The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

TWELFTH SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Negative.—In the first place, my opponent explains his position. He has admitted, in a former speech, that all obligation grows out of precept—“where there is no law, there is no transgression”—and this is virtually admitting the truth of the negative of our question. PSDS 50.1

I never, endorsed his position in reference to the principle of the seventh commandment, except as a hypothesis on which to base an argument. I merely endorsed his position to show that it was the same he had taken on another point, and had subsequently denied. The question whether or not I really endorse or assume his position is another question entirely. PSDS 50.2

Now, about leading and following: It is my duty to follow him, I admit; but, if he fails to lead out on the question at issue, I have the right, according to every parliamentary usage, to go on and prove the negative. My friend should qualify his statements about giving me the privilege, etc. This is a question of order. All turns on the point whether he leads according to the principles of parliamentary law or not. If he does, I am bound to follow, but not otherwise. PSDS 50.3

I quoted his position in regard to the pre-existence of the ten commandments, to answer his position on other points. It is his duty, not to prove the pre-existence of the fourth commandment or any other, but to prove the pre-existence of the precept of the fourth commandment. It is the duty of the affirmative to adhere strictly to the proposition before us. His argument about the pre-existence of the principles of the ten commandments was not to the question at all. If he does not adhere to the strict letter of the question, he should at least to the implied meaning; and I affirm that there is nothing in it, either expressed or implied, about the principles of the ten commandments. For aught we know, the principles of some of them are eternal; but that does not prove that the precept of the fourth, or any other, are eternal. PSDS 50.4

He claims that to prove that the sabbath of the Lord was made at creation proves that the sabbath of the fourth commandment was made likewise at creation; “for,” says he, “they are identical.” “There is but one sabbath mentioned in the fourth commandment, and that is the sabbath of the Lord.” I have but one remark to make in regard to this: He has twice taken the position that the sabbath of the fourth commandment was the identical day on which God rested, and twice that it was a day answering to that. My opponent will not claim that God has rested every seventh day since the creation; but this must be true if the sabbath of the Lord and the sabbath of the fourth commandment are identical, for the Lord certainly rested on the Lord’s sabbath. Now, the question is, when did the Lord command the observance of the sabbath of the fourth commandment? My opponent has been digressing by leaving the words “fourth commandment” out of the discussion entirely, and substituting in their place “the Lord’s sabbath.” The question is not upon the sabbath of the Lord or the day upon which the Lord rested, but upon the sabbath of the fourth commandment. When was it enforced upon the people of God? I deny that the Lord’s sabbath and the sabbath of the fourth commandment are the same. Even though the Lord’s sabbath continued every seventh day from the creation to the time of the giving of the ten commandments at Mount Sinai, it would not be inferable from that, that the sabbath of the fourth commandment was made at creation. I call upon my opponent to show that the observance of the fourth commandment sabbath was binding upon man before the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage. It is very easy to overlook the real question at issue. I think our positions have been stated to the people often enough to have them perfectly understood. If we can never make our views known upon this point, why not leave it? PSDS 50.5

But another criticism which I made, he did not notice. I refer to the difference I showed to exist between the reason why a certain day was selected and the reason why the commandment to observe that day was given. The only reason why the Lord commanded them to observe the sabbath at all was because they were delivered from Egyptian bondage. To give a reason why a certain day was selected, and to give a reason why a commandment was given, are two different things. PSDS 51.1

One of the rules by which we agreed to be guided in this discussion was that the Bible should be our only authority. I will read the Bible again, and remember that our conclusion must be based upon the most obvious construction of the language used. Now, turn with me and let me read just what God tells us. He said: 1 Chronicles 16:15. Now, what did God say here? His word is to be perpetuated to a thousand generations, etc. Now, turn to the 105th Psalm and then to the covenant with Abraham. See if the Bible will not harmonize with itself. “Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan.” PSDS 51.2

I was indirectly accused, last evening, of using too many words; therefore, I will let the Bible speak for itself. Genesis 15:18. “Unto thy seed have I given this land.” PSDS 52.1

While dwelling on the land promised to the seed of Abraham, let me answer an argument my opponent advanced last evening, based upon some passages in the New Testament. Compare Deuteronomy 5:16 with Ephesians 6:2, 3, and I will show you wherein my opponent erred. Here we see that while one promise was confined to the land of Canaan, the other promise embraced the world. Look here upon this card: suppose we substitute the word “earth” for “land,” here. “Honor thy father, etc., that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Would this promise embrace the earth? Don’t you see that the two words earth and land are not alike—that one cannot be used or substituted for the other? My opponent’s criticism falls under its own weight. PSDS 52.2

