OUR RULE OF LIFE by E. Miller, Jr.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 5, 1857

"OUR RULE OF LIFE."

By E. Miller, Jr.

REJOINDER BY E. MILLER, JR.

BRO. SMITH:—The Review containing your review of my discourse at Battle Creek is received, both Nos. Thank you. I was highly gratified with your manifest effort at kindness and fairness in the first part of your article, and trust that your apparent forgetfulness of these principles farther on was not intentional. I should have been very happy could I have felt on reading your "review" through, that the readers of the Review had my position before them; but not so. I am compelled to claim a small space in your paper to make needful corrections.

The first point you notice, is my position that "from Adam to Moses there was no general law." Your version of which is, "The ground taken is actually this, that God created a race of beings and forgot to give them a law, and thus placed them entirely beyond his reach or control; that they were at liberty to go on just as they pleased, and God could not call them to account, because he had no law for them to obey; that he could not punish them however flagitious their acts might be, because they committed no sin against him; for it is not imputed when there is no law. Thus God is audaciously represented as a weak and impotent being, who either could not or did not exercise any control over his subjects; and thus his character and government are directly libeled."

Now this is very far from the ground taken; about as midnight to noon. The position which I took did not represent God as weak, as forgetting to give man a law, or as placing them beyond his reach. In the first place it entirely overlooks the fact that God having created the pair from whom the race was to spring, did give them a law by which a character was to be formed. In the second place it overlooks the fact that God did reveal himself to that pair so that his character was well understood during the time in question; both of which your speaker kept in view. Now that law being transgressed, the judgment set, sentence passed upon the offenders, and man made inevitably subject to death, it is most evident that that plan of action cannot give eternal life to man; a new plan must be introduced. God was at liberty to introduce that plan immediately, or to defer it for a season, as in his wisdom seemed best; and if a portion of the race were left without any proffered plan of redemption from that death to which by their constitutions they were subject, no injustice was done them; they were blessed—blessed beyond all that justice demanded in having life at all. That this was the condition of men to come, Rom. v, 13, 14, clearly shows. "For until the law," i. e., up to the time of the law, "sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless," i. e., not regarding this truth, that sin is not imputed when there is no law, "Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." To sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression is to disobey positive law; this from Adam to Moses they did not do. Here then is the Apostle's statement in other words: Sin was prevalent before the law, but there not being law, sin was not imputed; still death reigned, although they had not violated positive precept. See Murdock's translation of verse 13. "For until the law, sin, although it was in the world, was not accounted sin, because there was no law."

But how could any of their acts be called sin, or they be accounted wicked if there was no law? Consider then that God's character was well understood. That to reverence God is right; that it is right to respect the life and property of each other; right to respect virtue and refrain from licentiousness; right to regard truth; right to respect the character of others, and that their opposites are wrong, is readily admitted by all—they are almost axioms. For a race of men to depart from these obvious principles of right and practice the opposite—habituate themselves to the wrong, subjects them justly to the charge of being corrupt and wicked, although God has not in form enacted law so as to make them liable to future judgment. Admit this, and you readily find yourself in harmony with Paul.

As concerns your arguments from 1 Cor. xv, 22, if from Adam to Moses they were in Christ, then they must all be raised on the strength of that declaration, otherwise it did not reach them.

Your next effort is to establish what I denied; viz., that the Bible speaks of the "ten commandments," as the law of God, and the balance of the law as the law of Moses; or, if the first as the moral, and the other as the ceremonial, law. Pres. Edwards' opinion may have weight with such as have not learned to "cease from man, whose breath is in his nostrils," but it is of no moment to me. You quote Neh. ix, 13, "And gavest them right judgments, and true laws, and good statutes," &c., and from Eze. xx, 24, 25, "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live," and reason that the first referred to the ten commandments, and the latter to the ceremonial law. Without stopping to show what the not good laws were, it is sufficient here to show from Rom. vii, 1-14, that that law from which we are released as christians, is holy, just and spiritual.

Again you quote Ps. xix, 7, "The law of the Lord is perfect," &c., and Heb. vii, 18, "A disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof," and ask, "Would inspiration denominate a law in one place perfect, and in another weak and unprofitable?" That is perfect which fills its place, and accomplishes the end for which it was appointed. In that sense the law was perfect; but as Paul reasons in Heb. vii, in reference to perfecting or finishing the plan of redemption, bringing immortality—giving eternal life, it made nothing perfect—it was weak and unprofitable.

