LETTERS TO AN ANTINOMIAN.—2.
By James White
DEAR SIR: At the close of my first letter I promised next to notice your strongest argument. It comes next in order in your tract. It is not only your strongest argument, but it is the strongest that can possibly be framed, because it is based on or drawn from the divine perfections. To prove the unity of the law, you say:— "God is a unit; his law being founded upon his own immutable character, is a unit also." Before I notice the inconclusiveness of your reasoning, I will give attention to the principle involved. Its importance shall be my excuse for examining it at some length. This method of argument is not new with you. As you well know I constructed an argument on the law, based on the character of the Lawgiver, more than thirty years ago. I quote from a small book published in 1854. With this work you were very familiar. Beginning on page 39, I quote: "The apostle Peter, exhorting to obedience and holiness (1 Pet. 1:15, 16), says: 'But as he who hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation. Because it is written, Be ye holy, for I am holy.' See Lev. 11:44; 19:2; 20:26. Is not the requirement for holiness the same in both Testaments? We are required to be holy, for God is holy, and we are to be like him. So the Saviour said: 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in Heaven is perfect.' Matt. 5:48. And this is not an unreasonable requirement; it is only equivalent to that of loving God with all the heart. . . . A being possessed of creative power, in other words, being supreme, must have the right to command the worship of his creatures; and if so, to prescribe the form of worship—without which the command would be a nullity—his own character being an index to the form of worship prescribed. The character of God is declared in the passages referred to; he is holy; also in 1 John 4:8: 'God is love.' These declarations of the character of God are a sufficient guarantee that a system or form of worship, or rule of action, marked out by him, would be perfect, holy, like his own character, the embodiment of love." "That God designed that his creatures should be holy and happy, none can deny; and that obedience to his law is the appointed means to secure this very desirable state, is equally evident, from the reasons and scriptures offered above, and from other scriptures which declare that righteousness consists in keeping the law. Deut. 6:25. His law is the transcript of his divine mind, the revelation of his holy will. . . . How can anyone worship him and not keep his commandments? These contain his own prescribed rule or standard of holiness. But if that law was the rule whereby man might become like God, holy, in the former dispensation, can any138other rule be followed in this dispensation, and the agent still develop a holy character? Or, in other words, has God's holiness changed in its nature, or is it the same that it was in time past? Thus we see that there is a material point at issue. . . . A change of the moral law of God involves a change of the divine perfections. 'We hazard nothing in saying that it is as impossible for God to create two different complete rules of moral action, as to create a duplicate of himself.'" The argument imperfectly outlined above, is one in which I have great confidence, and I have never known an opposer to undertake to overthrow it. And you enjoy the unenviable distinction of having tried to make the attributes of God prove that his rule of holiness, his own appointed means whereby his creatures might become like himself, has been abolished! That which is the transcript of his own mind, the outgrowth of his perfections, is righteousness itself. And thus it is written: "All thy commandments are righteousness." Ps. 119:172. They are righteous; but that does not express the whole truth; they are righteousness. And the Lord, speaking to them "that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law," says: "My righteousness shall not be abolished." Isa. 51:1-8. This language should put to silence all those who argue the abolition of the law of Jehovah's righteousness. Now I will notice the fallacy of your argument; and I wish, for charity's sake, that I could believe you were so ignorant of logic as not to be able to perceive that your reasoning is better calculated to mislead than to instruct your readers. With your premises I find no fault; and I accept your conclusion as far as it goes. But it stops just far enough short of the whole truth to serve your purpose, and to obscure the truth. I will repeat your statement: "God is a unit; his law, being founded upon his own immutable character, is a unit also." Here you introduce two statements concerning the character of God, and draw an affirmative conclusion from the one, and argue the negative of the other! Your statement of the argument amounts to this:— God is a unit.
God is immutable.
His law is founded upon his nature or character;
Therefore, his law is a unit. Is there a reader of your tract who cannot see that your conclusion is lame? It should read thus:— Therefore, his law is a unit, and it is immutable. The immutability of God is as fixed, as certain, as necessary, as his unity. Why not, then, let the conclusion embrace both? It certainly must. How a man of your ability can frame an argument on the law of God, and found it on the character of God, and then deny its immutability, is quite beyond my comprehension. It is certainly not creditable to your logical acumen. You may ask if I believe that all that God commanded through Moses was immutable. By no means. All of God's original constitution, all the moral laws, is founded upon his attributes. That law is a unit; it is holy; it is perfect; it is immutable; it is a transcript of the divine mind; a revelation of the divine will and perfections; a rule of perfection, righteousness, or holiness to his creatures in forming moral characters. But the ceremonial law was not the outgrowth of the attributes of God; it originated, or was made necessary, by the sinful action of man. Sacrifices and offerings are only appropriate to a sinful state; and therefore they can be no part of God's constitution, or original law. Why should man present sacrifices and sin-offerings? Because he has sinned. But sin is the transgression of the law. Therefore the law first existed; it was transgressed; and offerings for sin followed. If no sin had existed, if man had obeyed and never transgressed the law, no offerings for sin would have been required, no remedial system would have been instituted. Surely the man who cannot see any distinction of laws, of moral and ceremonial, is obtuse indeed. I will now call your attention to the bearing that this argument from the attributes of God has on the declarations of Paul to the Romans. There can be no question that that law which grew out of, or was founded on, the attributes of God, existed as early as man's moral relations existed, that is, from his creation. That must be the law by which is the knowledge of sin—which condemns iniquity. To the violators of that law sin must be imputed; not to impute sin to its transgressors would be to uphold iniquity, and to reproach the divine character upon which the law is founded. It must be the law for the transgression of which the Son of God died, and in behalf of which he is now acting as Mediator. See Heb. 9:15. There can be but one such law. The law of ten commandments—the law which Jehovah spoke with his own voice, and wrote with his own finger on the tables of stone—meets all the requirements of such a law. It covers every relation of moral agents towards God and man. It is declared in the word of God to be perfect, holy, just, good, spiritual, to embrace the whole duty of man, with power to justify the doer. It is founded upon love to God and man (Matt. 22:35-40), and it is the embodiment of love, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." 1 John 5:3. I can readily adopt the words of Mr. Dobney, the English author, when he spoke of the ten precepts: "Thanks be to God for such a law." And such is the law against which you have brought all your God-given powers! Such is the law which you are depreciating, and teaching your fellow-mortals to disregard, and even to despise! In my next I shall consider your denial of the distinction of moral and ceremonial law, and show your inconsistencies on that subject.