Chapter III: Section II: Argument From the Decalogue

We commenced this essay with the design of showing that the Sabbath is a necessary part of the immutable law of God--that law which is "holy, and just, and good;" which is "spiritual;" to which nothing is opposed but that which is carnal. Hitherto, we have rested none of our proofs upon the fact, that it was incorporated in the Decalogue; that it is one of the TEN WORDS "which God spake in the Mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he added no more." Deut. v. 22. For to assume that the Decalogue, as such, is the moral law, and that the Sabbath, because it makes a part of it, is therefore everlastingly binding, may not be satisfactory to some of our readers.

That the Decalogue, as such, held a peculiar aspect towards the Jews, different from that which it holds towards any others, is freely admitted. It made a part of their civil code; it was incorporated with their political laws, and, therefore, temporal penalties were annexed, which were inflicted by the civil magistrate. Offences against the most of its precepts were punishable by death, Sabbath-breaking not excepted. Hence some contend that these precepts ought not to be called, by way of eminence, "_the_ Moral Law;" that the fact of their having been graven upon stone, and given under circumstances of greater pomp and glory than the other precepts of the Old Testament, constitutes no solid argument for their being so called. The greater glory of their promulgation from the Mount of God, is supposed to be sufficiently accounted for, by considering them as the _Constitution_, or _Grand Platform_, upon which was based the whole of that system which was peculiar to the Jews. The Decalogue, therefore, is supposed to bear about the same relation to the other precepts spoken by Moses, as _constitution_ bears to _statute law_. This view is thought to be favored by those passages which call the stone tables "the tables of the Covenant." Heb. ix. 4. Hence, as they say, the Covenant being abrogated, the tables of the Covenant are set aside also; on the same principle that when a political government is dissolved the constitution is of no farther use.

Upon this seemingly plausible argument we offer the following remarks:

1. Admitting that the Decalogue is the grand constitution of the Jewish polity, and that it has an excellence over the other precepts spoken by Moses, precisely like that of constitution over statute law; still we think it could not, in the nature of things, be any thing less than a code of morals. There was a necessity of the strongest kind, that it should embody all the essential elements of the moral law. For, as obedience to statute law must proceed from constitutional principles, so the obedience of the Israelites to the whole system of Moses must proceed upon moral footing. Any other obedience than this--any obedience which is of an inferior kind, God does not require, and cannot, consistently with his holy nature. No matter what is the nature of the precepts He gives, obedience to them must be upon moral principle. A love for the great principles of righteousness must regulate it all; for this only is the pledge that they will rigidly, and without deviation, conform to any system that He enjoins upon them. Therefore, the Moral Law, or rather the essential elements of it, go before all the other laws He gave to the children of Israel. If they will keep this law, which they promised to do, Exod. xix. 8, it is a pledge that they will keep all the rest.

2. Though the covenant character of the Decalogue is abolished, by reason of the Sinaitic Covenant being entirely abrogated, the moral character of it remains untouched, and just the same as it was before a covenant was based upon it. Hence, though we are under no covenant obligation to its precepts, we are under a moral obligation to them. The Jews were under a covenant obligation to the Decalogue, brought upon them by the transaction at Sinai. But Jews and Gentiles were alike under moral obligation to its precepts, antecedently to the covenant made at Sinai. Let men learn to distinguish between covenant obligation and moral obligation, and they will have no difficulty on this point.[3]

3. If the covenant character of the Decalogue is abolished, and all covenant obligation destroyed along with it, of course those temporal penalties which were annexed to its precepts are also abolished. But the moral penalty, the death of the soul, remains to be inflicted upon every impenitent transgressor. Hence the Sabbath-breaker, as well as the idolator, the profane swearer, and the adulterer, though not obnoxious to death, as the despiser of Moses' law, is yet obnoxious to the curse of God, and must inherit it by being punished with everlasting destruction from His presence, and from the glory of His power.

What is it then? Not only do the ten commandments possess a moral character, independent of their inscription upon the stone tablets, as the grand constitutional platform of the Jewish Theocracy; but they possess this moral character BECAUSE they compose this constitution. For the constitution, as we have already proved, could not, in the nature of things, be any thing else than a summary of moral precepts. Therefore, as the Sabbath is one of these precepts, it is a part of the moral law, and remains of everlasting force and obligation.

