The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

TENTH SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Negative.—The question is not, do the New Testament writers recognize the Sabbath, but has the precept to observe the Sabbath been perpetuated through the present age? When my opponent can prove this, his argument is to be admitted as sustaining the affirmative of the question before us. But to prove that the New Testament writers recognize the Sabbath of the fourth Commandment, and to prove that they enjoin in observance, are two very distinct and different things as any [original illegible] readily [original illegible]. Let my [original illegible] bring one single text, from the pages of the New Testament enforcing the precept of the fourth commandment, and I will waive all farther controversy. He must do this or his arguments will not be pertinent to the question. Suppose my opponent should or could bring texts from the New Testament showing that circumcision was there recognized, would it prove thru a precept enjoining a practice of that rite has been enforced upon the present age? Would this be relevant to the question before us? Or suppose he should find the Apostles speaking of feasts just as the prophets spoke of them; would this be relevant? I speak in all sincerity when I say I believe it would be just as relevant as the remarks of my opponent for the last fifteen minutes before he sat down. PSDS 41.1

The Apostles observed all the Jewish feasts, but this fact is by no means relevant to our discussion, and it does not follow that I am bound to consider their observance binding upon the present age. PSDS 42.1

The chairman, at my request, has read the question, and I am sorry it was not read before my opponent commenced his last speech, as it might have saved all this rambling talk. I beg to remind my opponent that I am bound to follow him as long as he sticks to the issue, but no longer. PSDS 42.2

I will take the position that the word of is always possessive where it is preceded and succeeded by a noun, and I will give him from now till 10 o’clock to show from any book or author whatever, that it is not so. The house of Mr. Newton—Mr. Newton’s house—the God of Abram—Abram’s God, etc. PSDS 42.3

He admits that the reason why the seventh day was selected for a Sabbath, was because the Lord rested on that day, and every person must see the difference between the Lord’s Sabbath and the observance of the same enforced by precept. PSDS 42.4

Now, will he deny that David was a man of God? and yet David was a polygamist. Let him quote one of the ten commandments prohibiting fornication or a plurality of wives, and I will grant he has done something towards showing that they are perfect law—a complete moral code. How shall we convict a man of sin for doing any of these things, or for drunkenness, under the ten commandments? Ah! there is the difficulty. My opponent could not even reprove the “father of the faithful.” But come down to the New Testament and we find Christ and Apostles interdicting all these sins. “And they too shall be one flesh.” Nothing of the kind in the ten commandments. Take the New Testament and you can prove a man guilty of adultery if he but “look on a woman to lust after her,” but upon the hypothesis that the ten commandments are a perfect moral code, my mind may be filled with adultery, and according to the seventh commandment even you could not touch me for it Where is the perfection in a law that does not expressly prohibit drunkeness? Let my opponent come up boldly and meet these points. I can show that a man may keep all the ten commandments and still be morally guilty before God and man, of the grossest sins. Suppose a man should keep liquor in his house, and not only habitually get drunk himself, but entice others to do the same, I ask my opponent how that man could be convicted of sin by the ten commandments? But especially how could a man be convicted of adultery or fornication by this “perfect law”—this “complete moral code?” It is not at all strange how a man may be convicted by other commandments than those written upon tables of stone, but can he by those? Again, I say, let my opponent come up boldly and meet these points. They are all important. PSDS 42.5

Furthermore, let him in his future arguments answer this question: Was the Sabbath of the fourth commandment enjoined or commanded to be observed by the New Testament writers? I wish to have this question written down, for it is the substance of the real issue between us, and it seems to be so simple I am ashamed to repeat it so many times. PSDS 43.1

Now, although God could exist, and did exist, anterior to Abram, who will argue from this that he existed as Abram’s God? Just so with the sabbath of the fourth commandment: although the seventh day had existed from the creation, who will argue that therefore the obligation to observe it as a sabbath originated at the creation? The existence of a certain day does not prove the origin of an obligation to observe that day. My opponent takes the position that because the sabbath of the Lord existed or was made at creation, therefore the ten commandments existed anterior to the time of Abram; but he must prove this, or, by all sound principles of biblical exposition, his statements are worthless. He has tried to show the existence of their principles, by implication; but we want plain, unequivocal Bible testimony. Implication will never answer in reference to a doctrine which, if true, should be inwrought with almost every page of the Bible. For one, I will not advocate any doctrine that is not built upon the plain words of the Bible. If my opponent wishes me to believe and advocate his theory, let him bring one plain “thus saith the lord” in its support, and I am with him; but argument based on implication will never convince me. PSDS 43.2

