Chapter 10. — Our Duty to Our Neighbor — Its General Principles Considered
BOOK 3.—OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR.
CHAPTER 10. — OUR DUTY TO OUR NEIGHBOR — ITS
GENERAL PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED
AGREEABLY to our Lord’s comment on the moral law, our duty to God, which we have already considered, was embraced in the first of the two tables of stone, and our duty to our neighbor in the second. The former is all fulfilled in loving God supremely; the latter in loving our neighbor as ourselves.
To the latter branch of this duty, or to the second table of the Decalogue, we now call attention. In our Saviour’s epitomized presentation of the moral law, the six commandments of the second table are all comprised in this sentence, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; and also in our Saviour’s golden rule (Matthew 7:12).
St. Paul comments on the moral law in perfect accordance with our Saviour’s teachings. He says: “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” Romans 13:8-10. Thus it appears that all moral obligation — our duty to God, ourselves, and others — is comprised in one word — LOVE. Here is the grand center and source whence all duty is derived — love to God and love to man. How sublimely simple and comprehensive is this comment of Christ: and how beautiful the illustration of St. Paul! In considering this moral code, so far as it relates to our love to our neighbor, two things are to be noticed — I. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES EMBRACED.
II. THEIR APPLICATION TO SPECIAL CASES AND CONDITIONS.
In this chapter we will consider the general principles embraced. These are all comprised in the six commandments of the second table; and no more simple and correct method of analyzing and illustrating the subject can be adopted than to consider each of these commandments separately. I. The fifth commandment — the first in the second table — reads thus: “Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Exodus 20:12. Although this commandment only specifies the duty of children to parents, yet, according to its scope and bearing, it should be understood as covering the whole ground, not only of the obligation of children to parents, and of parents to children, but of inferiors to superiors, and of superiors to inferiors. As the general duty here enjoined will be particularly considered under our next general division, to avoid repetition, we omit its discussion here.
II. The sixth commandment is, “Thou shalt not kill.”
1. This commandment forbids the taking of life — either our own, or that of our fellow-creatures — except in case of public justice by process of law, necessary self-defense, or justifiable war lawfully waged. In reference to the first exception here specified, there can be little controversy. All will admit that, for a capital offense, the law of the land may rightfully take the life of the criminal. This is only carrying out the ancient precept delivered to Noah and his family “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Genesis 9:6. It must also be understood that treason, because it is of the essence of murder, and necessarily leads to its commission, is here constructively embraced as a crime included with murder, and may rightfully be involved in the same penalty of forfeiture of life.
But as to crimes and misdemeanors of less magnitude, and for the perpetration of which there is no warrant in the word of God for inflicting the penalty of death, should any State attach such penalty, and the officers of the law carry out the sentence and execution accordingly, the State itself then becomes the violator of the sixth commandment, by taking the life of man without authority from God who gave it.
In a case of this kind, the State itself is the offender in the sight of Heaven, and, as may be apprehended, will, sooner or later, be visited with judicial punishment. There can be no question that it is the duty of all civil officers, whether judicial or executive, while holding office under government, to carry out the constitution and laws of that government faithfully, according to their official oath; and, so long as they are not convinced of any discrepancy between the civil and the divine law, they are blameless in so doing. But should they be required, as civil officers, to sanction or perform what they are convinced is contrary to the law of God, then they can no longer act as officers of the law without being identified with the State as particeps criminis. Their only proper remedy then is, “for conscience’ sake,” to resign.
2. That self-defense, when our own lives are attacked or in imminent danger, is a duty, there can be no question. The law of nature dictates it. Nor is it inconsistent with the duty of “loving our neighbor as ourselves.” Yet even the plea of self-defense cannot justify us in taking the life of another person unless that self-defense be strictly necessary, and not brought about by our own willful act. If we have voluntarily brought the difficulty or danger upon ourselves, or if we can see a way of escape from it by any other means, we cannot, without guilt, save ourselves by destroying others.
3. It is generally conceded that the taking of life in war is not murder. St. Paul says: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” Romans 13:1, 2.
