Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 7.djvu/27

 chap. xx. In xxv. 16 xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15, we simply read of &quot; the revelation &quot; inscribed on the tables, and it seems to be assumed that the contents of this revelation must be already known to the reader. The expression &quot; ten words &quot; first occurs in xxxiv. 28, in a passage which relates the restoration of the tables after they had iDeen broken. But these &quot; ten words &quot; are called &quot; the words of the covenant, &quot; and so can hardly be different from the words mentioned in the preceding verse as those in accord ance wherewith the covenant was made with Israel. And again, the words of verse 27 are necessarily the command ments which immediately precede in verses 12-26. Accord ingly many recent critics, following Hitzig, 1 who seems to have formed his view without reference to a previous suggestion of Goethe s, have sought to show that Exod. xxxiv. 12-26 contains just ten precepts forming a second decalogue. In point of detail it is disputed whether the narrator of Exod. xxxiv. regards this decalogue as precisely identical with that which stood on the first tables (which seems to follow from xxxiv. 1) or as a modification of the original words (so Ewald). It does not seem possible to deny the connection of verses 27, 28 with one another and with the previous context as the text now stands. Hengs- tenberg (Beitrlige, ii. 387 /.} and Bertheau (Sieben Gruppen Mosaischer Gesetze, p. 97) seek to distinguish the words of verse 28, as written by God himself, from those which, in verse 27, Moses is commanded to write. But no such dis tinction lies in the text, and it is not probable that the narrator felt any contradiction between God s promise to write the words in verse 1 and the use of human instrumen tality as implied in verse 28. On the other hand, the hypothesis of a second decalogue has serious if not insuper able difficulties. The number of ten precepts in Exod. xxxiv. is by no means clearly made out, and the individual precepts are variously assigned by different critics ; while the most recent supporter of the theory admits that the original number of ten is now concealed by additions. 2 This supposed decalogue contains no precepts of social morality, but forms a sort of unsystematic abstract of the oldest laws about points of religious observance. If such a system of precepts was ever viewed as the basis of the covenant with Israel, it must belong to a far earlier stage of religious development than that of Exod. xx. This is recognized by Wellhausen, who says that our decalogue stands to that of Exod. xxxiv. as Amos stood to his con temporaries, whose whole religion lay in the observance of sacred feasts. But the idea that the ethical teaching of the prophets had no basis in the original document of the Mosaic covenant is so revolutionary that few will venture to accept &quot; Goethe s decalogue &quot; with such inferences. The difficulty is presumably due to the interweaving of several distinct narratives, which perplexes the sequence of many parts of Exodus. It is more probable that xxxiv. 10-27 a summary of the religious precepts of the Mosaic conve- nant originally stood in a different connection than that there ever were two opinions as to what stood on the tables.

6. The Decalogue in Christian Theology.—Following the New Testament, in which the &quot; commandments &quot; summed up in the law of love are identified with the pre cepts of the decalogue (Mark x. 19 ; Rom. xiii. 9 ; cf. Mark xii. 28 ./?.), the ancient church emphasized the permanent obligation of the ten commandments as a sum mary of natural in contradistinction to ceremonial precepts, though the observance of the Sabbath was to be taken in a spiritual sense (Augustine, De Spiritu et Litera, xiv. ; Jerome, De Celcbratione Paschce). The mediaeval theo logians followed in the same line, recognizing all the pre- 1 Ostern und Pfingsten im zweiten Dekalog, Heidelberg, 1838. a Wullhansen in JahrVb. f. D, Theol, 1876, p. 554. 1 cepts of the decalogue as moral precepts de tege naturae, though the law of the Sabbath is not of the law of nature, in so far as it prescribes a determinate day of rest (Thomas, Summa, I ma II die, qu. c. art. 3 ; Duns, Super Sententias, lib. iii. dist. 37). The most important mediaeval exposition of the decalogue is that of Nicolaus de Lyra ; and the loth century, in which the decalogue acquired special importance in the confessional, was prolific in treatises on the subject (Antoninus of Florence, Gerson, &c.). Important theological controversies on the decalogue begin with the Reformation. The question between the Lutheran (Augustinian) and Reformed (Philonic) division of the ten commandments was mixed up with controversy as to the legitimacy of sacred images not designed to be worshipped. The Reformed theologians took the stricter view. The identity of the decalogue with the eternal law of nature was maintained in both churches, but it was an open question whether the decalogue, as such (that is, as a law given by Moses to the Israelites), is of perpetual obligation. The Socinians, on the other hand, regarded the decalogue as abrogated by the more perfect law of Christ ; and this view, especially in the shape that the decalogue is a civil and not amoral law (J. D. Michaelis), was the current one in the period of rationalism in last century. The distinction of a permanent and a transitory element in the law of the Sabbath is found, not only in Luther and Melanchthon, but in Calvin and other theologians of the Reformed church. The main controversy which arose on the basis of this distinction was whether the prescription of one day in seven is of permanent obligation. It was admitted that such obligation must be not natural but positive ; but it was argued by the stricter Calvinistic divines that the proportion of one in seven is agreeable to nature, based on the order of creation in six days, and in no way specially connected with anything Jewish. Hence it was regarded as a universal positive law of God. But those who maintained the opposite view were not ex cluded from the number of the orthodox. The laxer con ception found a place in the Cocceian school.

Literature.—Geffcken, Ueber die verschiedenen Einthciluncien des Dekalog s und den Einftussderstlben aufdcn Cultus; Ewald s History of Israel, vol. ii.; Sclmltz .s and especially Oehler s Old Testament Theology; Oehler s article &quot;Dekalog&quot; in Herzog s Eneyclopddie ; commentaries on Exodus, especially that of Knobel in German, and in English of Kalisch ; Kuenen s Godsdienst van Israel, Hfdst. v. Kurtz, Geschichte des Alien Bundes, Bd. ii. ; other literature cited by Oehler and by Koehler, Biblische, Geschichte, i. 287. For guidance in the theological controversies about the Decalogue the student may consult AVulch and Baumgarten. (V. R. S. )

 DECAMPS, (1803-1860), one of the foremost painters of the modern French school, was born in Paris on the 3d March 1803. He received his artistic training from Abel de Pujol, but set himself free at an early period of his career from academic trammels. He asserted his originality in his choice of subjects as well as in his style of treatment. In his youth he travelled in the East, and reproduced Oriental life and scenery with a bold fidelity to nature that made his works the puzzle of conventional critics. His powers, however, soon came to be recognized, and he was ranked along with Delacroix and Vernet as one of the leaders of the French school. At the Paris Exhibition of 1855 he received the grand or council medal. Most of his life was passed in the neigh bourhood of Paris. He was passionately fond of animals, especially dogs, and indulged in all kinds of field sports. He died on the 22d August 1860 in consequence of being thrown from a vicious horse while hunting at Fontainebleau. The style of Decamps was characteristically and intensely French. It was marked by vivid dramatic conception, by a manipulation bold and rapid, sometimes even to rough ness, and especially by original and startling use of 