I availed myself of his admission that where there is no precept there is no obligation; but I have nothing to do with argument founded on implication. Let him come forward and prove that the sabbath of the fourth commandment was promulgated and enjoined at creation. Let him prove that it existed anterior to Abram, and it will be just what we wish. PSDS 43.3

Can the seventh day of the fourth commandment be the day on which the Lord rested at the creation? I am ashamed to have to ask so many questions. PSDS 44.1

“Not the same twenty-four hours that God rested.” Mark this. Now, if it is not the same twenty-four hours, it is simply a day answering to the day on which God rested. PSDS 44.2

The question is not the sanctification of the day on which God rested, but the sanctification of the sabbath of the fourth commandment; and my opponent fails to meet the issue. He argued, in effect, that a covenant and promise are the same as commandments, and endeavored to prove from this promise that Abram had the ten commandments. My friend claims to have more regard for the words of the Bible than for logic; but I fear he has sadly perverted both. He reads Genesis 26th chapter; but I am not under obligations to answer it. In the 105th Psalm, verses 8-11, and 1 Chronicles 16:15-18, compared with Genesis 26:1-5, is his entire proof that Abraham had the ten commandments. But since God tells us in so many words that the convent commanded to a thousand generations was, all that remains to be done, in order to set the matter in clear light before you, will be to read the language of God. “Be ye mindful of His covenant, the word which He commanded to a thousand generations, even of the covenant which He made with Abraham, and of His oath unto Isaac, and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and unto Jacob for an everlasting covenant saying. Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance.” PSDS 44.3

Here the Lord tells us what word, what covenant, what law. He commanded, “saying, Unto thee will” (have I given the ten commandments” No) “I give the land of Canaan.” Compare the foregoing covenant, promise, law, with the original Genesis 15:18: “In the same day, the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given the land,” etc. Hence, my opponent is placing his own arguments against the plain words of the Bible and of God! The Bible is to be the only evidence in this discussion, according to our rules, and I shall call for the reading of them if there is much more digression. What right has my opponent to put words in the mouth of God which He has never spoken? Where will you find anything more than a promise to give him the land? Genesis 15th chapter, 18th verse. Here we find the covenant and here we find the promise, and here we find that this passage and the 105th Psalm harmonize exactly. PSDS 44.4

He reiterates that the ten commandments existed anterior to the days of Abram. He claims that it way the same covenant at Sinai, and I am glad he has taken this position. My opponent anticipated me here. He thought I would take this possible and I am not afraid of the consequences. The Bible will sustain itself, and if I cannot sustain, my position, it will not be for want of Bible truth. PSDS 45.1

Deuteronomy 4th chapter, 12th and 13th verses. Mark this: If nine commandments, or their principles existed, still the ten did not, and, until my opponent proves the existence of the whole number, he cannot find a place for the fourth. He is only a poor, mortal man, like the rest of us, and his statements, unsupported by Bible testimony, are of no value whatever. PSDS 45.2

Deuteronomy 5:1 v., to the 3rd inclusive, shows when and for whom this covenant was made. The same is found in Exodus 34:27, 28 verses: PSDS 45.3

And the Lord said unto Moses. Write thou these words for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. PSDS 45.4

And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink Water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. PSDS 45.5

Why do our friends present these ten commandments in such large letter upon their card here before you and leave out this important preface which is placed before them in the Bible? Is it to dupe the people? I will not say that it is. I suppose they think it would look too Israelitish for the present day, and I think the same myself. I would like to have them write all the words of God as they were spoken by His voice from the blazing mount of Sinai, and not be content to write only a part. I would like to see whether they would not then give the reason why the fourth commandment (as well as all the rest) was enjoined. You could then read there, upon their card, in large capitals, “because you were bondmen in the land of Egypt.” PSDS 45.6

The fifth commandment contains an Israelitish promise; [5th commandment here read.—Reporter.] Now, does God here refer to the Gentiles? Has that promise been changed? It is now, and always was, confined to a prolongation of the present life in the land they were going over to possess. Paul promises long life in the earth for obedience to this precept. Ephesians 6:3. There is a wide and marked difference as any one can see. PSDS 45.7

I was in hopes that my remark—[Time up.]
Close of first day’s discussion—six hours and ten speeches. PSDS 46.1