Part 2

Here it will be objected, that this reasoning proceeds on the assumption, that the Sabbath is of divine and perpetual obligation, and that the justness of this assumption is altogether denied. Well then, let us proceed to the proof. It will not be denied, that in the law of the ten commandments, commonly called the moral law, twice written by the finger of God, and delivered to the Jews in the most solemn manner by the voice of Jehovah himself, there is a plain command to “keep holy the Sabbath day.” It will not be denied, that this appointment was made as “a sign” or memorial of the relation that subsisted between God and his Church, and that this sign was to be continued in succeeding generations. It will not be denied, that this appointment was guarded by sanctions of the most important kind—great blessings being promised to its observance, and severe judgments being threatened against those who should disregard it. In all this we see, that to _the Jews_ the observance of the Sabbath was of divine obligation, and that that obligation continued so long as the law itself was unrepealed. In other words, until the same authority by which the law was promulgated, shall plainly declare it abolished, every Jew is bound to keep the Sabbath, on pain of incurring the displeasure of Almighty God.

But was the Jew the only person that was brought under the sanctions of this law? Were not all proselytes from the Gentiles bound by the same obligations, as they were also partakers of the same blessings with the Jews? And does the obligation stop even here? What is the meaning of this passage from the prophet Isaiah? “Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer . . . for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” {20a} Surely this language must have reference to the times of the gospel, when the gentile nations would be admitted into the church of God, and become partakers of the blessings of the new covenant. In support of this view it may be mentioned, that St. Paul states expressly that gentile believers have no separate and independent standing in the economy of redemption, but are as scions cut out of a wild olive tree and grafted into the Jewish stock, and so with the natural branches, partake of its root and fatness. Or, using another figure, he reminds the Ephesians, that before their conversion they had been “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,” but that now they were “fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.” If this view be correct, and we see not how its correctness can be disproved, the Sabbath with its responsibilities and its blessings, is not confined to Jews, or to proselytes to the Jewish religion. Its observance is binding upon all who profess to believe the scriptures and to worship the God of the Bible.

We cannot help regarding as very untenable the opinion of those, who dissever the fourth commandment from the rest of the decalogue, under the plea that it is not properly speaking _moral_, {20b} and therefore has not the same force as the commandments of the second table—as if the express command of our Maker were not infinitely above every consideration arising from the nature of the injunction given, or as if man’s reason or man’s moral sense were competent to make a distinction where God has made none. What right have we, under any pretence whatever, to deny the obligation of a law, so plainly, so solemnly, so awfully promulgated by the God of heaven himself? The very position of the fourth commandment in the decalogue, might teach men to regard it with peculiar veneration. It is the link that binds together heaven and earth—our duty to God and our duty to our neighbour. It is the pillar that supports the whole moral and religious fabric. To attempt to set aside the obligation to observe the fourth commandment, is therefore, in our view, a daring attack on the authority of the Lawgiver. It is a temerity equalled only by that of the church of Rome in expunging from the decalogue the second commandment.

We acknowledge the greater consistency of those who affirm, that the whole moral law is swept away by the gospel; though we much regret that any true Christians, and those too, persons who are friendly to a proper observance of the Lord’s day, should hold notions which appear to us opposed to Scripture, and calculated to produce among the unthinking multitude, the most serious consequences. If indeed it were true, that the whole decalogue is abrogated by Christianity, no supposed immoral results would deter us from boldly proclaiming the fact. In that case, we should not shrink from telling men that our church is under a serious mistake, when she teaches her members to confess their guilt in breaking each of the ten commandments, to ask for pardon, and to implore grace to keep them in time to come. But it is because we believe in our heart that the decalogue is still in force, and that God’s honour and man’s happiness alike demand its observance, that we are not “bold enough” to proclaim as “liberty” what we are sure would lead to the greatest licentiousness. A theory of the kind may not seriously injure men of real piety and great spirituality of mind; but to others it would be productive of the most lamentable consequences.

