Moral and Positive Law

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jan 1, 1885

Moral and Positive Law.

IN these times when a pseudo-charity fevers the public mind—when the defenders of "liberal Christianity," so called, are so bold, it becomes every lover of the gospel order to go back to first principles. The tempest-tossed mariner who has been for days the plaything of the storm and of darkness, takes the first bursts of sunshine to make his reckoning, and see in which direction he is drifting—so should we ever and anon in the heated discussions of our times, make our spiritual reckoning, and as honestly as may be, determine whether our course be according to the great chart given by the Master himself.

Our theme is moral and positive law, their relation to each other, whence they emanate, and the light in which God regards them.

THEIR NATURE.

I shall venture no definition of my own, but will give some that I have collated, to which I heartily subscribe.

Bishop Butler, than whom perhaps we can find no better writer on moral philosophy, says: "Moral precepts are precepts the reason for which we can see; positive precepts are precepts the reason for which we cannot see. Moral duties arise out of the nature of the case itself, prior to external command; positive duties do not arise out of the nature of the case, but from external command, nor would they be duties at all were it not from such command from Him whose creatures and subjects we are. . . . How great presumption it is to make light of the positive institutions of divine appointment."

Dr. Doddridge, the author of the "Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul," a grand, good book, says: "Positive institutions and precepts are to be observed merely because some superior has commanded them."

Jonathan Edwards: "Positive precepts are the greatest and most proper trial of obedience; because in them the mere authority and will of the legislator is the sole ground of the obligation, and nothing in the nature of the things themselves, and therefore they are the greatest trial to any person's respect to that authority and will."

Bishop Sherlock: "When a lawgiver has declared his will and pleasure by a law, it is not fit that subjects should be allowed to guess at his mind, and dispute an express law by some surmises and consequences, how probable soever they may appear; for at this rate a law signifies nothing, if we may guess at the will of the lawgiver without and against an express law."

Bishop Taylor: "All positive precepts that depend upon the mere will of the lawgiver admit no degrees. . . . It is that in which He (God) will make the trial of our obedience, it is that in which He will so perfectly be obeyed that he will not be disputed with or inquired of why and how, but just according to the measures there set down, so and no more, and no less and no otherwise. For when the will of the lawgiver is all the reason, the first instance of the law is all the measure, and there can be no product but what is just set down."

Dr. Grosvenor: "It is at any man's peril how he came not to know the will of God, as not to do it."

Dr. Hodge, of Princeton: "When in human governments the law prescribes a particular mode in which we are to acknowledge our allegiance to our country, it is not competent for us to neglect that mode. Nor have we a right to adopt a different method of acknowledgment, or to suffer our allegiance to be inferred from our conduct. . . . If we wish to be recognized as citizens, we must in the prescribed form acknowledge ourselves as such. And if Christ has prescribed a particular way in which he will be acknowledged by his followers, intelligently, willfully to refuse obedience to his command is to renounce our allegiance to him, and to forfeit the benefits of his kingdom."

We see then that in the estimation of these writers the difference between moral and positive law is that "moral precepts are precepts the reason for which we can see; positive precepts are precepts the reason of which we cannot see." In other words, moral law is commanded because it is right, and positive law is right because it is commanded.

Neither positive nor moral law can be amended or abrogated unless the lawgiver sees proper to do so.

According to these distinguished divines (and the number can be indefinitely increased) we learn that positive laws must be plain and express; that the obligation to observe them proceeds not from the goodness of the laws themselves but from the authority of God; that the law enacting them is determinative as to their matter, manner, and signification; that human authority cannot commute, mutilate, or alter the law; that the will of the lawgiver is the all-sufficient reason for a most scrupulous compliance with his law; that there are no accidental parts in such law; that it is at our peril we remain ignorant of God's positive law; that a strict compliance with his law is a part of that holiness without which no man can see the Lord. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart" is a moral command, and at once commends itself to the head and heart of all reasoning creatures. "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" is another, the importance of which cannot be easily exaggerated. All classes and conditions of people need only to hear the declarations of the decalogue to cause them in their hearts to admit their rightfulness. I would not be understood as saying that readiness of apprehension as to its rightfulness constitutes a necessary part of moral law. All moral laws are not equally patent. The reason for the enactment of a positive law we may never know, and yet our duty is as imperative as though we understood all about it. Positive law is God asserting his sovereignty, demanding obedience to his will; obedience is seen, not in reasoning about the command, but in doing whatever it enjoins.

God has in every age enacted positive laws, and has always demanded prompt and explicit obedience to them. Nor is this habit, so to speak of God, confined to religious institutions of his appointment, but it is as evident in physics as in religion. But we have to do now with positive law in its relation to the worship we are to render to God our Creator.

We examine, first, the positive laws of the Old Testament, and the punishments inflicted upon those who violated them. The first law laid down was that given to Adam and Eve, in the garden of Eden: "Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." This was a positive law. It was violated—the result was sin and suffering, disease and death.

Lot was ordered to flee from Sodom. "Look not behind thee;" this was the command. What harm in looking back? Why look forward altogether? Solicitude for their children might have induced the backward look. But the command was plain and express. Lot's wife did look back, and became a pillar of salt. And Jesus says to us, "Remember Lot's wife!"

Circumcision was nothing more than a ceremony. Yet it almost cost Moses his life for neglecting to circumcise his son; for the Lord stood ready to slay him with the sword if his wife had not prevented by a ready compliance with the law.

Under the Mosaic law God commanded the people to offer the daily burnt offering. The color of the beast was in this case a mere circumstance such as God laid no stress upon. But for the heifer whose ashes were to make the water of separation, there the color was by divine command a substantial part of the service.

To be red was as much as to be an heifer, and to substitute a white heifer, or a red bullock, was to disobey God, to be guilty of will worship. Had any Jew dared to say, "What difference as to color, the heifer is the thing; I am indulging the freer spirit, for bursting off Levitical buttons, and giving according to the law of self pleasing, do you not suppose in that case the sad fate of Nadab and Abihu would have been his?"

Saul, king of Israel, was commanded to exterminate the Amalekites—not to spare man, woman, child, cattle, sheep, or anything of Amalek's—yet he did spare Agag, the king, and the best of the sheep and oxen. "The evil and the refuse he destroyed utterly." Coming from the battle he met the prophet Samuel, and exclaimed, "Blessed be thou of the Lord, I have performed the commandment of the Lord." Samuel replied, "What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of oxen which I hear?" Saul replies, "I have spared the best of the sheep and oxen to sacrifice unto the Lord." The king pleads his piety as his excuse for not obeying God's command. He had the "freer spirit;" he worked upon "the broad gauge," so lauded nowadays. He thought exact obedience of but little moment, so the intent, the spirit, was right. But listen to Samuel's reply: "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offering and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken, than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king."

It would be wrong in enumerating the instances in which God has shown his jealous care of his positive law, not to mention the fate of Uzzah. God had ordained that the sons of Kohath should bear the ark of the covenant wherever it was moved, upon their shoulders. David, in removing the ark from Kirjath-Jearim, put it upon a new cart. Uzzah and Ahio drove; and as the oxen moved along, they stumbled and the ark was in danger of being thrown to the ground; Uzzah put forth his hand to steady it—and for his rashness God struck him dead. Here we have great carefulness in steadying the ark, but great carelessness in obeying the divine command.

Other instances might be adduced showing the same carefulness upon the part of God in preserving his law, and in punishing those who under the old regime violated the law.—C. C. Chaplin, in Christian Repository.

(To be concluded.)