Earlier text: THE LAW OF THE GOSPELUNCONCEALED INFIDELITY.
By Editor
By this term we do not refer to the blasphemous rantings of Ingersoll, but to the infidelity that is preached from Christian pulpits and scattered broadcast by the religious press. There is scarcely a Bible doctrine, or a fact of sacred history that is not positively denied by some professing to be religious teachers. The Bible says that in six days God created the heaven and the earth; but that truth has been so long and so generally denied by religious teachers, that he who believes the simple Bible statement, is considered an old fogy. To believe the simple statement of the Bible is considered a mark of ignorance. Our attention has been especially directed to this matter of late by several noted instances of clerical infidelity, a few of which we will notice. An English clergyman has recently published two books on "Christ and Christianity," in one of which, entitled "A Picture of Jesus," the following version is given of the miracle at Cana:— "The Virgin is evidently a little discomposed. The run on the wine is, no doubt, due to the people who came in the retinue of her Son. She cannot bear that members of her own family should put to shame the giver of the feast and so close a friend. 'They have no wine, my dear Son—you see there are too many, in consequence of—' 'Hush!' Jesus stops her, with exquisite sensibility and gentle courtesy. He will not have attention called to the fact of there being any deficiency. "No doubt Jesus and his disciples had brought wine enough, at least for themselves, according to custom. But now, is it not possible—even likely and Christlike—that with loving thoughtfulness, and knowing the extra concourse in consequence of his presence, Jesus may have said to his disciples, 'If we go, we must not be burdensome to our friends; they are not rich; many will follow us; the sacred rites of hospitality, by which at such a season none may be excluded, must not be put to shame; take plenty of wine, and let it be good—the best wine. But don't let it be known; we must not do a kindness to get praise by others, at the expense of wounding our host's feelings; let us so manage that, if possible, he may not even know that his wine ran short; let us leave our supply outside, it need only be used if called for, and then served up out of the host's own pots. The water pots at the door are sure to be empty by that time, it will be most convenient to put our wine in them at the right moment, and no one will be likely to notice that it is not the host's own wine.' "So when the wine 'runs short,' Jesus himself steals away from the feast—the servants quickly get in the wine, fill up the water pots under his directions—and the whole had been done so quietly that the first thing noticed is that wine is being poured out of pots usually containing water. Some noticed that; the servants, we are told, knew about it, and could have given the real explanation; but the ruler of the feast did not even know that the wine had failed; he only noticed that what was now served was the best wine." The above was written by one who writes "Rev." before his name; and we have seen it printed in a prominent denominational journal, without a word of dissent. Instead of being called a picture of Jesus, his book should have been entitled "a Caricature of Jesus." For no one who has ever read the simple narrative in the second chapter of John, could believe that the one who wrote the paragraph above had any other motive than to ridicule the Bible account. The evangelist plainly states that the servants, at the command of Jesus, filled the six stone water-pots, and as plainly states that that water was made wine; yet this man professing to give a picture of Jesus, has represented him as using deception in order to perpetrate a very clumsy trick. It is not simply that the miracle is denied, but Jesus is represented as being actually dishonest. No professed infidel ever did more to bring the Bible into disrepute by his coarse jokes upon it, than has this professed minister of the gospel. We cannot believe that a man who presents Jesus in such a light as he does, can have any faith in him or in the Bible. In its issue of December 9, the Christian Union reprints an article from the Popular Science Monthly, which begins thus: "There is no weed weedier or more ubiquitous than the common thistle. In Paradise, it is true, if we may trust John Milton and the Sunday-school books—wise, as usual, beyond what is written—there were no thorns or thistles." The one who wrote that has read the Bible to little purpose, if he has read it at all, or else he doesn't accept the Bible as final authority on any subject. The Bible says that at the close of creation, "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold it was very good." Gen. 1:31. Thorns and thistles are not good. Also we are told that "out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food." Gen. 2:9. And the growth of thorns and thistles is expressly declared to have been the direct consequence of the sin of our first parents: "And unto Adam he [God] said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee." Gen. 3:17, 18. It would be well if many who nowadays presume to write upon Bible subjects had as much knowledge of the Bible as John