But if Christianity has freed us from the moral law, an announcement to that effect must be recorded in the New Testament, and recorded in no obscure or doubtful terms, such as can by any possibility be misunderstood, but in language as plain, as perspicuous, and as authoritative, as that employed in the original promulgation of the law. For here we are not called upon to give up merely some external observance, or to change the mode or the time of performing some appointed duty (for _that_ a less explicit intimation of the divine will would suffice); but we are told to renounce what in its very nature is essential to all acceptable obedience, and what above every other part of revelation bears marks of the divine impress. If the moral law is to be renounced as part of “the weak and beggarly elements” of the Mosaic religion, we must have the voice of God as distinctly abrogating the ten commandments as it was heard in their original promulgation. Nothing less will satisfy us, and nothing else, we venture to say, ought to satisfy any man who believes, that at the bar of God he must answer for the use he has made of the divine revelation contained in the Bible. {22}

Now, can any man shew, or does any man pretend to shew, a single passage of scripture in which it is plainly stated, that the decalogue is abrogated under the Christian dispensation? We are well aware that obedience to the law forms no part of man’s justification—for “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” We know too that love is the essence of all obedience—for “love is the fulfilling of the law.” But we know likewise that “this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” Nor can we conceive how the purest and most fervent love can be properly manifested, towards God or man, without some infallible guidance for its expression in the different relations of life. {23a} This we have briefly and essentially in the decalogue; while the principles there enunciated, are in the prophets and in the New Testament more fully developed and expanded. And in the absence of some plain revelation to justify such a course, we would fain know on what principle the _comment_ (so to speak) is retained, when the _text_ itself is rejected. If the law written by the finger of God and published by his own mouth may thus be ignored, what reason can be urged for listening to the moral teaching of Prophets and Apostles? But if the law of the ten commandments has not been annulled, the command to keep the Sabbath is still in force. For he that said “thou shalt not kill,” said also, “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” On this ground then we rest our defence of the divine and perpetual obligation of the Sabbath. God has not revoked his own solemn decree published with his own lips on Mount Sinai. Till this is done, the decree with all its sanctions continues in full force.

Here we are content to stop; though we feel that the argument might be carried much further. For we believe that had there been no command in the law of Moses, enjoining the observance of the Sabbath; still both Jews and Gentiles would have been bound by the original institution, {23b} coeval with man’s being, and forming the only positive appointment of God, imposed on our first parents in a state of innocency. He “blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” This thought will probably have little weight with those who are not convinced by our previous arguments; but it will doubtless lead some to reflect, that if the Sabbath was needed for man’s welfare even in the garden of Eden, much more is it required for the good of both body and soul in his present condition of sin and toil and sorrow; and that if the Father of Goodness gave his sinless creatures a day of rest from worldly employment, and a weekly Sabbath for more continued and intimate communion with himself; the compassion of the same gracious Being would not only lead him to continue the appointment, now so much more needed in man’s fallen state, but also to command such an observance of the day, as man’s altered circumstances rendered necessary. Now, this can only be effected by making it imperative on all to “keep holy” the sacred day themselves, and to afford to others facilities to keep it. If it were to be regarded merely as a privilege, to be enjoyed or neglected at pleasure, it would not answer the end intended. In man’s present condition, he cannot by nature appreciate the boon, nor desire the spiritual blessings that the appointment is especially intended to convey. The observance of the Sabbath must therefore be laid upon his conscience as a duty, that in seeking to fulfil that duty, he may be continually brought under the means of grace, and the influence of Christian principles, until by God’s grace he is led to feel the blessedness of a well spent Sabbath, and keeps from a motive of love, what he at first observed from a sense of duty.

APPENDIX.

SOME persons require a proof that the decalogue is binding on Christians. They acknowledge that it is still in force towards the Jews. But assuming that the whole Jewish economy is abrogated with regard to Christians, they demand evidence from the New Testament that the ten commandments are a rule of duty to us. Now this is a demand they have no right to make. It proceeds on an assumption, the correctness of which we deny. It is therefore, the part of those who maintain that view, to prove that the moral law has ceased to be in force; not of us, to shew the contrary.

While, however, we maintain our vantage ground, and contend that nothing less than a plain declaration in the New Testament to that effect, can or ought to satisfy us, that the decalogue is annulled, we do not despair of being able to satisfy any candid mind, by an appeal to the New Testament, that we are as much bound by the ten commandments as are the Jews, to whom they were originally given.

