The Moral Law and Changing Obligations
By E. Miller, Jr.
FRIEND COTTRELL:—Although unavoidably hindered for so long a time from noticing your kind reply to my note in Review of Sept. 13th, and even now pressed by other duties, still I esteem it a privilege as all along has been my intention, to call your attention to it again: hoping to be instrumental in bringing you to see the light of truth more clearly. I will first notice your exclamation, "Who hath bewitched you, that you should think that the rule, of moral obligation can be changed without a change in the relation existing between man and his Maker! Is God changeable?" My dear brother, is there anything absurd, in supposing that an unchangeable and all-wise God should require of men in one age what he does not in another? The plan of redemption is manifestly progressive in its development. Is it absurd that obligations should be laid upon men in different ages, corresponding with their different circumstances, and their different degrees of light? (1.) Absurd it may appear in your eyes, but a perfect Law-giver has most surely done so. Again: You ask, "Could he make a better moral rule at the commencement of the gospel dispensation, than he could when he formed the first man?" The law that he enjoined upon the first man was doubtless best for him; but I see no absurdity in supposing that Jehovah in a 4000 years' training, should have prepared his people for one somewhat different. (2.) Again: You ask, "Can he improve his original law . . . by abolishing one tenth part of it?" I have said nothing about his having abolished "one tenth part of it," and trust I shall hear no more of it. Again: "Would he make known through the agency of man, that he had changed that law which he spoke with his own mouth," &c. Well, why not? God has had various ways of communicating his will to man, and he has a right to use whatever way he pleases. And his commands are of equal authority, whether spoken with his own mouth, or communicated through prophets or apostles. Hence, your supposed absurdities are only existant through your one-sided theory. You say I admit that "the law from Mt. Sinai was the rule of moral obligation for that dispensation," and I did not admit that the ten commandments was the law of moral obligation; but distinctly stated that the rule of life for the people of God, as given in the law, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, was given to Israel, and forms the rule of moral obligation for that dispensation. I have never seen proof that the ten commandments ever were the moral law for any dispensation. Certain it is, that in the present dispensation, positive, moral duties are required, beyond what the ten precepts required. The same is equally certain relative to the past dispensation (the Jewish.) I know it is asserted that the ten commandments included all moral duties; but it is only assertion. Tell me, Is man's moral obligation summed up in two positive and eight negative duties? even so, if the ten cover all. I have only to keep the Sabbath and honor my parents as active duties, and refrain from doing eight acts. But suppose I do all this: keep the Sabbath and honor my parents, and refrain from idolatry, profanity, stealing, killing, adultery, false witness and covetousness, do I fulfill the "royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?" (3.) Nay, verily: I may do all this, and knowingly leave my next-door neighbor to starve and freeze while I have plenty. Let us understand that a command of God imposes a moral obligation, and we are morally innocent or guilty, as we obey or disobey, whatever be the nature of the requirement; and we will be freed from the necessity of assuming that the ten commandments enjoin duties that they do not speak of. You next give us an argument concerning securing the favor of God, based on the assumption, that man was made a sinner by transgressing the law of the ten commandments. You may well suppose that I was surprised to find a man regardful of the Bible, taking such a position; but I have since learned that it was no accident, but that the position is contended for by many. It must be answered then. Well, recorded facts contradict the position. See the record. First, the law given. Gen. ii, 16, 17. "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." That the transgression of this law introduced sin and death into the world, see Rom. v, 12, 19. "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin," &c. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners," &c. Here then is the "original law," the transgression of which made man a sinner, and necessitated another law whereby sins might be forgiven. Which of the two is it? Ah! Adam might have obeyed every one of the ten, and transgressed this. (4.) To me it is the climax of absurdity to talk of the transgression of a code 2000 years before it was given. Worse than that, to attribute an effect to a cause, different from that assigned in the record of the facts, is equivalent to a denial of the record. I never rejected "the idea of two laws being spoken of in the New Testament;" nor claimed "that the term, law, always means one and the same thing;" but I deny that the two laws spoken of are, one the ten commandments, and the other the balance of the Levitical law; and when you bring your proof of this position, I will consider it. Further on, admitting a change of the law with the change of the priesthood, and asking, "What law?" you answer, "Not the original, royal law of ten commandments; for that can never change." If by this you mean that the ten commandments can never give place to another system of law, all the answer required is to ask, Where is your proof? I understand that it has given place to another code. For proof see Rom. vii; 2 Cor. iii. Not that the fourth commandment, simply, has been abolished! but that the whole code, having filled its time, served its purpose, ceased of obligation. You quote Matt. v, 18, "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled," and say it "does not pass away by little fragments," but rather must "all go together." That is correct. It all went together, giving place to "the law of faith," the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, "the perfect law of liberty." (5.) You say "the context shows that all the prophets must be fulfilled before one particle of the law can pass." I can find no such idea in the context. You think James speaks of the ten commandments. Chap. ii, 8. "If ye fulfill the royal law," &c. This is without warrant, as the Apostle tells what he means by the royal law; viz., "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;" which is no part of the ten. (6.) Again this royal law can be transgressed by showing respect to persons—by giving to the richly apparelled, a noble, and to the poor, an ignoble seat in the assembly; which is no transgression of either of the ten. Clearly then the royal law is something more than the Sinaitic code. The Apostle often refers to this code for illustration, to show that, although this showing respect to the rich was transgressing the royal law only in one point, it was still a transgression, and he was guilty of all. Your other quotations from James, David and Jesus, would have force if there was any evidence that they referred to the ten commandments. (7.) I have referred you to Rom. viii, for proof that the ten commandments have given place to another law. Let us look at it a little. Verse 4. "Wherefore my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." As the woman is released from obligation to her husband when he is dead; so we are released from obligation to the law, that we may come under obligation to Christ. Verse 6 repeats the same idea. Does this law embrace the ten commandments? Verse 7. "Is the law sin? God forbid . . . I had not known lust except the law had said thou shalt not covet." If you can find your two laws in these passages, you have a system of grammar with which I am unacquainted. (8.) I can but regard the testimony of the first part of this chapter as proof abundant, that the ten commandments ceased of obligation with the rest of the law. The other chapter referred to is equally pointed. I would also suggest that the passages quoted, do plainly teach that the seventh-day Sabbath has been abolished, by teaching that the only law which ever required it has ceased of obligation, and would refer them to the Editor as an answer to his request. If then the Decalogue, as a code of enactments, has ceased of obligation, is it not necessary that the New Testament should enjoin the Sabbath, to make it binding upon Christians? Hoping that your kind feelings may not be interrupted, I leave the subject for the present.
Yours, striving to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. E. MILLER, JR.
Middlebury, Elkhart Co., Ind., Dec. 22d, 1863.