Milton had; better still if they believed it as fully as he did. The quotation which implies that thistles grew from the beginning, and were in Eden, is perfectly in keeping with the rapidly-increasing tendency to leave God out of the account altogether, and to hold that the world evolved itself. Again, in the Christian Union of January 20, the editor, Lyman Abbott, makes an exhibition of infidelity in his comments on the current Sunday-school lesson. The lesson is upon the call of Abram, Gen. 12:1-9, and is entitled "The Faith of Abram." We make a few quotations from the article:— "And so he went out, 'not knowing,' says the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, 'whither he went;' not knowing, I may add, by whom he was led. He went by faith, obedient to the command of that inward sense which is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. He crossed the Euphrates, passed over the desert, and entered the unknown land which he determined should be his home. He pitched his tent and built an altar near to what afterward became Bethel; and initiated his entrance in a new country by a new worship. He called, it is said, upon the name of the gods. In treating this ancient history we are almost wholly in the land of conjecture; the conjecture is reasonable that he first introduced into use, and so into the Hebrew Scriptures, the plural from Elohim, the gods, as a method of expressing his faith that the many lords and gods of the Chaldaic religion were but different names or expressions for the one God who is the Master and Maker of all. As Paul commended the altar to the unknown God, and whom the Athenians unknowingly worshipped proceeded to declare unto them, so Abraham, not attacking even by implication the polytheistic beliefs of his father's house, grouped in thought all the gods of the earth and the heavens together, and took the first step toward a true monotheistic worship by calling on the name of the gods, as though in the many he would recognize but One." Some persons may see in the above a sample of advanced theology, but we can see only a sample of advanced infidelity. The Scripture says, "Abraham believed God;" Lyman Abbott says that Abraham was not sure that there was any God. The Scripture tells us the simple facts about the call of Abraham, where he was when he was called, how old he was, where he went, and where he stopped on the way, and the instances connected with his journey; Lyman Abbott says, "In treating this ancient history we are almost wholly in the land of conjecture." We submit that the only room there is for conjecture is by ignoring the Bible narrative. The writer of the above conjectures that because the word "Elohim" is used (not however by Abraham, but by Moses, the historian), therefore Abraham had the gods of Chaldea in mind when he built the altar and worshiped at Bethel. He might as reasonably conjecture that Moses had the many gods of the Egyptians in mind when he wrote, "In the beginning God [Elohim] created the heavens and the earth."152 But the writer continues:— "Of course I am well aware that there are able theological writers who suppose that modern theology was furnished to Adam in Eden, and to Abraham in Ur, and to whom this whole rendering of Abraham's emigration will seem secular, if not profane. To them the plural Elohim is an evidence that Abraham believed in the Trinity, and his erection of an altar a conclusive proof that he comprehended the atonement. If religion is something external to man, we may certainly conceive it prepared ready-made and given to him, like the dress of skins which the Lord God made for Adam and Eve in the garden. But if religion is character, if it is what man is, not what he has, then, in the crude and ruder states of human development, religion must be simple and crude in its forces; then, as we are content to teach our children the very simplest truths concerning God, and their duty toward him, and their right of trust in him, so we not only may, but we must, think God has taught the race." The trouble is that his theory does not allow that God is the author of religion. In fact, it ignores God entirely. Instead of allowing that God is the teacher of the race, it makes man his own teacher, and religion something that is evolved from his own inner consciousness. If religion is not something external to man, then it is only human and not divine. The Bible says that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God;" but the writer of the above paragraph, in claiming that religion is something that is developed within the individual man, being crude at first, but becoming more perfect as the man becomes better educated, does away entirely with the necessity for a God. His theory is infidelity pure and simple. To show that this charge is well founded, and that the editor of the Christian Union has in his comments entirely ignored God, we make one more quotation:— "So perhaps from this simple story we may get a simple and clear idea of what is that calling and election which has been a theological trouble to so many minds. Abraham was the first in the long line of God's 'chosen people;' and he is himself designated in the Bible as 'called' and 'chosen.' We are called whenever we feel within an inspiration to a higher life or to some special divine