Again you quote Ps. cxix, "All his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever," and refer to Heb. ix, 10, and other passages, and say, "Eld. Miller here tries to make a point on the use of the term forever; as the term is applied to some ordinances which were to last only to the death of Christ, he asserts that it signifies no longer duration when applied to the ten commandments. But he knows better than to give this word the same limitation in every instance." Quoting Dr. Clarke's definition, you further say, "When applied therefore to the moral law, which is in its very nature unchangeable and eternal, it cannot be limited; but when applied to the ceremonial law, it can only signify that time during which it was to exist. Doubtless Eld. M. is pleased to use the word in this very sense when he is discussing the life and death theme. For him to use it therefore when applied to the law as he will not when applied to other things, betrays a great want of fairness in the investigation of this question." Here and onward I fail to discover the action of either the kindness or fairness of which I spoke above. You represent me as unfair because you suppose that I do as you do in discussing other questions.

The only point that I made on the term forever, was to show, by showing its frequent application to ordinances that confessedly reached only to Christ, that its application to the Sabbath could not prove its perpetual obligation. The term having no positive signification any more than our adjectives good and bad, it can never prove the duration of anything. I am not aware that I use it differently in discussing any question. But your argument on Ps. cxix. David emphatically speaks of "all his commandments," you infer that he means only ten of them. Starting on this altogether unjustifiable inference, you reason that the ten are of perpetual obligation, because David said, "They stand fast for ever and ever;" but when shown that the term forever does not prove their perpetuity, you say it means endless here, because the ten commandments are in their nature unchangeable. Thus you reason in a circle. They are perpetual because they stand fast forever. Forever means eternal because they are in their nature perpetual. Again your assuming that the ten commandments which you call the "moral law," are in their nature unchangeable, or of perpetual obligation, is begging the question, a convenient way doubtless to dispose of an opponent, but not always satisfactory.

This brings me to your second paper, and here I certainly find you very far from a fair reviewer, or opponent. I am misrepresented throughout. I notice that you did not attempt to disprove one of my positions referred to, except by some far off reasoning at the end. This is not strange; for that a writing has reference to those to whom it is addressed, is a truth so obvious that it is never to be expected that one who has so much knowledge of language as yourself, should ever attempt to disprove it. Also that the epistles being addressed to christians, and the only portion of it thus addressed, it is there we learn christian duty, is too clear to admit of a doubt, except where theory, bigotry, or false teaching bias the mind.

But some of your statements must be corrected. Your second paragraph represents me as finding the first books of the Bible historical, and not particularly concerning us, "so far as regards instruction how to regulate our lives. Therefore he slashed of them, and threw them away. Thus the first division was effected." This contains two charges against me which are not true. 1st. It charges me with throwing away the historical books of the Bible. I do not do so. I cherish sacred history as the only reliable history we have. 2d. It charges me with throwing this away because it does not instruct us how to live. This is certainly a grave charge. Who would ever think of going to learn christian obligation?

In your third paragraph after stating some things that I taught, you say, "Thus the Old Testament was divided and thrown away. But doubtless being instinctively admonished that he had done violence to the word of truth, he endeavored to palliate his position by admitting that the Old Testament nevertheless contains some good things. Poor subterfuge! That would indeed be a strange book that did not contain some good things. Doubtless the Koran, or Book of Mormon, could claim a good title to as much credit as this." Alas! alas! Did Bro. Smith write this? Well, is it fair? Is it kind? Is it courteous? Is it gentlemanly? Is it christian like? Is it truthful? I find it extremely difficult to conceive that the most inattentive of my hearers could have understood me as throwing away the Old Testament. No, Bro. Smith assumes that I do this, simply because I taught what the merest tyro in language would perceive at the first reading, were he not befogged by Protestant teaching. Now suppose my position to be true, and we do not learn christian duty either from the historical, poetical, or prophetic parts of the Old Testament, does it follow that they are worthless? Those who think so, must be very narrow in their conceptions of the value of the Scriptures.

Further on you say, "His language is that all the law of every kind, ten commandments and all, went by the board at the death of Christ." Now this is not my language. I think no one ever heard me utter it. My language was, that the "entire law, ten commandments and all, went by the board together." There is quite a difference between saying that all law of every kind, and the entire law (from Mt Sinai) went together.

Again I notice you try to make Paul say that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers. Paul don't and won't say it.