Human governments, then, are the ordinance of God — not, however in such sense that God sanctions all their principles or measures. They are frequently cruel, unjust, and vicious. As such, God may tolerate, but he cannot sanction or approve them. Yet that human governments should exist, notwithstanding their imperfections, is according to the divine will, and that, as a general rule, they should be treated with respect and submission, is also a maxim of revelation; but as, in the nature of things, human governments in the present state of the world cannot be maintained without war, it necessarily follows that war is sometimes justifiable; and if so, then the taking of life in war, according to the rules of honorable warfare, is not a violation of this commandment.
But if the war, though justifiable in itself, be conducted on principles of cruelty, and human life be wantonly and uselessly destroyed, contrary to the rules of honorable warfare, so far as this is the case, the taking of life in war is as really murder as in any other instance.
Again, if the war itself be unjustifiable — if it be commenced and carried on through wicked motives, merely through worldly pride and ambition — through the lust of power or gain, or to gratify a spirit of revenge — in all such cases, the war, from beginning to end, is but a wholesale murder — it is a plain violation of the precept, “Thou shalt not kill.” In an unjustifiable war, the nation bringing it on is guilty of a national offense against God and man, for which, as a nation, they will be likely to be visited with condign punishment. The individuals composing the nation waging such a war, so far as they may voluntarily engage in it, with a proper understanding of its character, are personal violators of the sixth commandment, and are really guilty of murder; but so far as their participation is not voluntary, but unavoidable, they are individually innocent or excusable.
4. Once more: This command, “Thou shalt not kill,” also expressly prohibits —
Dueling. — There is no mode of reasoning by which this sin can be made to appear in any better light than that of willful murder. It sets aside, on the ground of mere custom, fashion, pride, or prejudice, the express statute of Heaven. It treats with contempt the “image of God” — in which man was created. It combines, in a single act, both suicide and the murder of our fellow-being.
Dueling may properly be classed with the barbarisms of the dark ages. The law of honor, falsely so called, from which it claims its sanction, has nothing in reason or revelation to sustain it. It is alike repugnant to the teachings of both — it can have no tendency to decide the matter of quarrel between the combatants. Nor can it be a test of true bravery; for he who has the firmness and heroism to decline a contest in the face of the scoff and ridicule of the ungodly multitude, rather than do a wrong act, gives evidence of more real courage than he could give by hazarding his life and that of his antagonist in a duel.
If a man falls in a duel, he has murdered himself without law or reason, but in opposition to the dictates of both; and in many cases, rashly and sinfully abandoned his post of responsibility as the guardian, protector, and support, of a helpless family. If he kills his antagonist, he has murdered his fellow-man, and perhaps thus thrown his helpless widow and orphans adrift upon the world in a state of dependence and want. If neither falls, both are guilty, in intent, of both suicide and murder, in the common sense of the term. And in either case, and whatever may be the issue, the duelist has planted in his conscience a thorn that will pierce his soul with anguish while life endures, if not forever and ever. And for what good end are all these evils evoked? Who is benefited? What law of God or of reason has been honored? It is but a sacrifice of the dearest interests of humanity upon the altar of folly and madness.
5. Suicide. — Some of the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers at times expressed very correct notions in reference to this crime. Plato says: “We men are all by the appointment of God in a certain prison, or custody, which we ought not to break out of, or run away.” Cicero says: “God, the supreme governor of all things, forbids us to depart hence without his order. All pious men ought to have patience to continue in the body as long as God shall please who sent us hither; and not force themselves out of the world before he calls for them, lest they be found deserters of the station appointed them by God.” But Cicero, in another place, appears as the apologist of this crime, and Seneca was also its advocate; while Demosthenes, Cato, Brutus, and Cassius, all encouraged it by their example. Hence it is manifest that the Bible alone can establish us firmly on the right foundation in reference to this question.
