PROPOSITION: The Bible teaches that the seventh-day Sabbath should be kept by all men in all time.
1. My first argument was founded on the institution of the Sabbath. Gen. ii, 2. "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made."
I showed, 1. That God wrought, or labored, six days. 2. That he rested on the seventh day. 3. That as the word rest is here defined by good authorities (Buck and others) to sabbatize, God hence sabbatized on the seventh day, and thus made it his Sabbath, or rest-day. His act of resting was the cause, and the effect was, the seventh day became his Sabbath, or rest-day. The great fact of his resting on the seventh day made it his Sabbath. I showed that this fact yet exists, and hence the institution based on the fact also exists; for as the cause exists, the effect of necessity must follow it. Eld. Springer was compelled to admit this argument, though in his book he denies it.
2. The sanctification of the Sabbath. "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his works which God created and made." Gen. ii, 3. Webster defines the word sanctify, to consecrate, or set apart to a holy or religious use. God did sanctify or set apart to a religious use his Sabbath or rest-day. Did he ever unsanctify it? Did he ever take his blessing off from it? Eld. Springer could not show that he ever did; hence it remains the same sanctified and holy time.
3. We next proved that the Sabbath is God's sign. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." Ex. xxxi, 17. The facts here stated are the following: 1. The Sabbath is God's sign forever. 2. The reason why it is his sign is that God made heaven and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh day. A sign "is a token, or memorial, something by which another thing is made known; a monument to preserve the memory of a thing." Web. The reasons for this memorial yet exist; for it is yet true that God made heaven and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh; and hence the memorial based on these reasons yet exists. To this argument no reply was made.
4. We proved that Christ regarded the Sabbath as a divine institution, and treated it as such. Matt. xii, 1-7.
5. We next proved that the Sabbath was Christ's day of worship. Luke iv, 16.
6. We showed that Christ regarded the Sabbath as far down in the Christian dispensation as A. D. 70. Matt. xxiv, 20. "Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath-day." To this no reply was made.
7. We showed from the following scriptures that the apostles treated the Sabbath as an existing institution. Acts xiii, 43, 44; xvii, 2.
8. We showed that the Lord's disciples kept the Sabbath according to the commandment this side of his death. Luke xxiii, 56.
9. We showed from Isa. lvi that the Sabbath would be kept down in the Christian dispensation near the coming of the Lord when salvation is near. Heb. ix, 29; 1 Pet. i, 3, 4; Col. i, 4. That it would be kept by the Gentiles especially. Verse 6.
10. We next showed that it will be kept in the new earth. Isa. lxvi, 22, 23. "For as the new heavens and the new earth which I will make shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." This carries the Sabbath from Paradise lost to Paradise restored. To this the Eld. could make no reply.
11. Our next argument was founded on the perpetuity of the ten commandments. This we proved from the following testimony: 1. That the law will not fail while heaven and earth stand. So says Jesus. Matt. v, 17. 2. Christ taught that obedience to the ten commandments is necessary to eternal life. Matt. xix, 16; Rev. xxii, 14. 3. Christ obeyed the law as our example. John xv, 10; 1 Pet. ii, 21, 22; 1 John ii, 6. 4. Christ magnified the law, and perpetuated its claims by dying for the transgressor. Isa. xlii, 21; Matt. i, 21; xxvi, 28; 1 Cor. xv, 1-4. 5. By this law is the knowledge of sin. Rom. ii, 20. "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin."
On this text we remark, 1. That by this law to the sinner there is no justification. 2. For by it is the knowledge of sin. 3. The reason why it brings to all the knowledge of sin is this: "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Verse 23. Query. How could an abolished law be that by which knowledge of sin is given? Eld. S. replied that it is the law of Christ by which is the knowledge of sin. I then proved that according to Paul there is no justification in that law, for he says by that law by which is the knowledge of sin there is no justification. Hence if S. is correct, that by the gospel is the knowledge of sin, then it follows that by the gospel there is no justification or salvation. Hence the Eld.'s system, instead of being one of mercy and salvation, is one of vengeance and universal damnation. From this difficulty he could not possibly extricate his theory. 6. The character of the law. "Wherefore the law is (not was, as Eld. S. said) holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Rom. vii, 12. For we know that the law is spiritual. Verse 14. 7. Paul expressly declares that the law is not abolished through the faith or gospel. "Do we then make void (katargeo, abolish) the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." 8. James treats the law as an existing institution in his time. James ii, 8-11. 9. John's testimony is to the point. "This is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous." Chap. v, 3. 10. Christ seals the question in his testimony to John. "Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Rev. xiv, 12. "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. xxii, 14.
Not one of these arguments received a fair reply, and I am sure they never will. Eld. S. said the law was abolished at the cross at the death of Christ. I admitted his position for argument's sake, and then deduced the following conclusions: 1. That from that time to the re-enactment of the law, there was no sin; for where no law is, there is no transgression. 2. The law was never re-enacted, and hence after that time there is no sin in the world, and universal peace and righteousness reign amid idolatry, profanity, Sabbath-breaking, dishonor to parents, murder, theft, adultery, false witness, and covetousness.
He replied that a new law went forth on the day of Pentecost which contained all the righteousness contained in the decalogue. This we negatived, and defied him to prove, 1. That any new law ever went forth from old Jerusalem before or after Pentecost. Here he failed. 2. We challenged him to show that any law or command went forth in his new law on Pentecost that had not existed before. Here he was completely overthrown. There were but two commandments given on Pentecost—repentance, which dates far back in the previous dispensation, and baptism, which began with John. What now becomes of his boasted new law? It is like Rachel's children—it is not; and he may search for it in mourning, but will remain comfortless; for it is not! His next move was to make it appear that nine of the commandments had in some way got into the Epistles. I demanded the
how of this. But here, as usual, he was minus. I showed that they were referred to, on one of the following bases. Either, 1. They were re-enacted, or, 2. They were lifeless, not binding, or, 3. They had passed the cross without being abolished. He, however, thought they were re-enacted. I then met him with his own testimony as follows: "It had occurred to me that it would not comport well with infinite wisdom to abolish a law, or part of a law, which it would be necessary soon to re-enact again." We clipped the above from an inquiry of Eld. S. to one of his brethren who wrote in favor of the abolition and re-enactment of the law. But now he comes out in debate and according to his own charge makes God act foolishly. But he failed to prove the re-enactment of the law.
We now come to one of two conclusions: either the apostles urged obedience to the law as an institution of existing authority, or as abolished, and without authority. Which shall we take? Would they urge obedience to an abolished law? They would not. Hence the conclusion is unavoidable that the law passes down to us without a stroke from our Saviour, and with the sanction of the apostles to its obligations. We urged him to deliver his theory from the no-law difficulty. His only chance was to get up a new law, and failing in this, his theory had to sail forth without the law of God. And as there is no sin where there is no law, and as the object of the gospel is to save from sin, its object is destroyed by the abolition of the law, and hence there is no need of the gospel; for there is nothing to be saved from. Therefore his theory is one of no law, no gospel, no God, no Christ.
The foregoing is a brief synopsis of five days' debate. The interest to hear was good throughout. The discussion generally was pleasant and agreeable. The evidence in favor of truth was so clear that among the unprejudiced and non-professors there was a general impression that S. did not maintain his ground, and that we had sustained ourselves triumphantly. Eld. S. condescended to some things harsh and vulgar, but knowing that he was hard pressed we overlooked them, and tried to realize that while it is human to do wrong, it is divine to forgive. May God add his blessing upon our efforts to do good and advance his truth.