The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

SIXTEENTH SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Negative.—In a former speech, my opponent alluded to the preface I wish him to place upon his chart of the ten commandments, and said, in effect, that it amounted to this: The Lord thy God brought thee out of Egypt, therefore He wants you to keep the ten commandments. For one, I would be perfectly satisfied with such a preface; but I had rather they would give the one that is already prefixed to the ten commandments in the book. Now, let me see if I cannot find one commandment that has just such a reason for its observance. “Thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence,” etc.; “therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath.” Deuteronomy 5:15. Now, if this reason can be applied to Gentiles as well as Jews, I would be perfectly satisfied. The reason for the ten is equally Israelitish. Deuteronomy 5:6; Exodus 20:2. PSDS 64.1

He urges that I have misrepresented him in my criticism on his want of discrimination. But he neither gives the substance nor the language as I intended to be understood. If I am very critical, as he sometimes intimates that I am, I was certainly very unfortunate in my criticism at that time, he being the judge. PSDS 64.2

I said that he had overlooked the real issue in his criticism on my remarks, and had confounded the reason why a certain day (the seventh) was chosen, and the reason why a commandment to observe that day as a sabbath was given. And I still think he has confounded this plain distinction in all his arguments. Moreover, it has seemed to me that he has avoided the real issue and still continues to avoid it. I stated that I believed there was harmony between the two versions of the ten commandments in Deuteronomy and Exodus. He was the one who called upon me to read from Exodus, and if he believes Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus 20 are the same, why did he once say they were different? If they are an unit, why claim a difference? It is painful to dwell upon these little matters, but I can see no other way when I am accused of misrepresenting. I said that he avoided the real issue, and I will say the same of his last two speeches—they are not to the point in dispute. He thinks that he has shown the existence of two laws, and has got up a plain distinction between them; but, admitting that he has done so, and admitting that he can go on and prove that one of those laws has been abolished, and that the other has not been abolished, has he, even then, proved any thing in regard to the real issue? We claim that he has not. Admitting that his distinction between two laws is founded on the plain word of God, instead of his criticisms, he yet has something to do—something farther to show. Suppose that he has shown the existence of two laws. I deny that the ten commandments have been perpetuated. I am aware that this is what he may call a singular way of drawing inferences, but I can’t help it. He assumes, first, that the ten commandments are a law, and then that they are the law; and if this is all the argument that he can bring to the affirmative of the issue, I confess I can see no need of continuing this discussion at all. But as I am sometimes accused of being a little unreasonable, I will try and wait till I am fully convinced. Elder Waggoner assumed, yesterday afternoon, I think it was, that the ten commandments, apart from all other precepts, were a perfect code or law, and I was in hopes that he would at least try to sustain this position by argument; but I have hoped and waited in vain. I might pass this by in silence; but as he has repeatedly called the ten commandments a law, I will avail myself of this opportunity of not only denying that they are ever recognized as a separate law, but of showing that their proof texts do not sustain the assumption. Exodus 24:12 is referred to by my opponent as proof. It reads thus: “And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written. “Note, 1st. This verse contains three promises, the first of which included the ten commandments, viz., the tables of stone. The tables had the ten commandments written upon them when the Lord gave them unto Moses. Proof—Exodus 24:18. 2nd. A law. 3rd. Commandments. And in the fourth place, the Lord declares that He had written the whole of them. From the 25th to the 31st chapters, we find a fulfilment of the second two promises, and at the 18th verse of the 31st chapter, of the first. Will my opponent affirm that the hundred commandments given previous to the tables containing the ten were not a fulfilment of the promise made in chapter 24:12? That the Lord wrote the ten commandments upon the first tables by an angel, and upon the second tables by Moses, will appear by comparing Acts 7:37, 38, with Exodus 34:24, 28. PSDS 64.3

Matthew 5:17-19 was referred to by my opponent as another proof text. He argued that the 21st and 27th verses—in which two of the ten commandments are quoted—prove that Christ was commenting upon the law of ten commandments. But the same parity of reasoning would prove the perpetuity of all the commandments written [in?] the “Book of the Law;” for Christ quotes more commandments which were written exclusively in the book than He does of the ten. But my opponent quotes the penalties attached by Christ to these commandments, to prove that the original ten commandments prohibited adultery and fornication. But were there any such penalties attached to the ten commandments or any other commandments in the Old Testament? Could God hold the Israelites responsible for the teachings of Christ hundreds of years in the future? But upon my opponent’s hypothesis, Abraham, David, and the holy men of old were egregious sinners, for living in adultery. Try it again, friend Waggoner. PSDS 66.1

My opponent assumes that the phrase “the law” means the ten commandments only. I have as good a right to assume that the phrase “the prophets” means only ten of the prophets. But that these terms are used in their widest sense, to denote all the law (yes, all the hundreds of commandments written in the book) and all the prophets, will appear by comparing this with other places where the same terms occur. In Matthew 11:13, we find the same terms used again by our Savior. It reads thus: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” Did the ten commandments prophesy? No; but in the book of the law were written prophesies. Again, Matthew 22:35-40 is quoted to prove the perpetuity of the ten commandments. But mark the analogy between the question and the answer: “Which is the great commandment in the law?” Verge 36th. Christ then repeats the two great precepts of love to God, and love to our neighbor, and then says, “On these two command-hang all the law and the prophets.” Verse 40th. All what law? The ten commandments, my opponent will tell you. But were these all the law? Were they a law at all? This remains to be proved. It will then be time for him to press this text into his service. Mark—it was the great commandment in the law, in reference to which the lawyer propounded his question. Christ then quoted the two precepts I have just read. But were these two commandments among the ten? No. Were they written upon tables of stone? Answer, no. They were written exclusively in the book. The same argument, therefore, which would prove the perpetuity of the ten commandments, because they were included in the law, which was suspended upon these two great precepts, would prove the perpetuity of all the commandments which were written in that great system, the “book of the law.” My opponent says it will be admitted that the first four commandments are included in love to God, and the last six in love to our neighbor. It will not be admitted by me. I am not under obligation to love my neighbor, or kill him, or steal from him, or bear false witness against him, or covet his wife or his property. No, they do not enforce love. They were not designed to regulate the affections of men, but merely to restrain their overt conduct. [Time up.] PSDS 66.2