In our defense of the ten commandments, we do _not_ "contradistinguish them from the rest by calling the former exclusively _the_ moral law, and all the other divine instructions of the Jews, through Moses, _the_ ceremonial law." We not only admit, but strongly insist, that moral duties are inculcated elsewhere besides in the Decalogue. "When the Jews are told, Exod. xxii. 22, _Ye shall not afflict any widow or fatherless child_, we need no scholastic definitions to enable us to recognize this as a part of the moral code."[4] But we _do_ suppose that the Decalogue comprises the _elementary principles_ of the moral law. We suppose, that whatever moral duty is inculcated elsewhere, it is deducible from one or other of the ten commandments. We can hardly imagine a single condition in which it is possible for man to be placed in this life, or a relation that he sustains, which is not cognizable by this code.

Our doctrine receives strength from the prominence given to the Decalogue in the New Testament. No small degree of honor is put upon it by the Savior, in his Sermon on the Mount, an important part of that celebrated discourse being occupied with expositions of its precepts, and applications of them to the conduct of men, as the subjects of God's moral government. Again, when the young man came to Christ, and asked, "What good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life," he was told to keep the commandments. That by these were meant the precepts of the Decalogue, is evident from the Savior's immediately beginning to quote those precepts. Matt. xix. 16-19. The fact that they were enjoined with reference to _eternal_ life, proves conclusively that their bearing was not merely upon the conduct of men as citizens of the Jewish commonwealth, but upon their conduct as moral and accountable creatures.[5] Again, when the Apostle inculcates those duties which are the mark of love to our neighbor, he quotes the precepts of the second table of the Decalogue. Rom. xiii. 9. It is evident, also, that Paul refers particularly to the Decalogue as the law which convinced him of sin. Rom. vii. 7. For he cites the tenth precept of it, as showing him that strong desire after things forbidden is sin. This is the commandment which, being powerfully applied to his heart, made sin to revive, and he died: ver. 9. Hence he includes the Decalogue, when he speaks of that law which is "spiritual, and holy, and just, and good:" vs. 12, 14; to which the carnal mind, refusing subjection, is therefore enmity against God. Rom. viii. 7. One more example. Paul writing, not to Jews, but to converts from among the Gentiles, recognizes the usual arrangement of the Decalogue, and its validity as a rule of duty under the Gospel, when he says, concerning filial obedience, that it is the first commandment which has a promise annexed to it. Eph. vi. 1, 2. In the following verse he states what the promise is, presenting it as a motive to obedience. This proves that no commandment had been changed or dispossessed of its place.

In asserting the importance of the Decalogue, the reader will observe that we do not particularly insist upon the manner and circumstances of its promulgation. We dwell not upon the fact of its having been written with God's own finger upon stone, while Mosaic institutions were engrossed by Moses himself upon parchment. We dwell not upon the thunderings, lightnings, thick clouds, the loud blast of the trumpet, and the voice of Jehovah from the midst of the fire; all which conspire to throw around the ten commandments a glory not belonging to the ceremonial precepts. These things we pass, aware that men will evade the argument from them, by the supposition that they prove nothing more than that kind of superiority which the constitution of a state has over statute law. We can hardly refrain, however, from observing, as we pass, that as the ark was the throne of God, Exod. xxv. 22, Num. vii. 89, xvii. 4, Ps. xcix. 1--it is difficult to conceive how righteousness and judgment were the habitation of his throne, Ps xcvii. 2, if the "ten words" which were there deposited were not designed to be an expression of His perfections, and the eternal rule of right to His creatures.

But we think we have placed the morality of the Decalogue upon grounds that cannot be successfully disputed. Having thus secured it, we advert to the foregoing circumstances, not as direct proof of the truth of our argument, but as so much collateral evidence. There is one circumstance, however, which ought not to be passed over lightly. The tables of stone were deposited in the ark, and covered over by the mercy seat. On the great day of atonement, when the High Priest entered into the Most Holy, he sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice upon this mercy seat, and upon the floor before it, thus making an atonement for the sins of the people. But did this blood in reality atone for the sins of the people against that law which was concealed under the mercy seat? No. Not only was it no atonement for moral offences, Heb. x. 4, but it was not even an atonement for their political violation of this code. For such violation, in regard to most of its precepts, was a capital crime, and could not be expiated under that covenant. The whole process, therefore, was typical or prefigurative of the grand atonement made for the sins of the world by Jesus Christ, the High-Priest of our profession. Heb. iii. 1. The argument derived from it in favor of the Decalogue is, that what the law by its offerings could not do, God, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. Rom. viii. 3. For Christ enters into the Most Holy, even unto Heaven itself, with his own blood, and makes a real atonement for sins. In other words, the legal sacrifices could not reach to sins against the Decalogue, but Christ's sacrifice did, and therefore the superiority of the gospel over the law is fully established. But the whole argument for the superiority of the Christian sacrifice becomes null and void, on the supposition that the atonement had reference to any other law than the Decalogue.

