QUESTION. The Seventh-day Sabbath observed by God's people prior to the crucifixion of Christ, is still binding upon mankind. Affirmative, M. E. Cornell. Negative, T. M. Preble.
(Continued.)
Cornell. Corrects the statement of Eld. P. about the law being written on the heart. What he did say was that there was no law written on the heart for keeping Sunday. The law now written on the heart, is the same as that formerly written on the tables of stone. Refers to Paul's testimony in Heb. iv, that believers "do enter into rest," and leaves it as a contradiction according to Eld. P.'s views, for him to settle. Again, suppose my opponent could prove that redemption is greater than creation, and that the work is finished, he has then gained absolutely nothing toward proving his point. What is the use of talking about redemption's being greater than creation, and then setting apart a day to commemorate it, when the Bible says nothing at all about any such thing? And again, suppose the apostles did have meeting on the first day of the week; what of it? He must show that they kept it in place of the original Sabbath, which cannot be done. There are a great many things a man must prove, before he can overturn the original Sabbath which God has so thoroughly founded. As for inferences, inferences for sprinkling and infant baptism, which he repudiates, are just as good as inferences for Sunday. First show that an institution is founded, and then inferences may come in. If Morer or other historians found their testimony for Sunday in the Bible, we can find it there too; if they did not find it there, it is good for nothing. My opponent says that the Christian's law is not written with ink. Then he repudiates the whole New Testament. He not only does away with the Old Testament, but with the New also, all of which is written with ink. Then he should take the position that immersion should not be observed because written with ink; but sprinkling is not written, and is therefore binding. This unwritten word is the source of all the traditions, corruptions and errors of the Catholic church. The Scriptures are our guide and the things that are written. 2 Tim. iii, 16.
Preble. Eld. C. denies that the apostles had a meeting in the day time of the first day of the week. He seems apt to deny. That is the way he gets over it. I said they commenced their meeting in the day time, hemeran. If he denies that hemeran is understood, I will prove it. I said Paul journeyed the second day, not the first. He says the New Testament is written with ink, and I repudiate it, &c. I would like to read a little from the Emphatic Diaglott in regard to it, which he endorses as well as myself. Reads a portion of 2 Cor. iii. Takes the ground that the old law is dead, in proof of which he reads Rom. vii, 6. There it is said that it is dead. We are now under the law of Christ. In Rom. iii, 27, we read of a law of faith; in Rom. viii, 2, of the law of the Spirit of life; in Rom. ix, 31, of the law of righteousness; and in Rom. x, 4, it is said that Christ is the end of the law. Here I have given you four expressions, law of Christ, law of the Spirit of life, law of faith, and law of righteousness. So I say there has never been a moment but there has been a law against every crime mentioned in the decalogue. He says I have left some things unanswered. Let him put them upon paper for me, in this hard time of labor. [At this point, Eld. P. being apparently out of other matter, commenced filling up his time by reading from a series of articles written by himself, and published in the World's Crisis, commencing May 9, 1865.]
Cornell. Eld. P. quotes the Diaglott, and says that I endorse it. I do no such thing. Its translation is false, in several particulars. I endorse the common version, King James' translation, as the most noble and grand of any. Mr. Wilson, the author of the Diaglott, happens to be a no-law man, and so has seen this point through no-law eyes. And this is the reason why Eld. P. likes his work so well. Diakonia, the word in 2 Cor. iii, 7, rendered in our version, ministration, and in the Diaglott, dispensation, never means dispensation. This is an entire mistake. There is another word, diatheke, which means dispensation. Law, and the ministration of law, are two things. Reads portions of 2 Cor. iii, and comments, showing the view which is proved in S. D. A. publications, that no change of law, but simply a change of ministration is there argued by Paul. Refers to the effort of Eld. P. on Rom. vii, 1–6, to show that the law is dead, and sets forth the true teaching of that scripture, showing that no change takes place in the law. It is not the law that died, but we die to the law. The Greek reads, "we being dead to that wherein we were held," or our old man of sin, the first husband, having been crucified. Then we can be married to Christ. Just as a woman, all the while amenable to the same law, is at liberty to be married to the second husband, after the first has died. Eld. P. admits that the ten commandments are written on the Christian's heart. Seems to me this is giving up and admitting the whole question. Shows that the fourth commandment if written on the heart so as to enjoin the first day of the week, would be a lie. There is abundant proof that the ten commandments are not done away. Reads Rom. ii, 21. Shows that it refers to the ten commandments. Rom. iii, 19 shows that the law which the Jews knew, is still binding in this dispensation. The last verse gives the conclusion: "Yea, we establish the law."
Preble. When my opponent starts on law he again perverts me. There was a law on tables of stone against ten criminal acts. So we now have a law on the heart against the same criminal acts. But the penalty of the former law is changed; so that law is done away. But the penalty of the new law is to lose the kingdom of Heaven. Am not prepared to say about the Greek. Will take that up when we have time. The apostle speaks in Romans of two conditions: under the law and under grace, the law of his mind and the law of his flesh. Now let him explain himself. I find then a law that when I would do good evil is present with me. Rom. vii, 21. Reads on to the third verse of the following chapter. Fills out his time by reading again from articles in the Crisis.