That the divine law, as exhibited in the sixth commandment, clearly prohibits suicide, may be seen both from the letter and spirit of that precept, “Thou shalt not kill.” Surely, to take my own life is as literal a transgression of this law as to take the life of my neighbor! Our Saviour’s version of the law, “Thou shalt do no murder,” is still more emphatic in the prohibition of suicide and every conceivable species of murder. The fact that the Mosaic law specifies no penalty against the crime of suicide, is no proof that it was not included with every other species of murder. This crime, from its very nature, places him who commits it at once beyond the reach of all human law. Of course, to annex a penalty, under such circumstances, would involve an absurdity — an utter impossibility. He who takes his own life, can only be punished for that offense by Him who is the author of life, and to whom all are accountable for this guilt,
The precept of our Saviour, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” plainly prohibits suicide. If, as all admit, this language forbids the taking of the life of our neighbor, because we would thereby exhibit less love to our neighbor than we have for ourselves, it is necessarily implied that self-murder is forbidden, because, by performing this act, we would show less love to ourselves than we are required to exercise toward our neighbor. Hence, as the precept implies a similarity or correspondence between our love for ourselves and our neighbor, if it forbids the taking of the life of our neighbor, it must also prohibit suicide.
Again as the taking of human life, as a penalty annexed to crime, can only be justified on the principle of necessity, in view of maintaining just government over mankind in a state of political association, it follows — as self-murder cannot be placed on the ground of a similar necessity, in view of the maintenance of society, and personal security and happiness therein — that therefore it can only be contemplated as a crime, alike repugnant to the letter and spirit of both natural and divine law, though in its nature not susceptible of punishment by human penalty.
Again, the reason assigned in Scripture rendering the crime of taking human life so heinous and offensive, applies as forcibly to suicide as to any other description of murder — “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.” Now, is it not clear that, as the turpitude of the crime of “shedding man’s blood” results from the fact that he was “made in the image of God,” and as this applies alike to every individual of the race — from these reasons is it not clear that suicide is as emphatically condemned as the “shedding of man’s blood” under any circumstances whatever?
6. According to the admitted maxim, that “the greater comprehends the less,” the command, “Thou shalt not kill,” not only prohibits murder, but all offenses of less magnitude whose natural tendency leads to the perpetration of murder.
Under this head may be embraced — sinful anger, hatred or malice, revenge, strife, excess — in relation to food, drink, or labor — unnecessary exposure of our own life or that of others, and the neglect of the necessary means of preserving life, under any circumstances.
(1) Sinful Anger. — As the indulgence in this often results in murder, it is forbidden by this commandment. Although it cannot be supposed that the pure and holy nature of God is susceptible of anger, as a perturbing or agitating passion, in the sense in which this emotion often exists in man, yet, as in his nature he is immovably opposed to sin, this fixed opposition — this holy disapprobation and hatred of sin, and determination to punish the sinner — are expressed in Scripture by the term “anger;” hence we read, “God is angry with the wicked every day.” From this fact we may rationally infer that anger is not, under all circumstances, sinful; but that, in the sense in which it is commonly indulged, it is sinful, and in direct antagonism to the great law of love in which the essence of Christianity is embraced, is clearly set forth in the Bible. St. Paul says: “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, be put away from you, with all malice.” Ephesians 4:31. In the same apostle’s enumeration of “the works of the flesh,” he embraces not only “murders,” but also strife, variance, hatred, and wrath. And St. John testifies: “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” 1 John 3:15. Anger, if permitted to carry us beyond a calm and holy indignation against sin, or if allowed a permanent lodgment in the heart, becomes sinful and pernicious, destroying the peace of him who indulges in it, and divesting him of that amiability of temper and behavior which is essential to the Christian character.
(2) Revenge is also interdicted by this law. St. Paul says: “Recompense to no man evil for evil… Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink; for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:17, 19-21. How attractive, how sublime, are the mild precepts of the gospel, when contrasted with the selfishness and cruelty of human philosophy! Lord, endue us with that mind “which was also in Christ Jesus”!
