Communication from Bro. Waggoner.
By J. H. Waggoner
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—On my return West, I stopped at Cold Spring Prairie, Illinois, and gave eight lectures. Some were much interested, and I hope good to the cause will be the result. Some of those calling themselves Adventists, refused to hear; they had a summary way of disposing of the whole matter, which was this: they knew the "Age to Come" was right, and that my lectures would contradict that theory; and of course they would be wrong. Therefore it was no use to hear. Babylon never gave a more arbitrary or unreasonable opposition to the doctrine of the Second Advent than this. But the god of this world has blinded their minds, and it is to be feared they will never awake to a sense of their condition until our High Priest has cleansed the Sanctuary, and comes to take vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thinking that a more extended notice of my visit to Salem, Ind., might be of interest, I will mention some particulars. I arrived there on Fifth-day, Nov. 3d, and was informed that the next First-day was the time of the regular appointment of Eld. E. Miller Jr., that at his last meeting he had preached against the Sabbath, and had given notice that at his next appointment he intended to overthrow the whole theory by presenting positive testimony that the Sabbath was abolished. Being anxious to know what would be considered "positive testimony" on that point, I attended his meeting; but so far from redeeming his promise, he did not attempt to offer any "positive testimony" to that effect, but rested it on the sweeping declaration that "The whole code of laws from Sinai, moral, civil and ceremonial, went by the board." He made quite an effort to narrow down and contract that which the Word says, is "exceeding broad." Ps. cxix, 96. In order to show that the commandments of God do not include all moral duties he said that restoring four-fold was a moral duty not found in the Decalogue. But does the duty of restoring four-fold grow out of any proper or natural relation which we sustain to one another? We read in Ex. xxii, 1, thus: "If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep, and kill it or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep." The obligation to restore four-fold arises from the transgression of the commandment. It is truly singular that men will not see a difference between obedience to a law, and the restitution for disobedience. To avoid the necessary conclusion from a comparison of Gen. xxvi, 3-5; 1 Chron. xvi, 14-18, and Deut. iv, 12, 13, to wit: that the ten commandments existed as a law before given from Mount Sinai, he affirmed and reaffirmed that the covenant, (law) spoken of in 1 Chron. xvi, was the promise of the land of Canaan! Again, in commenting on Paul's epistle to the Romans, he said that Chaps. v and vi, were a digression from the main argument. The fallacy of such a position must be evident to every one who reads the first seven chapters. But he was under the necessity of making out a digression, or admit what the Apostle shows, that the transgression of "the law" of which he is all along speaking, was the introduction of sin into the world. In Chap. vii, he said that Paul, by a figure of speech, threw himself back under the law, to illustrate how the law worked when it was yet in force. Then when he said he delighted in the law of God, he must have meant that he would have delighted in it if there had been any such thing, and that the law would be holy, just, good and spiritual, if it had not "all gone by the board." But the most strange and untenable views were held forth in his exposition of the New Testament law. To fill up the "gap" between the resurrection and day of Pentecost, he quoted 2 Thess. iii, 6, without, however, attempting to show what traditions Paul, or any of the apostles, delivered during the period in question. After stating that we were at liberty to do whatever is not prohibited by the apostles, he made use of the second commandment, as it stands in the Decalogue, to prove that it is wrong to make or worship graven images; and after repelling the charge, (said to have been made by some) that he advocated a "no-law" theory, he made the following singular declaration: "Christ never proclaimed a code of laws for the government of the world, either in person or by his apostles. At the present time he has no code of laws for the government of the world; saving this, to repent. He dont tell the world to do this or that, but to repent and become members of his body, and then fall in with a rule for Christians." This, it seems to me, is a bold and dangerous stroke at the authority of revelation. If this is true, the world can have no sin, for where no law is there is no transgression. If Christ has no code of laws for the government of the world, then the world is in greater safety than the church, because the church may lose some, but the world can lose none; the Christian may "fall from grace" and be condemned by the law for Christians, but the world cannot be condemned, for "Sin is not imputed when there is no law." The investigation at this place was attended with the happiest results; as many by it were confirmed in the truth of our position, thinking truly that nothing but an extremity to save a sinking cause would lead any sane man to deny the plain distinction between a law and a promise, or affirm that a digression from an argument on justification by faith, should commence with, "THEREFORE being justified by faith," &c., or, again, that all the law, moral, civil, and ceremonial went by the board at the death of Christ, leaving us entirely dependent on the apostles for a rule of moral obligation, and that their first commandment inculcated repentance! If such are the strongholds of our opponents, surely "their rock is not as our rock." Many around us are laboring under equally erroneous impressions; and let us, dear brethren, awake to the importance of diligence in placing the true light before them, and ever praying that God may open their eyes to see the danger of their position.
Yours in hope, J. H. WAGGONER.
Metomen, Wis., Jan. 22d, 1854.