LETTERS TO AN ANTINOMIAN.—4.
By James White
DEAR SIR: There were a few expressions in the quotations from your tract, given in my last letter, which I wish to notice further. In that, I was examining your inconsistencies in regard to "phraseology." Now I will give attention to the doctrines involved. 1. You speak of the "moral features" and the "civil features" of the ten commandments. In this you admit that the ten commandments are a moral law. There are no moral features to a ceremonial or positive law. Destroy it as to its ceremonial or positive nature and it is destroyed utterly. I find no fault with your expression here. Take the sixth commandment—Thou shalt not kill. We may say that the civil feature of this precept relates to the actual taking of life, for the civil government can take cognizance of the open act, and of nothing further. But God sees the heart; in his sight hatred is murder, because it is the first stage of murder. "The law is spiritual" (Rom. 7:14), and therefore it takes cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb. 4:12. As God alone can read the heart, and understand its thoughts and intents, he alone is "moral Governor." The "moral feature" of the sixth commandment not only forbids taking the life of your neighbor, but it requires a high and loving regard for his life; it requires that you care for his life even as you would care for your own. In other words, it requires that you love your neighbor as yourself. But you are doubtless aware that that "law is a unit." Being founded upon the attributes of the Lawgiver, it all hangs upon the "great moral precepts" of love to God and love to man, as said the Saviour. It all emanated from the mind and will of the great Creator, without any intervention of man. Rebellion did not create the necessity for any part of it—otherwise it were not a unit. And therefore whosoever "offends in one point, he is guilty of all." Jas. 2:10. He is a breaker of the law whether he breaks one precept or the whole ten. There was a time when civil government did not exist. In the days of the patriarchs the Government was parental. But, waiving that, I inquire: Do you wish to be understood to say that God did not require obedience to moral law on a moral basis, in the former dispensation? That is what you said, but it seems hardly possible that that is what you meant. And yet, absurd as that position really is, I have heard some, of your faith, openly avow it. Look at the consequences involved in such a declaration. (1) If that were so, then a man's heart might be full of idolatry, blasphemy, hatred, anger, lust, and covetousness, and he not be subject to any condemnation unless he committed the open crimes to which these passions lead. If that were so, God's government was loosely administered in that age. Could men be saved while inflamed with these vile passions? Have we not seen that God required men to be holy in that age, because he was holy? Has holiness170changed with the one moral Governor since that age? Are we not directed to "ancient worthies" as examples of godliness? Heb. 11. Are not the psalms the truly devotional part of the "Holy Scriptures," both of the Old and the New Testaments? (2) If that were so, then a man might have been guilty of all the crimes forbidden in the book, yet if he evaded the civil officers he was safe; if he were only successful in concealment he would escape all punishment. If only the civil features of the law were enforced, of course if the criminal evaded the civil government he was clear! But in denial of that, read Eccl. 12:13, 14: "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." To the careful and reverent reader of the Scriptures, your assertion is simply absurd. I could direct you to a thousand passages which contradict you. 2. Analogous to the above-noticed expression is that in which you speak of the requirement to love your neighbor as yourself; you say, "There was no civil penalty to this moral precept." Here again, by your own showing, there was a plain distinction between moral and ceremonial law. You have again and again said that there were ceremonial laws in that dispensation; here you recognize a law of that dispensation as moral. Hence, there were both moral and ceremonial laws in that dispensation. Now it is a truism that there can be no law without a penalty; deprived of this sanction, it does not amount to law. It may be advise, but it cannot be law. Why was there no civil penalty to that moral precept? The answer is easily given: that law does not come within the province of civil government, because no civil governor can know whether you love your neighbor, or whether you do not. He may know that you do not, if you break that part of the decalogue which hangs on the precept to love your neighbor; but if you do not break them openly, you may hate your neighbor, and no civil officer can detect it. As has been said, no civil government can enforce law on a moral basis. But God always had a penalty to moral law, for he always had a moral government—he was always a moral Governor. There was another moral precept, of which you have also spoken, namely, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart." This is beyond the province of civil government, also, as no human being can determine how any man stands related to this law. But of these I shall have occasion to speak again. 3. The statement to which I wish to call particular attention is that concerning the fourth commandment. I will copy it again:— "The fourth commandment being exclusively civil—purely ceremonial—and not having any moral principle involved, apart from a positive precept, perished with all other positive, civil, and ceremonial laws." Your language is loose. That which was "exclusively civil" could not be "purely ceremonial." The latter word is applied to religious, not to civil laws. A civil law may be in the exact words of a moral law. Thus, the moral law says, Thou shalt not kill; the civil law may say the same. As far as the outward action is concerned, they are identical. But not so with ceremonial laws. Civil laws are not necessarily positive, in distinction from moral; but ceremonial laws always are. Your assertion that there is no moral principle involved in the fourth commandment, that it is purely ceremonial, cannot be proved. And I notice that you did not attempt to prove it. You are aware that the advocates of the Sabbath have often offered proof that the fourth commandment is a moral precept. Though this proof may not be satisfactory to you, do you not think that it would be becoming on your side to offer some kind of proof to sustain your