(3) Strife, contention, disputation, and quarrelling, originating in an unholy temper, and conducted in a vainglorious or ambitious spirit, are forbidden by this law, and are inconsistent with Christian character, and hurtful to society. “Follow peace with all men” (Hebrews 12:14) is the gospel rule, And again: “Do all things without murmurings and disputings.” Philippians 2:14. Again: “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory.” Philippians 2:3. St. Paul also (2 Corinthians 12:20) speaks in condemnation of “envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults,” showing that all such things are uncongenial to the spirit of Christianity.
(4) In a word, this commandment prohibits all injurious excess tending to the enervation or destruction of the health, vigor, and activity of our bodily powers or mental faculties. This not only interdicts all drunkenness and dissipation, in the common acceptation of the term, but also excess in the use of food, in labor, in recreation, or amusement, or whatever would tend to impair the. constitution, or deprive us of the possession of mens sana in corpore sano — a sound mind in a healthy body.
(5) Again, if we neglect the means which we believe to be essential to the preservation of our own lives, or the lives of others, and life is lost through that neglect, we are guilty of murder. If we see a blind man, unconscious of his danger, about to step over a precipice where he will inevitably be destroyed, and have it in our power to save his life, either by giving him timely warning, or by pulling him from the danger, and fail to do so, we are as really guilty of murder as though we had directly taken his life by our own overt act. “Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law!”
III. “THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.”
The sin here forbidden, embracing every violation of the laws of conjugal fidelity, and of chastity in general, will be considered in connection with the obligations pertaining to the conjugal relation. Hence we will not enter upon the subject in this connection.
IV. “THOU SHALT NOT STEAL.”
Under the head of theft, as the term is here used, much more is implied than the overt act of stealing in the sense of the civil law. In a legal sense, to steal is to take from another his property, goods, money, or possessions, in a secret and fraudulent manner. It differs from robbery, in that the one is performed in a secret or hidden manner, and the other by violence or force. But as the divine law penetrates more deeply, and scrutinizes more closely, than civil statutes can do, having cognizance of the secret thought as well as the overt act, it is understood here not only to forbid the crime of theft, in its literal, civil acceptation, but also robbery, the receiving of stolen property, knowing it to be such, all fraudulent dealing — using false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice or unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, any breach of trust, any act of oppression, extortion, bribery, unjust and vexatious litigation, trespassing upon property, engrossing commodities so as to enhance the price, gaming, or any other method of taking from others their property or possessions, without due and adequate compensation for the same. How full and comprehensive is the law of God as here exhibited; and with what simplicity and beauty is it expressed by our Saviour in his golden rule of “doing to others as we would that they should do unto us”! It may be a question of some doubt whether the crime of slander more properly falls under the condemnation of this or the next commandment, which prohibits false testimony. It seems clearly condemned by both precepts. As it speaks falsely against our neighbor, it is “bearing false witness,” and is condemned by the ninth commandment; but as it thereby steals away his good name, which is “rather to be chosen than great riches,” it properly comes under the head of theft. It is written: “Whoso privily slandereth his neighbor, him will I cut off.” Psalm 101:5. In describing wicked apostates who were to come, St. Paul gives it as one of their characteristics, that they will be found “speaking lies in hypocrisy.” 1 Timothy 4:2. And he says to the Ephesians (Ephesians 4:31): “Let all evil speaking be put away from you.” In describing the atrocities of the unconverted pagans, he characterizes them as “back-biters.” Romans 1:30. The crime of slander has been forcibly described in the familiar lines of the poet —
“Good name in man or woman
Is the immediate jewel of their souls
Who steals my purse steals trash;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.”
“Lord have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law!” V. “THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.” This, like all the other precepts of the divine law, grows out of the principle of love. Hence, as we should “love our neighbor as ourselves,” we should take the same care to refrain from speaking so as to injure him, either in his property or reputation, as we would take in reference to ourselves. This duty forbids, not only testifying falsely against our neighbor when called on to render legal evidence, but also condemns falsehood and deception in every shape. It prohibits forgery, concealing the truth, undue