action; we make our calling and election sure when we are obedient to the voice divine. "To listen to and obey this voice is faith. Abraham 'believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness.' Abraham's creed at this time, if I have read his story correctly, must have been of the simplest kind. He could have believed in no Bible, for he had none; in no divine, atoning Saviour, for he had apparently been told of none; there is nothing to indicate that he knew anything about the future state, nor anything more about God than a general conviction that Elohim was one, not many. He knew less than the Magi who followed the star. But, like them, he followed. His inward convictions were very few; what they revealed to him was very simple; but he followed them whithersoever they might lead him." We have in the above at least one direct contradiction of the Bible. Paul says (Gal. 3:8, 17) that the gospel was preached to Abraham, and that the covenant that God made with him was confirmed in Christ; Lyman Abbott says that Abraham had no belief in a divine atonement, because he had been told of none. But even worse than this is his theory of the call of God, and his comment on the statement that Abraham believed God. His call, we are told, was simply inward inspiration; and his faith was simply obedience to the promptings of his own heart. The Bible says that "Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness;" but we are told that what he believed was simply an impulse from within; therefore we must conclude if we accept Dr. Abbott's theory, that the God that Abraham worshiped was himself; and that his faith being accounted to him for righteousness was simply his own self-approval! This is the doctrine of Spiritualists and infidels. We never pick up a Spiritualist paper that does not counsel its readers to follow the promptings of their own heart. If following one's inward convictions wherever they may lead him, with no regard for a supernatural revelation, were what is meant by faith, then there would be multitudes of people upon earth who could truly claim to be children of faithful Abraham. But that is not faith; nothing is faith except obedience to the plainly expressed will of God. It is a matter of very little importance what any single individual believes. We have no controversy with Lyman Abbott. If he wishes to believe that the Bible is a myth, he has that privilege, but we cannot help feeling righteously indignant when we think that such stuff as we have quoted is sent out to the tens of thousands of Sunday-school scholars, many of whom will accept it as legitimate comment upon the Scripture. It is a terrible pity that honest students of the Bible cannot be allowed to receive the pure and unadulterated word of God. The blindness and infidelity concerning the Scriptures that we find among men in high position, is simply appalling. Yet people will say, "If the seventh day and not the first is the Sabbath, why have not these learned ministers of the gospel found it out and preached it?" We reply, If the Bible is the inspired word of God, why have not these men found it out and why do they not preach it, instead of teaching their own vain imaginations? When a man can pervert simple Bible history as has been done in the quotations we have made, it is not surprising that he cannot see a scriptural duty which interferes with his convenience. And yet these men, notwithstanding their unconcealed infidelity, will be blindly followed by thousands. W. WHAT SHALL THE END BE?
By Editor
In several numbers of the Signs immediately preceding this we have called attention to the failure of justice, and the sympathy with crime and criminals, which now characterizes the proceedings at law, and pervades society everywhere. In view of these things, we have asked how long can these things continue before the earth shall be filled with violence? If these things furnished the only source whence an increase of violence were justly to be feared, this of itself would be a most important question. But when, in whatever direction we may look, there are only tendencies of a like nature to be seen, then the question becomes one which must be, and is indeed, of the most absorbing interest to all thinking people. Notwithstanding the national organization of the Knights of Labor for the purpose, as stated, of preventing strikes, there were more than 3,000 strikes in the United States in the year 1886, all of them accompanied with violence to a greater or less degree. In some instances the violence was so great that it would be difficult to tell how much greater it could be short of open war or complete anarchy. All this in 1886, and here we are only two months on the way in 1887, and how stands the record? Is the prospect for this year any brighter in this direction than it was for 1886 at the same time, or in fact at any time in that year? To say nothing of others of less note, Boston, New York, and Paterson, New Jersey, lead off with strikes in quick succession, and of such magnitude as to easily surpass any, except, perhaps, the very largest of the year 1886, and that year surpassed all others. Now let any person soberly ask himself the question, How long can this thing continue before outbreaking violence shall be the rule, and law and order be set at defiance? How