Jeremiah 16:19. [I am not sure that this reference is right, but I copy as usual.—Reporter.] Here he gives a reason why this can not be considered a moral law. My opponent takes the position that ceremonies and sacrifices grew out of a violation of the moral law. What does he mean by the moral law? The ten commandments, I suppose. Is the question granted that the ten commandments are a moral law at all? By no means. I denied that the word law was applied to the ten commandments between the two lids of the Bible. But mark how my opponent moves in his efforts to prove that the ten commandments are a moral law. He could not do it by the (so called) law itself. He could not do it by the2 Old Testament. After all, he must go to the New Testament. He refers back to the origin of the institution of marriage, recorded in Genesis; but will he take the position that Moses and Abraham violated the moral law by having a plurality of wives? More of this anon. PSDS 52.3

Will my opponent undertake to show that the precept which requires us to love our neighbors as ourselves was written upon the tables of stone? [Several New Testament commandments were here cited.—Reporter.] No. They were all written in the book, and never anywhere else. He can prove that the ceremonial law has been abolished, but an affirmation is worthless if unsupported by argument. It is not the duty of a man to go and found arguments upon what he will do or what he will prove. Let him give us plain Bible testimony showing the existence of two laws—a ceremonial law and a moral law. He remarked that he believed God’s purposes were a unit, and we believe in the unity of the law by which God’s people were governed. 1 Kings 2:3—“And keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself.” I will show you that an unit law is spoken of in every text. You will hear the word testimony introduced by and by, to show that these terms are peculiar to the ten commandments; but I will show you that all the commandments of God were called the voice of God. The terms, law of God and law of Moses are used interchangeably all through the Bible. PSDS 52.4

“To offer burnt-offerings unto the Lord upon the altar of the burnt-offering continually, morning and evening, and to do according to all that is written in the law of the Lord, which he commanded Israel.” 1 Chronicles 16:40. PSDS 53.1

“And Hezekiah appointed the courses of the priests and the Levites after their courses, every man according to his service, the priests and Levites for burnt-offerings and for peace-offerings, to minister. and to give thanks, and to praise in the gates of the tents of the Lord. He appointed also the king’s portion of his substance for the burnt-offerings, to wit, for the morning and evening burnt-offerings, and the burnt-offerings for the sabbaths, and for the new moons and for the set feasts, as it is written in the law of the Lord. Moreover, he commanded the people that dwelt in Jerusalem to give the portion of the priests and the Levites, that they might be encouraged in the law of the Lord.” 2 Chronicles 31:2-4. PSDS 53.2

Here it is the law of God because the Lord commanded it. PSDS 53.3

“Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests. and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt-offerings thereon, as it is written in the law of Moses the man of God,” Ezra 3:2. PSDS 53.4

“Now the rest of the acts of Josiah, and his goodness, according to that which was written in the law of the Lord.” 2 Chronicles 35:26. PSDS 53.5

The book of the law of Moses was the law commanded by God. The book of the law and the law of Moses are used interchangeably. PSDS 54.1

“And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water-gate, and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water-gate from the morning until mid-day, before the men and the women. and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the law.” “And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month.” “Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the law of God. And they kept the feast seven days, and on the eighth day was a solemn assembly, according unto the manner.” Nehemiah 8:1-3, 14, 18. PSDS 54.2

“And they stood up in their place, and read in the book of the law of the Lord their God one fourth part of the day; and another fourth part they confessed and worshipped the Lord their God.” “Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and madest known unto them Thy holy sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes and laws, by the hand of Moses Thy servant.” Ibid, 9:3, 13, 14. PSDS 54.3

The same law is called the law of God and the law of Moses. The terms are used interchangeably. PSDS 54.4

“And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished. they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord,) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons.” Luke 2:22-24. PSDS 54.5

I might go on and read more on this point, but you see that these terms are used in regard to the same great unit system of God’s government. Will my opponent be so good as to prove the two law theory before he bases his conclusions upon it? PSDS 54.6

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matthew 5:17. PSDS 54.7

I shall not have time to call your attention to all the passages I have marked. The phrase “law and the prophets” are used to denote all the law and all the prophets. As well might a man argue that all the prophets means only ten of the prophets, as that the law means only ten of the hundreds of commandments contained in the great law system. PSDS 54.8