See Heb. 8:10. Secondly, your language is decidedly faulty. Indeed, I hardly know how to characterize it, to do justice to the truth of God. You say that the "divine rule of justification," or "the law of faith," the law for this dispensation, is "in contradistinction" to the law on tables of stone. This language is shocking, but it was not an oversight or inadvertence on your part. Some years before you wrote this, you made the same statement in public, and I called your attention to the meaning of the terms, in hope that you would correct your language if not your theory. Nor are you the only one that dares to venture on such dangerous ground, for I heard at least one other minister use the same words, while preaching against the Sabbath. Contradistinction means, distinguished by contrast, or by opposite qualities. And you are not ashamed or afraid to say deliberately, considerately, for your attention was called to the meaning of the words, that the law that we are now to keep, under Christ, is in contrast with, or the opposite of the ten commandments! It seems to me that Antinomian teachers will heap any amount of reproach upon the Government of God, upon the gospel of his Son, and upon everything sacred, for the sake of turning their followers against the law, and all for the sake of putting away the holy Sabbath of the Lord. They accuse us of forsaking Christ for the law. I will now use your words to show in what light you present Christ and the gospel. I have already shown that your argument makes him contradict his own words, and virtually places him in open rebellion against his Father. You have also placed him in opposition to everything of a sacred character, and made him the abettor—no, the chief criminal—of everything that is wicked and vile. This is a strong impeachment, but the matter has gone too far to be handled tenderly. Let us see what your words indicate. You speak of the "divine law of justification," in "contradistinction to the law written on stones"—the ten commandments. But, as there is no such law revealed in the Scriptures, I shall call it your law in contradistinction to the ten commandments, or the opposite of, or in contrast with, the ten commandments. 1. That law is perfect.
Your law is imperfect.
2. That law is righteousness.
Your law is unrighteousness.
3. Those commandments contained the whole duty of man.
Your law does not; we shall see that it contains no duty of man.
4. The Saviour said the commandments lead to life.
Your law leads to death.
5. The law is so perfect that it would justify the doer.
Your law would justify nobody; the more carefully it is followed, the deeper is the condemnation.
6. The law is holy, and just, and good.
Your law is unholy, unjust, and not good.
7. The law is spiritual.
Your law is carnal, sensual.
8. The law of God will open the gates of the city to those who keep it, and will give them right to the tree of life.
Your law will close the gates of the city against its followers, and will forever deprive them of the tree of life.
9. The law was in the heart of the Saviour. Ps. 40:8. I fear that you and your friends will think that I am very harsh and uncharitable if I give the opposite on this point, namely, Your law is in the heart of Satan. But I firmly believe that that conclusion is fully warranted by your words. To prove this, I will now come to particulars. Thus far I have shown a contrast on principles, or general facts. I will give the ten commandments and their opposites, or the contrast. 1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Contrast.—Thou shalt have other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
Contrast.—Thou shalt make to thee graven images; thou shalt bow down thyself to them, and serve them.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Contrast.—Thou shalt take the name of the Lord God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.
Contrast.—Remember not the Sabbath-day; keep it not holy. The seventh day is not the Sabbath of the Lord—it is "the old Jewish Sabbath."
5. Honor thy father and thy mother.
Contrast.—Honor not thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
Contrast.—Thou shalt kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Contrast.—Thou shalt commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
Contrast.—Thou shalt steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Contrast.—Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor his wife, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
Contrast.—Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's house, and his wife, and everything that is thy neighbor's. This is exactly the law that you offer to us, in your tract. It is in contradistinction to the ten commandments. It is, just as Webster defines the term you use, distinguished by contrast—by opposite qualities. If such a law is not in the heart of Satan, then he is better than he is generally represented! Is that your "divine rule of justification"? Is that the law of the new covenant—the law of Christ? Is it possible that you wrote the words you did, with a full understanding of their import? I speak this directly and positively, because I called your attention to the terms when you used them in public speech. I will close this letter with pointing out one more contradiction—self-contradiction—on your part. You say that nine of the ten commandments, omitting the fourth, "were incorporated into the Christian constitution." After bringing nine of the ten into the gospel, you then erect another law in contrast with them, the very opposite of the ten, and make that "the divine rule" in this dispensation. Now I think that Satan might keep your new-made law, but no being in the universe can keep both the nine of the ten commandments, and a law just opposite to them! You would have been more consistent in your theory if you had abolished the ten, and left them all abolished. But to re-enact nine, and then set up a law in contradistinction to them—the very opposite of them—is giving to your indulgent readers an impossible mixture. It is an effort to unite light and darkness; to make Christ in concord with233Belial. Such are the crooked ways of Antinomianism. I have yet to notice the theories of no-lawism concerning "the two great moral precepts."