Now if the Decalogue, as a whole, has a claim to be called a summary of the moral law, the Sabbath derives in this way no small degree of authority, For it is a very important part of the Ten Words, standing right in the very heart of them, and bound up along with them; so that, whatever dignity and excellence the rest have, this has also. We are, therefore, driven to the conclusion, that when the Savior says, "One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law," the Sabbath is alluded to as much as any other precept. That when the Apostle teaches, the law is not made void through faith, Rom. iii. 31, he means, among other things, that the Sabbath is not made void by the gospel, but rather established. That when he says "the law is spiritual," Rom. vii. 14, he means that the Sabbath law, as well as all other precepts, is spiritual; and that none reject it but those who are "carnal, sold under sin."

But we shall hear it objected, that the fourth commandment is not transferred to the New Testament, and re-enacted there, while all the other commandments are. This, however, is taking a wrong view of the case, altogether. The truth is, that no moral precept is re-enacted in the New Testament. What necessity is there for re-enacting laws which never expired? The very notion of re-enacting implies their previous expiration. Wherefore, if those precepts of the moral law which we find in the New Testament are there for no other reason than because they are re-enacted, it follows that they must have expired with the Old Covenant. If they expired with it, they were peculiar to it, and must have had their origin in it. If they were peculiar to it, and originated in it, then all obligation to obey them was merely covenant obligation, while moral or natural obligation is supposed to have had no existence. But this conclusion is an absurdity, and if carried out still farther, leads to multiplied absurdities.

Whatever laws are enacted in the New Testament, are altogether new and peculiar to that covenant of which Jesus is the mediator. They emanated from him in his character of Head of the Church. Baptism is one of them. It is, however, a new institution, peculiar to the New Covenant, and was not brought over from the old. The Lord's Supper is another, yet it is a new Covenant ordinance entirely, and therefore, like baptism, is to be observed only by believers. But as for the _re-enacting_ of laws, it is a thing altogether unknown in the New Covenant, and inconsistent with its nature.

The notion of the necessity of re-enacting the Sabbath in the New Testament, arises altogether from supposing that it is a covenant institution or church ordinance. But if it is a church ordinance, it can be binding upon none but believers; on the same principle that the ordinances of the Mosaic church were binding upon none but Jews. Is any one prepared to take this ground? We think not. Those who acknowledge the necessity of any Sabbath whatever, consider the observance of it a duty devolving upon men irrespective of their connection with the church, binding them in the isolated and individual capacity, even though church privileges were altogether out of the question. Were an individual abiding in some lone cavern of the Rocky Mountains, or roaming the uninhabited and trackless wastes of the earth, far, far from scenes of busy life, the law of God still binds him "to remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy."

The truth is, the Sabbath is not properly an ordinance of either of the covenants. It originated in neither of them, but was in existence long before any covenant was revealed to man. Hence, after the Old Covenant was abrogated, it remained just what it was before. So that if, in the history of the New Covenant, or what is commonly called the New Testament, there was not one word of allusion to the Sabbath in particular, it would not affect the argument in the least.[6]

But is it true, that the Sabbath is not sanctioned by the New Testament? What means our Savior's course in regulating the manner of its observance, in vindicating it from Pharisaic austerities, determining what is lawful to be done, &c., Matt. xii. 1-13. It can mean nothing else than sanctioning it, as a precept of the moral law, as we have already shown in our remarks upon this text, p. 10. But even if this express sanction were wholly wanting, inasmuch as it is a part of the moral law, as we have clearly proved, it stands firm, unaltered, and unalterable, receiving, from the very nature of the case, all the sanction of the New Covenant. It is impossible for the New Covenant to affect it in any other way than to strengthen and uphold it.