LETTERS TO AN ANTINOMIAN.—3.
By James White
DEAR SIR: As far as the merits of the question are concerned, it would seem to be unnecessary to add anything to what was said in my preceding letters, to prove the existence of the distinction of moral and ceremonial laws, or between “the law” and the system of sacrifices which were required because the law was violated. The Bible itself is explicit on the subject. I will quote one text on the point. The Lord said: “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.’” Jer. 7:22, 23. This is a plain reference to the covenant which God made with his people when he delivered them from the bondage of Egypt, which is recorded in Ex. 19:5-8. He said if they would obey his voice, they should be a peculiar treasure unto him. When they heard his voice, the third day after this covenant was made, he spake not “concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;” he declared unto them his holy covenant of ten precepts, “the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.” Or if the above text is not sufficient to satisfy the unbeliever, see the following from the same prophecy: “Behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.” Jer. 6:19, 20. Sacrifices and burnt-offerings were not acceptable when “the law” was rejected. No religious service is acceptable to God if the moral law is not regarded. “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Prov. 28:9. Jesus said: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven.” Matt. 7:21. Compare Rom. 2:17, 18. And again, Christ reproved them who “made the commandment of God of none effect” by their tradition; and said their worship of him was vain, who teach for doctrines the commandments of men. “Hear him.” It is not because the truth is not clear, that I pursue this subject further, but to point out some of the errors into which you have run. You say:— “It is claimed that during the Mosaic dispensation God had two laws, one moral, and the other ceremonial. Such phraseology never occurs in the Bible. No Bible writer makes such discrimination. Just the reverse will be demonstrated from the word of God.” Admitted that this is not Bible phraseology, is it therefore not Bible truth? “Moral character” is not a Bible phrase; does it therefore not exist? Indeed, “morality” is not a Bible word; it never occurs in that book; why, then, do you use it in a disquisition on a Bible subject? Probation may be denied on this principle. To assert with an air of triumph that the distinction of moral and ceremonial law is not verbally mentioned in the Bible, is the veriest cavil. But you do not rest it alone on this cavil; you go further; you not only say that this distinction does not exist, but, “just the reverse will be demonstrated from the word of God.” Well, if you succeed in this,—if you “demonstrate” it from the word of God—you have a strong case, indeed. I have heard many deny the existence of that distinction, but I think none has shown as much self-confidence in the assertion as yourself. I have examined your tract with some care, to find the demonstration, but have failed to discover anything which has any appearance of a demonstration. And I will now show that your “demonstration” is not at all established in your own mind. Your confidence is altogether in your assertion, and not in the fact; you have no faith in your own conclusion. Let us compare your statements quoted above with those in other parts of your work. Speaking of the commandment to love our neighbor, you say:— “There was no civil penalty affixed to the violation of this moral precept, but there was to the other six precepts. This commandment, therefore, was not embraced in those precepts. The law in which these great precepts were written was the book of the law exclusive. If, then, the fact that these two great moral precepts were written in that law,” etc. I do not copy further, because I am not now quoting for the sake of your argument, but to show the phraseology of which you make use. Is this Bible phraseology? Does any Bible writer ever call them “two great moral precepts”? Have you so soon forgotten that no such distinction exists? You have here made just the distinction that we claim, and for making which you accuse us of departing from “what was written.” Let us read further from the tract; it is getting more and more interesting:— “In that dispensation only the civil features of the ten commandments were enforced; in this dispensation only the moral features are enforced.” While “moral law” is a very wide departure from Bible phraseology, no doubt “the moral features of the law” is a strictly Biblical expression! While the distinction between moral and ceremonial law is strictly forbidden by Bible writers, doubtless they were accustomed to use such expressions as the “moral features” and the “civil features” of the law! Can you not see that all your pretended argument on this subject is only a cavil? I may have use for this quotation again. I give another quotation from the same page:— “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.” Now, my dear sir, what do you think of that? It seems a strange declaration, coming from a man who believes that such a distinction as moral and ceremonial law does not exist, who believes that it can be “demonstrated from the word of God” that it does not exist! Perhaps you will now show us that “positive, civil, and ceremonial laws” is a Bible phrase. I am astonished that you should put forth such palpable contradictions, and that men of ordinary capacity should, without a blush, recommend your tract as a strong argument against the perpetuity of the law and the Sabbath. It is evident that what you have written in this tract is not so much the result of careful study and settled conviction, as it is a determined effort to oppose the law of God by any means. Do I misjudge you? Why, then, do you take both sides of a question, just as you appear to think will best serve your purpose? Can your readers tell which side of the controversy on the moral and ceremonial question you occupy? Your words plainly indicate that you are on both sides! With all your skill in legerdemain, I do not think you are equal to the task you have undertaken. But if you can stand on both sides of a given line at the same time, then you certainly excel the “Chinee” in “ways that are dark.” It must be apparent to every unprejudiced reader of your tract that, in your work of opposing the law of God, you are sadly given to “tricks that are vain.” But I believe that, in the last quotation here given, you spoke your real conviction. And, though many might hide their inconsistencies, and thus appear to better advantage, I believe that you spoke the honest conviction of every one of your associates in belief. I believe that the distinction of moral and ceremonial law is so clearly shown in the Bible, and by just reasoning, that every sensible person, possessed of even a modicum of logical acumen, feels in his heart that it does exist. Now that you have set them an example in recognizing it, I hope that you will lead out still further in the way of truth, and withdraw your denial of it! All opposers of the law of God affect to believe that there are moral precepts in the gospel. And they also confess that baptism is a positive precept—that there is no morality in it. And you, in the quotation given above, made precisely the same distinction of moral and positive precepts in the Old Testament. Every person knows that the distinction existed then as certainly as it exists now. Why, then, this everlasting caviling over it? Why deny that which they are compelled to believe, and even154compelled to admit? Why assert that it can be “demonstrated from the word of God” that it does not exist, and then immediately recognize its existence, and even use its existence as the basis of an argument against a part of the moral law? If they are so blind that they cannot see the crookedness of the course they are pursuing, they need not flatter themselves that others are as blind as they. And we impute the errors of their course altogether to the crookedness of the system which they are trying to uphold. In using these quotations as I have used them, I had a certain object in view, namely, to show that all the denials of the distinction of moral and positive or ceremonial law are senseless cavils. That is now accomplished. There are also errors of doctrine in them which I will examine; but this must be reserved for my next letter. J. H. W.