All of your supposed difficulties about the plan of redemption, the cross and repentance, vanish at once if we reflect that man always owes allegiance to God; and that the law of one dispensation reaches down to the introduction of another. Hence, when Peter said, Repent, they were to repent of having disobeyed God. True, to obey God then necessitated a somewhat different course of conduct than it did previously; but authorized teachers were instructing them what to do.

I would say more here, as I think you might be instructed relative to the plan of redemption; but I would claim as little space as possible in your columns with this rejoinder.

A hearing thus far justice to the truth demands, and doubtless your sense of fair play will readily grant the space.

Yours respectfully, E. MILLER, jr.

Remarks—

NOTE 1. The reader will readily remember that in the Review alluded to, [No 8.] we first stated Eld. Miller's position briefly, using nearly as possible his own words, and then proceeded to explain what, in our view, was the true intent and result of his theory. No point of what was represented as "his position," has he denied; but he has proceeded to offer his strictures upon the succeeding remarks, as though they were represented as expressions of his own—a misapprehension on his part. His position and our commentary thereon have been had before a body of candid readers; and if an effort was made to draw unjust conclusions from the premises taken, they have of course detected it, and he has suffered no loss. Thus far then he need not have given himself any uneasiness. But if the deductions are legitimate, and he yet denies them, then while still clinging to the main trunk, he is only endeavoring to lop off the branches of his own tree.

NOTE 2. The most summary way in which a man can dispose of himself is to contradict his own assertions. We here find the admission that God did give the first pair a law by which a character was to be formed; that he did so reveal himself to them that his character was well understood during the time in question. Now how does God reveal his character to men? By giving them a transcript of it, which he has done in the ten commandments. His character must of course be revealed by the introduction of some standard of right. No one will deny that the commandment from God, Be ye holy, for I am holy, has always been binding upon man. Suppose these words were given by him as a command to Adam and Eve in Eden, as we do not know but they were; the inquiry would instantly come up. How are we to be holy? What acts are we to perform, from what are we to refrain? An answer to these inquiries is the introduction of law. The first pair were to form a character; but law is necessary to develop it. This is admitted. Now how extensive must that law be? It must extend to every act which affects character; in other words it must relate to every moral act, and form as it were a complete circle around the man, guarding him upon every side. If it is any less than this it is not perfect; and God does not require men to develop a holy character by an imperfect standard.

The writer speaks of a portion of the race being left without any proffered plan of redemption, &c. But the Bible does not recognize any such portion What means that promise made even in the garden that the woman's seed should bruise the serpent's head? and what signified those offerings which we behold just this side the gates of paradise? Simply this: when man had fallen, a plan of salvation was immediately devised and made known to him, whereby he might again, though long ages should first intervene, enter a Paradise more glorious than that from which he had fallen. There would of course be no alteration of the standard by which they were to develop character; the law must still exist which would regulate all their moral actions; the same degree of moral rectitude would still be required on the part of man; though now means had entered whereby he might when he should transgress, obtain forgiveness. All will admit that this must be so, unless we take the unheard-of position, to which he but we are led by the theory under review, that immediately upon the fall man's probation ceased, and that from Adam to Moses eternal destruction was

their only destiny. Thus we are brought again to the same conclusion which we felt called upon to denounce, as it justly deserved, in our first review. For if God, for a short space even, abandoned to utter and hopeless ruin a race of beings which he had created and endowed with moral and perceptive faculties, it shows that he was either forgetful or careless of their condition and destiny, or weak and impotent as regards any means for their recovery and salvation; and as we then contended, so we must still contend that by such a view as this, his character and government are directly libeled. Of Rom. v, 13, we shall have occasion to speak hereafter.

NOTE 3. It is always unfortunate for a man to attempt to shoulder more than he is able to carry. The reader will at once perceive that Eld. M. in this division of his subject has undertaken a very difficult task; namely, to show the existence of a knowledge of right and wrong, and at the same time an absence of a standard by which these qualities are made manifest; or in other words, to prop up side by side and cherish alive for 2500 years two principles of which the existence of the one is the immediate destruction of the other. "Consider then," says he, "that the character of God was well understood." To this admission every one is driven who professes belief in the Bible. Here we are all in agreement. The question then turns upon this point: what means had God taken to have his character well understood by mankind? How did men know that it was right to respect the life and property of each other, to respect virtue, to regard truth, and respect character? Indeed, what was it that showed virtue to be virtue, and gave pre-eminence to truth? That the points here mentioned are right, we grant is readily admitted by all; but how have they come to be admitted? We answer that all men who have ever known these principles to be correct in all past time, and all who know them to be right to-day, including Eld. Miller himself, have derived their knowledge from the moral law of God, the ten commandments. This may seem to be a broad assertion, but we think it will bear the closest test of truth. For a person to contend that he knows certain principles to be morally right or wrong independent of God's standard of moral government, is like a man's turning his back upon the sun and exclaiming that he has no need of his light; that God has given him eyes which he can use, and see, without looking at him!