No one can say, that there is an express declaration in the New Testament, to the effect, that the decalogue is set aside under the present dispensation. Those who arrive at the conclusion, must confess, that it is merely inferential. In this respect, then, both parties stand on equal ground. Neither our opponents nor ourselves can adduce an undoubted and positive declaration. But we ask which have the greatest need of such a declaration—they who assert that the moral law, written and pronounced by God himself, has been abrogated, or they who affirm that it is still in force? On which side lies the greater probability, and with whom rests the greater responsibility? No very serious harm can result from the error (if such it be) of maintaining the perpetual authority of the moral law, but the most disastrous consequences may flow from the rejection of its claims. And surely it is more likely that God would continue his own law in force without a direct renewal of it, than that he would abrogate it without a plain announcement to that effect. In the absence then of positive evidence, the probability lies on the side of its retention.

Now, this probability advances a step towards certainty, when it is remembered, that Judaism is not formally abrogated in the New Testament—that in fact Christianity is not a new religion, but the extension and expansion of the moral and spiritual part of the Mosaic dispensation—believing Jews still remaining on their own stock, and believing Gentiles being scions grafted into the Jewish olive tree. The religion of Jesus is in reality the perfection of the religion of Moses. But where would be its superiority in a moral point of view, if the authority of the very standard of morality were taken from it? At any rate, if such were the case, some express intimation to that effect is to be expected.

This argument is still further strengthened by the fact, that the spirit and essential requirements of Judaism and Christianity are identical. It has indeed been asserted that the morality of the Old Testament was one of legal enactment; whereas that of the New Testament is one of motives and principles. But our Lord teaches a very different doctrine. He tells us that love was the essence and sum of all the requirements of the Old Testament, even as love is the fulfilling of the law under the present dispensation. {27} Christianity presents a new and powerful motive for obedience—namely gratitude for the incarnation and death of the Son of God; but this neither changes the nature of man’s moral obligation, nor removes the necessity of a positive enactment to guide him in his obedience, and enforce conformity to God’s will. If then in spirit and essence the moral requirements of the law and of the gospel were the same, what reason should there be for setting aside the decalogue, and what authority have we to ignore it without an express command from God?

The probability that the moral law remains in force under the present dispensation, is still further strengthened by the use which is made of it by the inspired writers of the New Testament. St. Paul indeed speaks of the law as the “ministry of condemnation,” in opposition to the gospel, which is the “ministry of righteousness,” or justification—the one dispensation bearing on its front the justice of God, the other, his mercy.

He tells us plainly that the law can only condemn, while the gospel alone has power to justify. He assures us that in this respect—in its condemning power—it is “done away” to the believer, while the free grace of the gospel alone “remains.” But when he speaks of the moral requirements of Christianity, while he tells us that (as in the religion of Moses) love is the essence and sum of all, he nevertheless sends us to the commandments of the second table, to learn how love is to be exhibited, or rather perhaps to shew us, that the moral requirements of the two dispensations were essentially the same. {28a} What an extraordinary use to make of the law, if the decalogue be part of “the weak and beggarly elements” abolished by Christianity. St. John tells us that to love God is to keep his commandments. But we know not which of his commandments we are bound to keep, if we reject those which he wrote with his own finger, and pronounced with his own voice. St. James refers to the moral law as if recognising its obligation. “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” {28b} It may be objected, that this reference to the law is merely for the purpose of illustration. But surely if the violation of one precept involves the guilt of breaking the whole law, the whole law must still be in force. For if the enactment has been repealed, there is no law; and if there is no law, there can be no transgression; and if there is no transgression, there can be no guilt. How strange, too, is this appeal to the law by the Apostle Paul, if the law has been annulled: “Children obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. Honour thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live long on the earth.” {28c} We thus approach very near the establishment of our position, that there is evidence in the New Testament, that the moral law is still binding on men.

It may indeed be objected, that in the scriptures quoted or alluded to, the reference is chiefly, if not exclusively, to the second table of the decalogue. But we think few will venture to deny, (especially after the assertion of St. James, that the violation of one precept is the violation of the whole law) that if the part which regulates our duty to man is in force, the part which teaches our duty to God must be equally in force. Besides, if love is the fulfilling of the law, and the love of God is keeping his commandments, how can we express our love to him, if we reject that part of the law, which especially guides us in the proper manner of shewing our love _directly_ to him?

