The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-03-02

4 1AAS We dOlo W ny any
certain principle between these various
regulations When the moral law is
traced to the nature of God as its source,
is all this mass of legislation carried with
it to the same profound depth? Can we
find in the PROJECTIONS of Deity the reason
for the ceremonial, civil, and positive
precepts, which make up so large part
Of the Pentateuch, and are found distrib-
uted in every part of Scripture?
The command, Thou shalt not kill, we
recognise as emanating from the Divine
nature; but is the command, to circum-
else, of precisely the same character and
if not, in what do they difer2
Here emerges the distinction which
has been drawn between these two kinds
of laws: The one is called moral, and
the other, positive precepts. 1t is to be
observed that they are all of equal au-
thority, inasmuch as they alike express
the will of God; and further that the
positive as well as the moral conduce to
virtue and piety. If then both are bind
ing and both pure, why discriminate be-
tween them?
For this reason, some are founded in
the nature of God. and others rest simply
on His will. When He commands us to
love Him supremely, and our neighbor
as ourselves, it is from the perfections of
His own nature, the law proceeds. But
when He commands circumcision or bap-
tism, we can only say it is His will.
The moral law is the expression of the
divine nature, as we'll as of the divine
will: positive precepts simply express
His will, and do not ground themselves
in His nature "The real difference. =
says Thornwell, e. is grounded in the re-
lation of the thing commanded, to the
Divine nature. When the thing com
manded springs from the holiness of God,
or the essential rectitude of the Divine
Being, the precept is moral: when the
thing commanded springs from the free
decisions of the Divine will, or the free
determinations of Divine wisdom, the pre-
cept is positive. The moral could not have
been otherwise than commanded the pos
tive might not have been commanded.
The moral is eternal and necessary right
the positive, instituted and mutable law.
The moral is written upon the conscience
of every responsible being; the positive
Is made known by express revelation.
The moral is the image of Gods holiness
the positive is the offspring of the Divine
will. One is essential: the other made
right. The immediate ground of obliga-
ton in respect to both is the same-the
supreme authority of God The positive,
in so far as the form of duty is concerned,
is moral; in so far the matter is con-
cerned, is arbitrary. The moral obliga-
ton IN respect to one is as perfect and
complete as in respect to the other We
are as much bound to obey God enjoin-
ing the Indifferent, and thus making it
cease to be Indifferent, as when He en-
Joins the eternal rules of rectitude."
Now suppose two precepts, both en-
joined by God -one moral, the other pos
tive: that in certain circumstances it is
impossible to obey both-to which must
we give the preference? Christ solves
this problem for US in the words, uttered
more than once by Him, ~ will have
mercy, and not sacrifice" Sacrifice is
positive precept; mercy, moral He
quotes from the Old Testament, where
by two OF the prophets, this preference
for the moral over the positive is asserted
Hosea says, For I desired mercy and
not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God
more than burnt offerings" Micah con-
veys the same lesson in highly poetical
form: "Wherewith shall I come before
the Lord, and bow myself before the high
God? Shall l come before Him with
burnt offerings, with calves of a year
old? Will the Lord be pleased with
thousands of rams, or with ten thousands
OF rivers of oil? Shall 1 give my first
born for my transgression, the fruit of my
body for the sin of my soul? He hath
showed thee, 0 man, what is good and
what doth the Lord require of thee, but
| RI do iroEIvy ooJ l. l.