The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-04-13
CORRESPONDE NOE.
Moral and Positive Law.
HARRIsoNBURG, Va, April |,

HARR1SoNBURG, VA, April L, 81.
MeSSrS. Editors, Shakespeare says
There is divinity that doth hedge
about king" Whether such "a divin-
ity" encompasses your Regular Con
tributors' or not do not know But,
if not-that is to say, if they are amen
able to criticism, like other correspond
ents-I wish to PROFOUND few questions
to DR.. Hoyt In connection with his re-
cent articles on THE Distinction between
Moral and Positive LaaOs Exception
might be taken to the broad and unouali-
fled assertion which DR.. Hoyt makes that
positive precepts simply express the will
OF God and do not ground themselves in
His nature" For how is it possible for
God to have any will, which is not
grounded in His nature? Can He will
contrary to His nature? Can He will
anything without the operation of His
nature moving Him thereto? Does not
the nature of any Being necessarily un-
derlie the will of that Being?
Passing this point by, however, with
this bare allusion to it, l desire to call
attention particularly to this statement
made by DR.. Hoyt, that whenever 1.-The
positive comes into conflict with the
moral, then, always and without excep-
ton, nothing remains but that the posi-
tive must give way" In this declara-
tion DR.. Hoyt seems to have forgotten
his own quotation from DR.. Thornwell,
to the effect that the positive is moral, y
for he arrays here these two species of
Gods commandments, the one against
the other as though the one were moral
and the other not moral. Both however
are moral the difference between them
consisting, according to DIR. Thornwell,
not in form, but "in matter" With
out discussing this distinction farther,
the first question which / wish to ask is
this: Is it true, Semper ct atbique, that
the positive must yield to the moral, the
particular to the universal?
This theory places the positive com
mandments of God in position very in
ferior to that accorded to them in the
Word of God.
For example, was not Abraham jat8ti-
fable when he offered up his only begot-
ten son? Was he not bound to obey the
positive commandment Offer up thy son
for burnt offering" rather than the
moral commandment, "Thou shalt not
kill? In this instance of "conhict" it is
the g moral that yields to the positive. u
The second question which | wish to
ask Is this: Does the positive command
ment naturally and necessarily occupy a
subordinate and inferior position? On
the contrary the very first commandment
of all-that one, the violation of which
brought death into the world and all
our woe"-was positive commandment
The general law was "Of all the trees oil
the garden thou mayst freely eat. The
particular, pOsitjve law was, But of the
tree of the knowledge Of good and evil
thou shalt not eat of it" This one posi-
tive commandment outranks and over.
shadows any other commandment which
God has uttered.
The third question which | wish to ask
IS this: Does Dr. Hoyt assign the proper
place to our Lords arguments with the
Jews about the Sabbath He refers tc
the instance of Jesus going through the
fields OF corn on the Sabbath day, with
His disciples, and the plucking and eat
ing Of the grains on the part Of the dis.
ciples, which act provoked the murmur.
ing Of the Pharisees. Upon this DR.
Hoyt remarks Here was plain, posi-.
tive precept of the sacred law broken by
His disciples in the presence and with
the appreciation Of Jesus Technically
and literally the Pharisees were correct
IN their comments. A positive law was
violated; yet Jesus justifes the viola.
tlon." Can this be So 1 inquire, in re-
spect to Him who was made under the
law, and who declared that one lot or one
little shall in no wise pass from the law
till all be fulfilled?
The question is: Was Jesus in Hi
argument defending His disciples foi