long? And when there is added to this the fact that the so-called labor organizations are falling more and more under the direct and active domination of Socialistic principles, and Socialistic agitations, whose sole purpose is the utter breaking down of the present order of civil society, the question of how long is so much the more emphasized. In 1857 Lord Macaulay, writing of the American Republic, used these words:— "The day will come when, in the State of New York, a multitude of people, not one of whom has had more than half a breakfast, or expects to have more than half a dinner, will choose a Legislature. Is it possible to doubt what sort of a Legislature will be chosen? On one side is a statesman preaching patience, respect for vested rights, strict observance of public faith; on the other is a demagogue, canting about the tyranny of capitalists and usurers, and asking why anybody should be permitted to drink champagne and to ride in carriages, while thousands of honest folks are in want of necessaries. Which of the two candidates is likely to be preferred by the workingman who hears his children crying for more bread? I seriously apprehend that you will, in some such seasons of adversity as I have described, do things which will prevent prosperity from returning. Either some Cæsar or Napoleon will seize the reins of Government with a strong hand, or your Republic will be as fearfully plundered and laid waste by barbarians in the twentieth century as the Roman Empire was in the fifth, with this difference, that the Huns and Vandals will have been engendered within your own country and by your own institutions." With that please read the following editorial note from the Argonaut (S. F.), of November 6, 1886:— "Mr. Henry George has not carried New York, and has not become its mayor; but this is what has been done. An impecunious adventurer, who has no property, pays no taxes, has no residence or citizenship anywhere—so far as we know—takes his grip-sack in his hand and moves to the great American metropolis, and, gathering around him all there is of poverty, ignorance, discontent, and crime, proclaims himself a candidate for mayor; without party, or press, or money, he organizes discontent, and, becoming its leader, he marshals a band of men who have little to lose and much to gain, and marches them to the ballot-box to obtain control of the government of a city containing more than a million of people and more than a thousand millions of aggregated wealth. That he does not succeed may be a matter of congratulation; that he came within a few thousand votes of his successful opponent, seems to us an incident of great significance, that carries with it the suggestion of danger. In saying this, it is not necessary to deny to Mr. Henry George great ability and thorough integrity of purpose. We may not call him crank or impracticable theorist, but the danger lies in the fact that the class of discontents is so numerous, and that it can be brought together for a political purpose, and become subordinate to party discipline, and wielded for political use. When one reflects in this direction, he can but question whether the unlimited exercise of the elective franchise ought not to be taken from an alien immigrating class, in order that the ranks of this dangerous and restless element may be prevented from further enlargement." Then in connection with these two extracts the following from an editorial in the November Century is interesting and strongly suggestive. Under the heading of "The Congressional Balance-sheet" is given a striking illustration of the incapability, if not the failure, of Congress as a legislative body. The editor says:— "The reader may perhaps desire an explanation of this failure of our national Legislative. Let him then go to Washington while the two Houses are in session. Let him sit in the gallery of the Senate, provided an 'executive session' does not turn him out; let him scan the faces of the Senators, reflect upon their previous records, and consider how many of them came to occupy their present positions. "Let him then go and sit for a time in the gallery of the House of Representatives, and watch that national bear-garden. Let him enjoy the usual scene—one purple-faced Representative sawing the air in the progress of what is technically called an 'oration;' a dozen or more highly-amused colleagues surrounding him; the rest of the members talking at the top of their voices, clapping their hands for pages, writing, reading, telling funny stories and laughing uproariously at them, making social calls from desk to desk, doing anything and everything except the business for which they are paid. "Let him try to estimate the rapidity with which a plain business man, finding his clerks engaged in such a scene during business hours, would make a 'clean sweep' of them. He will no longer ask an explanation of the congressional balance-sheet. What better result could be expected from the two Houses, each in its own way controlled by influences antagonistic to intelligent legislation? Congress is no longer a legislative body. Its degeneration is now admitted. It consists now of a plutocracy at one end, and a mobsocracy at the other. The two chronic perils of a democracy have a firm grip on the Congress of the United