The principles of all ten of the commandments were known during the time in question. This is manifest by a reference to the following quotations: Gen. xxiv, 1-4; Lev. xviii, 3, 21; Gen. viii, 10; xxix, 27; ix, 21-25; iv, 23, 24; xx. Therefore some were found to be righteous before God, and others sinners. In case of the flood we read that the wickedness of man was great in the earth. And he said to Noah, "Thee only have I found righteous (or a doer of right) before me in this generation." And of the Sodomites it is said, "But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly." Gen. xiii, 13. And again, "Their sin is very grievous." Chap. xviii, 20. And Peter speaks of their unlawful deeds. 2 Pet. ii, 3. The Bible defines sin to be transgression of the law; and we find sin recognized all along from creation downward; and one would infer that it was imputed (?) too, in case, at least, of the antediluvians and Sodomites; but the Apostle tells us that sin is not imputed when there is no law; [Rom. v, 13:] and we cannot therefore accept a translation which declares positively that sin was not imputed, when we have two examples, at least, where it was terribly so, and when the original Greek does not require, nor even warrant, such a rendering.

NOTE 4. Does not the first "all" in 1 Cor. xv, 22, embrace every human being, regardless of age, character or condition? None will be found so reckless as to deny it. Then what warrant have we for arbitrarily asserting that the same word, in the very next, and that an antithetical, sentence, means only a small portion of the human race? Neither are we to overlook the force of the correlative words, "as," and "so." But what is the meaning of the expressions, "in Adam," and "in Christ?" We conceive it to be simply this: that as by means of Adam's transgression death came into the world, and all pass under his dominion, so by means of Christ who has broken the bars of death, the race shall be brought back to consciousness once more; the good to receive their reward, and the wicked their final doom. In the sense of the text, then, those who are "in Christ," are as numerous as those who are "in Adam."

NOTE 5. When a person presents good reasons for a certain belief, and on those reasons we base our faith, we are not putting our trust in the person who presents them. We repel as unjust an insinuation. The reference to Rom. vii, to prove that we are released from the law, is very unfortunate. Paul there says not one word about our being free from the law. In the illustration there introduced, some people seem determined to have it read that the law is dead; but it says no such thing.

NOTE 6. The nature of that perfection of which the Psalmist speaks as an attribute of the law of the Lord, is shown from the fact that it converts the soul.

NOTE 7. The terms forever, and forever and ever, are of course to be taken in their obvious and unlimited sense, unless there is something to forbid such an application. And when nothing intervenes to limit their duration, they stand as proof that the objects to which they are applied will be eternal. For instance, if a person should ask us how long the fifth universal kingdom, the inheritance of the saints, would endure, we should reply that it would never end, and refer him for proof to Dan. vii, 18: "But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom, forever, even forever and ever." But, says he, these terms do not always denote unending duration, and therefore are no proof. We answer that they are proof until he shall show, either from the nature of the kingdom, or from revelation, that its existence is limited.

So with the commandments. "They stand fast forever and ever;" and we apprehend that this very expression is proof of their perpetuity, until it shall be shown that they are to be limited; but nothing ever has been or can be shown touching the moral law of God, showing that it should ever cease to be binding. On the contrary we have shown its existence from Adam down, and Christ declared that till heaven and earth pass it should not pass away in one jot or tittle. It is therefore a violation of just rules of argumentation to dispose of Ps. cxix, 7, 8, by simply saying that as the terms are sometimes limited they prove nothing in this case. We venture to affirm that no trouble would have existed on the point with any, did not the fourth commandment of that code of laws read, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."

