The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

TWENTY-FOURTH SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Negative.—Well my friends, it seems that I am fairly on the affirmative side of the question, and, therefore, I must lead. My opponent certainly cannot say that I will neither follow no lead, for I do just as I am compelled to by his course of argument. Now I am at least two speeches behind him. I told him that I should wait till he took a position upon Rom. and Gal. I did wait at least two speeches, and then went back to prove that there was but one law; and also to define the covenant more fully than it had been before done. Matthew 5, and Matthew 22, that he had quoted and I had not noticed. I then led out upon the subject of the abolition of the Old Testament law, and proved that the Sinaitic covenant the ten commandments, had been done away. Under that law the children of the bond woman could not be joint heirs with the children of the free woman. I showed that the book of the covenant, as it was in the original, was ready to vanish away; and also proved that the law of the old dispensation—the ten commandments of course, included—had died. This was an unnatural position, and I freely acknowledge it, but I was driven to take the course I did, because he would not lead out, as it was his duty to do, and take a position on Rom. and Gal. Last evening, I noticed Romans 3:31, showing that the Old Testament law, though it may not have been done away by faith in Christ, yet it may have been done away, as we believe it has, by limitation. PSDS 90.1

My opponent would prove the perpetuity of the fourth commandment by Romans; but instead of going forward he takes his position in the back ground, and has been following me ever since. Of course, I cannot compel him to take his proper position in this debate, and for the sake of making some progress in the discussion, I am willing to lead. And, seeing he is very willing, and apparently anxious to follow, I will agree to occupy the position of an affirmative. PSDS 91.1

And here allow me to remark, in answer to some insinuations that have been made, that everything I say, I say “for effect;” and if my worthy friend who is trying to oppose me in this discussion, is not talking “for effect” also, he had better stop. I am now speaking for effect. That is it exactly. I am speaking to affect your minds by what I consider to be the truth. But I said what I did because he had referred to the same matter some fifteen or twenty times, and we have to go over and over this, I shall probably be under the necessity of speaking just to fill up time. If I were properly in the affirmative, and did not furnish him with matter to reply to, I would not blame him at all for speaking just to occupy time PSDS 91.2

I never accused him of saying that he would endorse the language I quoted from Romans; but I should suppose that he would do so. I have never even accused him of endorsing any of the language of Paul. I merely said that I supposed he would admit there was another law, than the ten commandments, that it would be a sin to transgress. PSDS 91.3

Now, about, 2 Corinthians 3, he says, there cannot be a contrast between or in regard to anything but the ministration. I do not deny that the places in which the two were written were contrasted. But what was written was, also, contrasted. Now, to show that some of the principles of the ten commandments are written in the heart of the christian, and to show that the whole ten have been perpetuated as a binding law, are two very different things. I will give the contrast that Jesus himself gives in Matthew 5:21, etc. Let me give you another case. The commandment as quoted here, says: “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” but Christ, says: “That whosoever looketh on a woman,” etc. Here is a contrast too plain to be overlooked. “When there is no law, there is no transgression,” and these ten commandments do not require us to love our neighbor at all, any more than if they were written in the statute book of Wisconsin. Was Christ’s teaching binding, centuries before He lived—is not this the most illogical method of reasoning in the world? must we reason thus? A man need not take lessons even from so humble a logician as J. M. Stephenson to be able to show the fallacy of such argument. PSDS 91.4

I will just notice a mistake my opponent made, and it looks to me as though it was rather a fatal mistake, too, or at least an anti Bible one. He stated that Moses’ countenance did not symbolize the ten commandments. Am I correct in quoting his language? I do not wish to misrepresent at all. Now, I will show you that his face shone with such brilliancy that the people could not look upon it when he came down with the tables containing the ten commandments: Exodus 34:24. If it was any law it was the ten commandments. But if any man will show that they are called a law, I will call them so and not otherwise. Exodus 34:27, and 29. The ten commandments were in his hand and nothing more. Only two tables of the testimony in his hand. And now when he came down, the skin of his face shone with a glory that shadowed forth the ten commandments. Here is the Bible in the case. Here is the Bible in regard to what he had in his hand. Was it the ten commandments he had in his hand, or was it some other commandments? He says that death and life are used figuratively—that the effect is put for the cause in every instance he has quoted. He says it is not death that is written in the tables of stone, but he gains nothing as far as this text is concerned, by such an argument. Look at his text in Romans, by which he proves that the law of which Paul treats was the ten commandments. When a thing is plainly stated, it may not be gainsaid, VIII, 2nd. Once I was troubled to harmonize this with grammar. I happened to find Bro. Andrews’ work, and it threw some new light upon this point. The law of death and life are two different things. The wife of a man, and the man whose wife she is, are two different things. But now mark, he failed to show that the law is called death, or that the ten commandments were called a law. 2 Corinthians 3. I wish to call your attention to one of our rules, that the Bible, according to its most obvious import, is to be the only evidence in this investigation. The Bible is not Webster. Now what was written on stones?—death? or the ministration of death? Bring all the philologists and grammarians in the world, and they would all tell you that the obvious meaning is that the ministration was written on stones. Shall we get up another [original illegible] Just hear the reading and judge for yourselves, what is the obvious import of this language. What is written? Death? or the ministration? The latter is written on stones according to the most obvious import of the language used. It does seem that some men have uncommon sense. The 9th Verse, he did not notice. He certainly had time this time. He had a great deal of time and why did he not notice this verse? And seeing I have expended so much upon this 9th verse, I would be glad to have him notice it. PSDS 92.1

Let us try and find what was contrasted by this same author. “For if the ministration of condemnation belongs, much more doth the ministration of righteousness,” etc. Now, let me read it as he reads the 7th verse—explain the place in which this ministration was written, and all is plain. Now I submit the obvious import of the language, to this intelligent audience. You will carry these testimonies home to your judgments after this discussion ceases, and I wish you to consider the subject fairly, and decide between me and my opponent. What is glorious? Not condemnation, but the ministration of condemnation. Not righteousness but the ministration of righteousness. It does seem to me that even a child could not fail to understand such plain language as this. Will my opponent tell what the adjective that, in the 11th verse, refers to? What was glorious? “The ministration written and engraven on stones.” What was done away? Why, according to the plain obvious import of language, it was the ministration of death as written and engraven on stones, that was done away. There is no noun, except that of ministration, to point out by the demonstrative adjective that, in verses 10th, 11th, and 13th. Compare with verse 9th. I will submit this to any grammarian present. It was the ministration that was written upon stones, and it was the ministration that was done away. Neither Webster nor the figurative use of the term death, will change or figure away the force of this language or argument. “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.” PSDS 93.1