But there is one passage of the New Testament, which, in the absence of a positive enunciation to the contrary, to our mind, of itself establishes the permanent authority of the decalogue, and which, when added to what has already been said, more than completes the proof that has been demanded of us. We allude to our Lord’s declaration: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” {29a} There can scarcely be a doubt to what the Redeemer refers when he speaks of “the law and the prophets.” He could not intend the ceremonial law, because the breaking of its least commands would not make a man “least in the kingdom of heaven.” Neither was it true that he did not come to put an end to its observance. It is the moral law, and those instructions of the prophets which flow from it—it is “the law and the prophets” as embraced in the precept, “thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself,” which our Lord evidently meant. The entire discourse to which this declaration forms the introduction, is of a moral character; and whatever meanings may have been put upon our Lord’s language, we think any unbiased mind, on reading the whole discourse, will come to the conclusion, that the moral law was chiefly and prominently in the Saviour’s mind, when he employed the language above quoted. {29b} But if one jot or tittle cannot pass away from the law, how should the entire law be abrogated? We conclude, therefore, that there is satisfactory evidence in the New Testament, that the decalogue is still in force in the Christian church—not so indeed that obedience to it forms the ground of the believer’s justification, or that want of perfect conformity to its requirements brings him under condemnation (this was not the case under the Jewish dispensation), but as the standard of right and wrong, as the infallible regulator of conscience, as that perfect rule of moral obligation, by seeking conformity to which we honour our Creator and Redeemer, perform the duties of this present life, and become fitted for the presence of God and the inheritance of the saints in light. To the believer the moral law has always been “the law of liberty,” because, it being “written in his heart,” he has “delighted in it after the inner man,” and kept its precepts from a principle of love.

* * * * *

THE END.

* * * * *

NORWICH: PRINTED BY THOMAS PRIEST, RAMPANT HORSE STREET.

FOOTNOTES.

{7} It is the fashion to extol highly the power of man’s mental and moral perception of what is right and wrong. But from whom do we hear most on these subjects? From those who, having lighted their torch at the lamp of God, affect not only to be independent of divine illumination, but even to eclipse the light of heaven itself. If they will fairly test their own principles, let them try them by the condition of that portion of the human family on whom revelation never cast its direct rays. Let them seek in the records of the heathen nations of antiquity, or in the principles and practice of modern heathendom, for proofs of man’s inherent power to think and act aright. They will then find that their wisdom is folly, their religion the most degrading idolatry, and that their moral code allows and even commands actions of the most revolting kind. The moral sense of the New Zealander made him a cannibal. In the Hindu it is seen in the worship of the Linga, in the horrid rites of the Suttee, and in the filthy and unnatural crimes that form a part of what is considered their most acceptable worship. It is hardly necessary to refer the classical reader to such works as the Phædrus and Symposium of the greatest philosopher of the most civilized nation of antiquity.

{12a} Heb. x. 25.

{12b} Vide x. 26, et seq.

{13} After examining all the places in which the word σάββατον and the defective plural σάββατα occur, both in the New Testament and in the Septuagint, we are satisfied that the following extract from Bishop Horsley’s Third Sermon on the Sabbath, gives the proper exposition of the passage. “I must not quit this part of my subject without briefly taking notice of a text in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, which has been supposed to contradict the whole doctrine which I have asserted, and to prove that the observation of a Sabbath in the Christian church is no point of duty, but a matter of mere compliance with ancient custom . . . From this text no less a man than the venerable Calvin drew the conclusion, in which he has been rashly followed by other considerable men, that the sanctification of the seventh day is no indispensable duty in the Christian church—that it is one of those carnal ordinances of the Jewish religion which our Lord hath blotted out. The truth however is, that in the apostolical age, the first day of the week, though it was observed with great reverence, was not called the Sabbath day, but the Lord’s day . . . and the name of the Sabbath days was appropriated to the Saturdays, and certain days in the Jewish church, which were likewise called Sabbaths in the law. The Sabbath days, therefore, of which St. Paul speaks, were not the Sundays of Christians, but the Saturdays and other Sabbaths of the Jewish calendar.”

{14} Rom. xiv. 5, 6.

{15} Isaiah i. 13, 14.