assertion that it is purely ceremonial? I do. If there were no direct proof on the subject, the probabilities are all against you. It is classed only with moral laws; it is a part of God's covenant of commandments; God spoke it himself, and wrote it himself—he did not intrust it solely to Moses, as he did the ceremonial law; it is founded on a work completed before the fall of man. You can give no reason why God should select a single civil or ceremonial law, and place it in the very bosom of his moral law. You cannot account for the fact that it always occupied this honorable position. On the other hand I think it is not difficult to show that there is a moral principle involved in it. In arguing this question it will be necessary to define the terms we use, and have the lines between different kinds of laws clearly drawn. Without this we shall be only beating the air. Webster says: "The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their characters are to be determined." Webster also says that "the moral law is summarily contained in the ten commandments." But I will not insist upon this, as I presume it would be more satisfactory to you to make it a question of proof and reasoning, than to rest it upon the authority of a lexicographer. The word is mostly applied to social virtues—to actions of man toward his fellow-man—but it is also correctly applied to religious actions, or duties directly toward God of original obligation. By this I mean the duties we owe to God as our Creator—religious duties not belonging to the plan of redemption. The distinction may be better understood by a comparison: baptism and the Lord's Supper are religious duties; but they would never have existed had there been no gospel, or remedial system. Sin laid the foundation for duties of this nature. Obedience to the second and third commandments are also religious, as relating directly to God, but they would have been duties if man had never sinned. They are not of the same nature as duties which are peculiar to the Christian religion, as they are of original obligation, growing solely out of the mind and will of the Creator, before the fall of man. The gospel being remedial, cannot be moral. Christianity enforces all morality, but it originates none. It were truly absurd to hold that man, by an act of wrong-doing, could be the means of giving rise to moral obligation, or of introducing moral principles into the government of God. Sin creates the necessity of a remedy—nothing more. The ten commandments constitute a peculiar law, differing from all others, it being both moral and religious. But the religious element predominates in the first four precepts, and they point out directly our duties toward God; while the moral element predominates in the last six, as they relate more especially to our duties to our fellow-creatures. But they are all required to form a perfect law; they cannot be separated as that a part may be kept while others are violated. Now we will carry our comparison in another direction, taking two precepts of the decalogue—the eighth and the fourth. No character is more despised than that of the thief. Why? Because he invades the rights of his fellow. Upon what is the eighth commandment based? Solely upon the right of property. If there were no property rights, that commandment would be useless. And to convict by this precept there must be proof of property. It is not enough to prove that a certain piece of property was taken by a certain man; it must be proved that the property belonged to another, and that it was taken without the consent of the owner. But now I appeal to yourself: Is there any evidence in any or all the records on the earth which proves, or is there any means of proving more clearly, that any certain property belongs to any certain individual, than the Bible itself, the very highest authority, proves that the Sabbath, the seventh day, belongs to God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? Is it not a fact that the fourth commandment is specifically based on the right of property, as well as the eighth? You know that it is a clear case; that God reserved the seventh day to himself, and sanctified it,—"set it apart to a sacred use." But we are told that "there is no difference in days;" that there is nothing in the nature of things to indicate that one day differs from another. A flimsy objection, indeed, more worthy of a radical infidel than of one who professes to believe the Bible. Is there anything in nature to prove that the horse you drive is more yours than mine? Anything in nature to prove that this chair belongs to me more than to you? Nature never settles such questions. Admitted that property rights exist, and all questions of individual rights must be settled by evidence. Again I ask, Was any right of property ever established by clearer evidence than the Bible affords that Jehovah has a special right to the seventh day? Without any evasion, resting on a "Thus saith the Lord," what must be your answer? If the eighth commandment is moral because it guards your right to property which you claim as yours, on what principle do you deny that the fourth is likewise moral, which is given to guard the right of the Creator to a day which he claims as his? He who denies the claim contradicts the word of the Lord himself; and he who appropriates the day to himself, against the direct prohibition of the Lord, is committing a crime as much greater than he who takes your horse, as the right and claim of God are higher and more sacred than yours; as the Sabbath, hallowed by the express act of Jehovah, is more holy or sacred than your coat or pocket-book. If not, please explain why not. God certainly has rights, as well as man. Many overlook this, and think that if they fulfill their obligations to their fellow-men—are honest in all their worldly relations—they ought to stand acquitted in the Judgment. And I am sorry to say that the theories of all Antinomians lead to the same result. "Will a man rob God?" He himself asks the question, which shows that robbery may be committed against him as really as against man. His property right to the seventh day is not of a "ceremonial" nature. The Sabbath originated when he created the heavens and the earth, and was given to man as a hallowed memorial, that we may know that he is God, the Creator. Eze. 20:12, 20, etc. You will surely excuse me for examining this question at such length, seeing that you and your friends so carefully avoid it as a matter of proof! No question is of greater importance. In my next I will progress in my view by noticing several new matters of interest.