LETTERS TO AN ANTINOMIAN.—5.
By James White
DEAR SIR:—You seem not to have exhausted your direct efforts to get rid of the Sabbath, in the passages quoted from your tract. You further say, on page 19: "Another fact worthy of notice is, that the remainder of the ten commandments are incorporated into the Christian constitution." And "another fact worthy of notice is," that you failed to offer any proof to sustain your assertion. Others have made the same assertion, but no one ever gave proof. Sometimes they point to a reference to one, made several years before the old covenant passed away, before it is even claimed they were abolished, and to another a score or more of years after the new covenant was established, which is no proof at all. If we rested upon their inconclusive method of proof, or if they would receive what they ask us to accept, the question would be settled at once. All that they ask is a mere reference to one of the other commandments, to claim that it is re-enacted; but we find the Sabbath mentioned more than any other part of the decalogue, even after the death and resurrection of Christ. I am not surprised that you consider this no proof in favor of the fourth commandment, though a tithe of the same kind of evidence you consider quite sufficient in favor of its associates. To accept this as evidence for the Sabbath would be consistent, and that is too much to expect of an opposer of the Lord's holy day. We prove, by the words of Christ and his apostles, the perpetuity of the whole law. You argue the abolition of the whole, and then assert that nine precepts are re-enacted, while you can show nothing that has the faintest resemblance to a re-enactment. If I dared to give you credit for consistency, I would take your own words to prove that you have no faith whatever in your re-enactment theory. Turning back to page 10, you urge that the Sabbath was not brought over into this dispensation, and says— "We must have stronger evidence than mere inference for the transfer of precepts from one constitution or dispensation to another. We must have a positive, Thus saith the Lord." I commend these words to your careful consideration. How forcibly they apply against all that you say, or can say, in favor of the flimsy theory of a "re-enactment." What I say to you I say to all who oppose the Sabbath on that ground. A man who was set forth by his denomination as "master of the situation" on the Sabbath question, when arguing against the institution of the Sabbath, said:— "All commemorative institutions are positive, and dependent as to obligation on the will of the institution, and hence are not binding on man till formally proclaimed." To this rule he said there was no exception; and yet, when he came to advocate the Sunday institution, he insisted that there was no necessity to show any act of instituting, or any record of its appointment, or any formal proclamation! Where the inferences were so strong nothing more was needed!185We have no use for this re-enactment theory. There has been no change of constitution, as I will show more particularly on another point. The law of God "being founded upon his own immutable character," as you well remark, can no more be changed or abolished than his own attributes can be changed or abolished. Change of administration in our Government causes no change in our Constitution, neither did a change of administration effect any change in the Government of God. All who were ever saved in the former dispensation were saved by faith in the Messiah who was to come; but their faith in Christ did not release them from obligation to obey the moral law of God, neither will our faith release us. In that dispensation, it was said: "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination." Prov. 28:9. And in this dispensation Jesus said: "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in Heaven." Matt. 7:21. Now let me ask you, Why is it that antinomians are so anxious to show that "the other nine commandments" of the decalogue are brought over into the new covenant? They persistently declare that there was no distinction of laws in the former dispensation; you say that it "will be demonstrated from the word of God" that such a distinction as moral and ceremonial laws did not exist; that the laws were all alike—all were of one nature. Why, then, this anxiety to bring "the other nine" over here? Why not all the laws of that dispensation, seeing there was no difference between the ten and the multitude of others? The truth is—and you have acknowledged it—that they have no confidence in their theory; they feel that the moral sense of the people is outraged by their teaching that the moral law is abolished, and this re-enactment pretext is gotten up to save their cause from the condemnation it so well deserves. I now pass to your argument on Matthew 5. On this chapter you say:— "Again it is affirmed, from the fact that Christ quoted two of the ten commandments (viz., the sixth and the seventh, see verses 21 and 27), that therefore the law to which he referred was the ten commandments. With equal propriety may it be affirmed, by the negative, that Christ having quoted more largely from the commandments written exclusively in the book, that, therefore, he referred to the book of the law. See verses 31, 33, 38, and 43." This statement I have heard before, and always with surprise. I notice here (1) There is positive proof in this chapter that when Christ said he came not to destroy the law, he referred to the ten commandments. For (2) When he referred to the sixth and seventh commandments he gave them the strongest possible sanction, affirming their morality or spirituality. And (3) When he referred to the other laws he reversed them in every instance. Has your examination of this subject been so superficial that you did not notice this important fact? If it has, then you are but poorly qualified to take the position of a teacher. But if not, if you have studied the chapter, as you profess to have done, what are we to think of your assertions, which do so great violence to the Scripture? Have you, indeed, spoken contrary to your knowledge? Now I will notice the passages, to verify my statement in regard to the difference of the laws to which the Saviour referred. Verses 21, 22: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment." Instead of reversing the precept, he says that causeless anger, the first step toward murder, brings the condemnation which they thought should only follow the taking of life. Verses 27, 28: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Here, again, instead of reversing the commandment, he shows that it reaches to the thoughts and intents of the heart. Surely he came not to destroy the law of which these precepts are a part. Compare with these his other sayings. Verses 31, 32: "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery." Here he disallowed the action which before was permitted. Verses 33, 34: "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths. But I say unto you, Swear not at all." Exactly the same as in the other case. Verses 38, 39: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil." An exact reversal of the old saying. Verses 43, 44: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies." Now, sir, can you say in your heart that the Saviour meant that he would not destroy the law of which these latter sayings are a part? And, to come directly to the point, do you not think you have handled the word of God deceitfully in saying that, with equal propriety it may be said that when he said he came not to destroy the law he referred to the things written exclusively in the book, because he referred to them also? I hardly know how to have the charity to believe that you were so ignorant of this chapter as not to know that he confirmed and strengthened one class of laws, and reversed the other. I cannot understand how any candid person can fail to see "two laws" in this chapter, and a strong confirmation (not, however, a re-enactment) of the law of ten commandments. Again, suppose he did destroy the law, as your argument teaches, what confidence can you have in him as a Saviour if he did the very thing he said he would not do? Or, if this savors too strongly of irreverence, as it truly is, I will state the query thus: Cannot you see that your argument is an effort to make it appear that the action of Christ contradicted his words? In my next I will pay particular attention to your argument on the change of the constitution, showing the tendency and logical result of the doctrine. This is relied upon with great confidence by all antinomians, but of all their pretended arguments, this is one of which they ought to be most ashamed.