States. "Here is no question of comparative guilt or responsibility. Each House is as bad in its way as the other. Nor is there any partisan question involved. The course of Congress has for years been downhill. Able and sincere men are still to be found in both Houses, yet each successive Congress is, on the whole, worse than its predecessors; not because Democrats or Republicans control it, but because it is two years further on the road. "The Congress of the United States has become the most incapable legislative body of the constitutional world. So far as the Senate is concerned, its case is hopeless; the only remedy is outside of it, in the regeneration of the constituencies which elect the Senators. The case of the House is somewhat different; its failure may be redeemed by reform within itself." But the prospect of a cure by this prescription is as hopeless as is the case for which it is given.153 "The only remedy for the Senate" is said to be in the regeneration of the constituencies which elect the Senators. But the constituencies are as corrupt as is the Senate. Else how is it that the Senate is so bad? The House it is said "may be redeemed by reform within itself." It might be it is true. But will it be? Is there hope of reform from such a source? To think so is like expecting a man to lift himself by the straps of his boots. In the last resort therefore we see only that the whole case, as the editor says of that of the Senate, is hopeless. In view of these things stated by the Argonaut and the Century, Lord Macaulay's words are remarkable. And when we view the destructive violence of the participants in the almost perpetual strikes, their secret and sometimes open sympathy with Anarchists, and their always open advocacy of Socialism, which can only end in anarchy, it appears as though the American "Huns and Vandals" mentioned by Macaulay are almost ready to burst upon the nation. And though Macaulay places the time of plunder in "the twentieth century;" and though there remain less than thirteen years before the twentieth century comes; yet we very much doubt whether the nineteenth century instead of the twentieth will not see this time of ruin so clearly pictured by this justly eminent writer and thinker. For when the Hun and the Vandal came upon Rome there was no Cæsar, and the time of the American Huns and Vandals seems too near to hope for a Cæsar here. Yet there is one more step that may be taken before ruin is reached. That is, let the whole body—representatives and constituencies—become permeated with the vileness of an apostate church; its religious hypocrisy be added to political chicanery and legislative incompetency; then will be reached the condition in which Rome stood at the time to which Macaulay refers, and having reached it, a dreadful fall awaits this nation, as surely as red-handed ruin fell upon Rome. And that there may not be a single color lacking in the lurid picture, National Reform presents itself, and in it the embodiment of the last element of corruption needed to fill up the cup of iniquity, as Rome's was filled when ruin overtook her. History does repeat itself. And if any just lesson may be drawn from history, it seems that this one must be that ruin stands at the doors of our nation to-day; and the National Reform party has its hand upon the latch ready to open the door and let her in. This in our own land. But turn to Europe and what is the condition there. The spirit of discontent and violence among the laboring classes is as rife there as it is here. And as for Socialism and Anarchism, Europe is the land of its nativity, and it is from there that these destructive theories have come to our country. But there, in addition to all this, every one of the leading nations is preparing for war on the most gigantic scale. Each one of these strong nations is placing itself upon the strongest possible war footing. Each one so bitterly jealous of the others, and so almost desperately angry, that the safety of each can only lie in the manifestation of such strength for war as to make success extremely doubtful upon the part of the attacking power. But how long can such a condition of affairs continue? When the strongest possible preparation for war is the only assurance of peace that a government can give, then what is the value of such an assurance of peace? And again the question comes, How long can such a state of things continue? In the very nature of things there is a limit beyond which such a fearful tension cannot be sustained. There is bound to be a break, and when the dreadful train is once started, what shall be the result? The first result must be war—the most dreadful the world has ever known. And then, of that, what can the end be? Now in view of all these things in every place and on every hand, how far does the prospect favor the so-much-preached millennium? In all these things where is there any promise of a time of universal peace, and perfect safety? Well, the promise of it is just as far from the fact as the preaching of it is from the truth of the Bible. That the expectation of such a time on this earth, is utterly foreign to the truth of the Bible, we shall show next week. J. 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 even154 compelled 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.