You say that 'the two are wide as the world and enduring as God and man; the ten were special, embodied at a particular time, for a particular people' &c.—I inquire, how much does the precept, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me' lack of covering all time, all space, and all people? I inquire the same respecting the prohibition against idolatry, blasphemy, the profanation of that day which was set apart for man in the beginning, disobedience to parents, murder, adultery, theft, false witness and covetousness? And if these precepts were special and limited to the Jews, I ask, How the abolition of the ten, has made nine of them broad enough to reach the whole human family in the gospel dispensation?
If men could ever acquire a righteous character in the violation of these precepts, I ask, In what did a righteous character consist? I think you must answer me, Faith without works; rather I should say with very bad ones. You say further:
'It should be borne in mind, that the Israelites were never required to promulgate the ten commandments: they were to shut them up in a kind of chest, called an ark, and guard them with the utmost care. On the contrary, the gospel was to be preached in 'all the world.''
I answer, they were as much required to promulgate the ten commandments, as they were the two, which you admit were binding on all men. But you can form some idea of the publicity which the children of Israel were to give the commandments from Deut. vi, 4—9; xi, 18—20; Deut. iv, 6. The hand-writing of ordinances constituted the middle wall of partition between the Hebrews and the nations around them, and not the moral law of God. Eph. ii. This wall is now broken down, but it is not Jehovah's law.
It is true that God's constitution was shut up in the ark. And it is also true that his unabolished, unimproved constitution is even now 'shut up in a kind of chest, called an ark' and guarded with the utmost care in the Heaven of heavens. Rev. xi, 19. And were its enemies able like the Philistines to take it, in consequence of the sin of God's people, perhaps they would be as anxious to get rid of it as the Philistines were. Read that interesting narrative in 1 Sam. iv; v; vi. You continue:
'The precepts of the decalogue were all moral, except the fourth, which was ceremonial, and were hence in harmony with the genius of the gospel and could be and were incorporated into it; but the fourth, being ceremonial and from its nature as well as by its express language, limited to a particular country and people, was not in harmony with the genius of the gospel, and hence not incorporated into it.'
To this statement, I answer that your effort to limit the fourth commandment to the Jews, was exposed at length in my second letter to you. The reader is referred to that.
The fourth commandment was ceremonial, and hence, 'was not in harmony with the genius of the gospel.' On what authority do you assert that the Sabbath was ceremonial? Not finding such a statement in the Bible, I present the only authority to aid you, that I am able to offer. The Most Reverend Doctor Thomas Aquinas, decided this point in your favor about the time of the eleventh century in these words:
'It seems to be inconvenient that the precept for observing the Sabbath should be put among the precepts of the decalogue, if it do not at all belong to it; the precept, 'Thou shalt not make a graven image,' and the precept for observing the Sabbath, are CEREMONIAL.'
In your third article, in alluding to the distinction recognized by the Review, between the hand-writing of ordinances and the royal law, you say, Its nice discriminations are all fancied. But you can take the ten commandments, themselves, and decide which of these are moral and which ceremonial?—What shall I say of such discriminations as that?
In your fourth article, you charged the Review with attempting to legislate for God, notwithstanding it had ever been entirely satisfied with his original constitution. But in this article, you attempt to get rid of that constitution, and to get another established in its stead. Which of us is it that attempts to legislate for God, I submit to you for decision.—You continue:
'The two commandments named before, are, in fact, the constitution of the gospel system, and other commandments enjoined in the New Testament specifications of them.'
In answer to this, I remark, that you have really failed to prove that Jesus abolished his Father's constitution and established another. In proof of this, I need only refer to the text on which you rely to establish this new constitution. See Matt. xxii, 36—40.
But granting you just such a constitution as you claim, Will you please take it, and from thence point out the True God? You continue:
'The abolition of that which was 'engraven in stones,' as taught in 2 Cor. iii is an evidence that God is 'given to change,' as the Review intimates.'
Answer: God has not said that that which was engraven in stones, was abolished. It is by leaving off a part of the verse that this doctrine is established; something as certain plain Bible testimony, has been made so plain that nothing "can be plainer" as noticed near the commencement of the lengthy extract in this article.—But your argument concludes as follows:
'That law had served its purpose as a schoolmaster in bringing the Israelites up to Christ: hence it could be 'done away,' as well as that people could cease to engross the institutions of revealed religion, without the result which the Review intimates. We should have said, that the ten commandments were the constitution of God's religious system for the Israelites from the Exodus to Christ, to which were appended the Levitical ceremonies.'
The ten commandments brought Paul to Christ after you say that they were abolished, or done away. Rom. vii, 7—25; viii, 1—7. And they brought the Galatians to Christ many years after this, where they found pardon and were delivered by his blood from their condemnation, and brought under grace. But how can the decalogue be done away, and yet nine of its ten precepts abide? How can the ten commandments be abolished, and yet only the fourth precept be destroyed?
Your last sentence confesses the plain distinction between God's constitution and the Levitical ceremonies. Doubtless you forgot the fact, that when the Review referred to this same distinction you remarked that 'Its nice discriminations are all fancied?'
I have now, for the second time, presented your entire argument from 2 Cor. iii. I commend to your notice the following from the Review:
'The remarks of C. occasion the following suggestions:
1. The ten commandments embodied the Holy Sabbath and formed the constitution of God's government; yet, according to C. the same argument that would establish the Sabbath and embodied in this constitution, would also establish the Jewish feasts, which were ONLY embodied in the hand-writing of ordinances!!
2. Christ relaxed a part of the constitution of God's religious system, the disciples violated it, the holy women did not keep it, God the Father lightly esteemed it, and to get rid of it, the whole constitution was abolished?
3. The whole foundation of God's religious system, his constitution, has been torn up and scattered to the winds, in order to get the Sabbath out of it. This, it is very true would be necessary in order to get rid of the Sabbath—but it cannot be done until a stronger than the Most High shall be found!'"
And finally I inquire, Should not the effort to blot out Jehovah's constitution and to establish a better in its stead, be for ever repudiated by the disciples of him who said, 'My Father is greater than I,' and be left entirely to that personage who, having exalted himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, thinks himself able to change the times and the laws of the Most High?