NOTE 8. We really see no reason here for Eld. M.'s holding up his hands in such holy horror, unless it be at his own position. The only conclusion which we, or any who heard it, could draw from the discourse in question, was that a pocket edition of the few epistles would answer every purpose for the christian, and that the rest of the Bible was not for him. If this is not the idea he intended to convey, he was unfortunate in the use of language; or if he now wishes to retract in any degree his position, we can say, well, to this. Granted that the Bible has reference to those to whom it is addressed! It is not on this point that we join issue with him. But to whom is the Bible addressed? As a whole, it is a revelation to men. If we may so speak, it is God's letter to a fallen race. We are to learn from every part of it concerning the plan of redemption, and our consequent duty. And we do find in the early pages of revelation an account of God's proclaiming with his own voice in the ears of the people, the constitution of his moral government, the ten commandments, and writing them on two tables of stone. Here is a rule of life for every child of God, whether he lives in an age when such are called Jews, or in a time when they are called Christians. We are referred by the Saviour and the apostles to this code as our rule of conduct.

But M. says that the Old Testament is addressed to the Jews, and therefore exclusively confined to them; and the xviii psalm has been adduced as an example, as showing principles which were correct with that people, but which are to have no weight with christians. Let us extend this principle to the New Testament. We refer at once to the epistles. Proceeding with the application of the above principle, we find ourselves arguing as follows: "The epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans." It appears that this epistle is addressed to the Romans; we are Americans; therefore there can be nothing in that book which particularly concerns us. We find further, epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians, the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians; but as they are none of them Americans, we conclude that we cannot look there for light. We find three epistles addressed to individuals, and surely they cannot concern us; another addressed to the Hebrews; but we are not Hebrews. James writes to the twelve tribes scattered abroad, Peter to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, &c; but we are not those strangers. Passing over John's epistles, two of which are addressed to individuals, and Jude, we find lastly that the Revelation is written to the seven churches in Asia, and therefore is not for us.

We have now pursued the same course with the New Testament which Eld. Miller does with the Old; and we find that by so-doing, we, poor Americans! have scarcely a scrap of anything left to which we can lay claim, as nearly all is directly addressed to somebody else. But he gets over all this by saying that the epistles are addressed to the Romans, Corinthians, &c., as christians; that we are christians as well as they, and therefore we, in common with them, are concerned in that portion of scripture. This is right. But surely justice demands that we be allowed to apply the same principle to the Old Testament. Let us try it. There were certain precepts, exhortations and admonitions given to the Jews. Who were the Jews? The people of God of that dispensation. Who are christians? The people of God of this dispensation. Therefore whatever instructions in morality were given to the former, they concern the latter. Hence we see that if M. will only apply the same rule to the Old Testament, which he holds to be of vital importance in the New, all his narrow and contracted limitations and distinctions, are at once leveled with the ground. True, the Bible concerns those to whom it is addressed; but it is not addressed and confined to, in its teachings of morality, any people as a nationality.

NOTE 9. A very singular distinction is here attempted. Mark our author's position. It is that there was no law which held mankind amenable till Moses. After the promulgation from Sinai, therefore, we are to understand that that was the only standing code in existence. (We speak of course of divine laws.) Now when this all went by the board, as M. says it did, as it was the only law in existence, pray tell us what there was left! What other "kind" of law was there that still remained to hold mankind in restraint? If there was no law before Sinai, and if the law there promulgated was the only one in force during its existence, when this all went by the board was there any kind of law left? Certainly not; and the world found itself once more, as it was before Moses, without law.

NOTE 10. We are astonished at this assertion. In reply it will be sufficient to refer to a few such passages as the following: Rom. i, 17; iii, 22; 1 Cor. i, 30; 2 Cor. v, 21; Phil. iii, 9; Titus ii, 14; 2 Pet. i, 1.

CONCLUSION. The charge of misrepresentation we did not think to escape. So convenient a dodge we may expect will be used by every holder of distorted views, when such views are held up before them in all their naked deformity. But our readers have now before them an article from Eld. M.'s own pen. From this there can be no appeal. How much he has bettered his position, or how essentially different he has made it from our first report, all can judge for themselves. We have remarked, upon some points which seemed to demand notice, and as briefly as appeared consistent; and we trust that no one, through whatever goggles of prejudice he may look, will be able to distort these lines into even the appearance of either unfairness or misrepresentation. We do not deny but that we might be "instructed relative to the plan of redemption;" but we must suggest that our instruction could not come from a man who denies the force of a great portion of scripture, and perverts (we do not say willfully) much of the remainder. We will only

add here, "Woe unto that man to whom Christ is not made 'wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption !"—ED.