Cornell. States again the question under discussion, and says, There is a Sabbath binding in this dispensation. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. All days are not alike. There is a Lord's day in this dispensation. What day is that? Is it a new day in the place of the Sabbath, or is the former Sabbath continued right along? I have argued that it took certain steps to make the Sabbath. I have showed what those steps were. There is the origin of the Sabbath institution for man. He admits that there is a necessity for the Sabbath just as much now as ever; but he claims that inasmuch as it is necessary to have a memorial of the resurrection, therefore it was necessary to change the Sabbath from the seventh day of the week over to the first, to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have denied, and still deny, this. I have shown that there are divinely-appointed memorials both of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. I have called upon the negative to give the evidence that we should keep a day to celebrate redemption. Who knows that we should keep a day for this purpose? There are certain steps in the work of redemption which ought to have memorials; and we have these in baptism and the Lord's supper. Now how can he or any one know that we ought to keep the first day of the week as a memorial of the resurrection of Christ, when there is not one text for it in all the New Testament? He says the law for it is written on the heart. I say that it is not, either on his or mine, or any body's else. I shall prove that the seventh day is written on the heart; and this he must admit, unless he unchristianizes every one who keeps the seventh day. They are Christians still, and have the Spirit of God. Now will the Spirit of God write upon one man's heart to keep the seventh day, and on another man's heart to keep the first day?
Never. I claim that the law written on the heart must be written somewhere else also. The way God gets at the heart is by the head. God promised that he would write his law upon their hearts. What law? Did he ever make a law for keeping the first day of the week for the Sabbath? Then that will be written upon the heart; but if there is no record of the fact, how can we know that? I want the negative to tell us what day was sanctified after God had rested. Did he sanctify the day that was past? There the whole question hangs.
There is a new law, he says, against the same criminal acts prohibited by the ten commandments. Then why does he not keep the Sabbath? The law for keeping the first day, he says, is not written with ink, but is written on the heart. Is that any authority? How do we know what is written on the heart unless there is something written for the head? He asks, Why look into the New Testament for the law for Sunday-keeping? for the law for Christians is not written with ink. But I aver that our whole duty is written in the Scriptures. Why ask for proof, he says, for Sunday? His ground is just what the Catholics claim. He calls upon me for chapter and verse, but when I call upon him for proof of his position, he says it does not need any. Is not that a singular way? He claims that the apostles had commandments by the Spirit. But how do we know what commandments they had unless they are written? 1 Cor. xiv, 37. "The things that I write unto you, are the commandments of the Lord." Rev. i, 3; Blessed are they that "keep those things which are written," &c. What the seven thunders uttered, Rev. x, 4, were not written, for they were not for us. The Scriptures thoroughly furnish us unto all good works. It is astonishing to me to hear an Advent minister take the position that it is not necessary that the things which pertain to our duty, should be written.
Preble. Is glad that Rev. i, 10, was referred to, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." It was the Lord's day, just as the supper is the Lord's supper. And what day was that? It was the first day of the week, because Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. He wants to know what day was sanctified? and represents that I say the Lord rested on the day after it was past. God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, not the seventh days and sanctified them. I think he sanctified the day at the time he rested. I rather think the Lord sanctified the day before hand. He brings up the 7th of Romans, and speaks of Paul's being made free from the law of sin and death. I read the closing part of Rom. vii, to show that Paul delighted in the law after the inward man, but with the flesh he served the law of sin and death. I say if a man is back there and will live up to it, it is a holy law. The apostle is not under that law; for the penalty has been changed from stoning to, Thou shalt not inherit the kingdom of God. He quotes Corinthians, "The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." God wrote the ten commandments. Paul didn't write them. He says that the ministration is entirely different from the law. Now I ask how you can administer a law without any law? He repudiates the Emphatic Diaglott almost entirely; but the translation, if I am correctly informed, is made by a most learned man in Europe. When my brother said that it was the glory which was done away, I thought it was a little curious. Now we will read from King James' translation, which he likes better.53Reads and comments on 2 Cor. iii. I am satisfied that it is two dispensations. One is the ministration of death, the other of the Spirit. There was nothing better until Christ came to open up a better way. Now the way of the Spirit is more glorious. How much more glorious, every man and woman in this assembly can see, it seems to me. But he says it was the glory of Moses' face which passed away.
All days are spoken of as being alike, in Rom. xiv. "Every day alike." A great many have said that one day ought to be considered sacred and holy in the gospel dispensation. The idea is, the Jews had one particular day, and so should we. Every day in the gospel dispensation is holy. There are six days of holy labor, and one day of holy rest. I prove the change of the Sabbath by Mark ii, 27. The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. If he was Lord of it, he had a right to change it. Pass down until the resurrection of Christ, and all along the seventh-day Sabbath is referred to. I believe the women rested according to the commandment. But when you pass the resurrection of Christ, you never find the seventh day mentioned except by Paul in his accommodation meetings. He says, I became a Jew that I might gain the Jews. With the exception of this, it is always on the first day of the week. And it is sabbaton, too.