Sabbath Discussion

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 8, 1864

Sabbath Discussion.

(Continued.)

Second Evening.

ELDER CORNELL'S FOURTH SPEECH.

First, I will notice my friend's denial that there was any penalty to the ten commands before Sinai. I can just as well deny that there is a penalty to ‒Thou shalt not kill,– in this dispensation. I have already shown that sin was imputed to those who broke the ten commands before Sinai. But ‒Sin is not imputed when there is no law.– Temporal death never was the full penalty of the law. The real penalty was and still is eternal death.

The Elder has admitted that if we show that the law as a whole is brought over into the New Testament, we have gained the question. I will now proceed to do that very thing. And 1. The ten commandments alone were a ‒whole law.– Proof: Ex. xxiv, 12. ‒And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give the tables of stone and a law, and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.

2. This whole law is enforced in the New Testament. James ii, 10, 11. ‒For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said, also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.–

The ‒whole law– referred to in this text is the one that says, Thou shalt not kill, and, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and the same law said, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.

To show that a law given at Sinai is brought over, we refer to the sermon of Stephen, the martyr, preached this side of the day of Pentecost, when the New Testament was fully in force. Acts vii, 38. ‒This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel, which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.–

This shows that the ‒lively oracles– received on mount Sinai were to be ‒given unto us,– Christians. Stephen takes this law to show men their sins in this dispensation: hence, it must be in force. Proof: ‒Who have received the law by the disposition of angels and have not kept it.–

Further proof that the law is still in force is found in Luke xvi, 17. ‒And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.– Also, Rom. iii, 31. ‒Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.–

If the law is not ‒made void,– but ‒established,– by faith, and it is ‒easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail,– we must conclude that the law, as a whole, is brought over into the New Testament.

My friend reads several verses in Rom. vii, and says this means the ten commandments. Here we agree exactly. But Paul says, We are dead to the law, and Bro. Grant says, We have got through with it, have nothing more to do with it, &c. Now I will commence and read from where he left off, and show that Paul concludes that the law is still in force. Verses 7-12. ‒What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.–

This law must have been in force, else how could it convince Paul of sin, and slay him? Did Paul refuse to have anything more to do with that which was ‒holy, just and good?– In verse 22, he says, ‒I delight in the law.– Did Paul delight in that which was dead? So we see Paul had not got through with the law; it was binding then, and it is binding still.

My friend next tries to get out of his no-Sabbath dilemma by asserting (without a particle of proof) that the first day is to be kept in honor of Christ's resurrection. But neither Christ nor the apostles have anywhere commanded any man to keep the first day; and Bro. Grant's rule is that what they have not commanded in the New Testament is not binding. Now he knows there is no command for the first day, and yet he says if we don't keep it we ‒virtually deny the resurrection of Christ.– He will keep the first day of the week without its ever being once commanded, but at the same time refuses to keep the seventh day because it has not been commanded the second time. Would he have God speak louder than he did before?

It is now strangely asserted that the ten commandments were abolished, and all re-enacted but the fourth. Did the Infinite Lawgiver ever enact a law, then abolish it, then re-enact it? Did the All-wise God make a mistake, and put the Sabbath (a mere ceremonial ordinance?) in the midst of the nine moral precepts, and then abolish all of them to get rid of the troublesome Sabbath?!

Let me illustrate the absurdity of such a position. Suppose a man has an incurable sore on his fourth finger. This finger has served him well in the past, but it is of no more use to him. He calls a surgeon, who advises him to have it amputated. He consents to it, and the doctor cuts off all ten of his fingers and thumbs, throws away the diseased finger, and then goes to work to splice on the nine good ones for his future use! Would not my friend cry, O, foolish doctor! And shall we charge God foolishly?

He has once in this discussion applied the old covenant of Hagar, Gal. iv, 24, 25, to the ten commandments, but he now has the old ‒bond-woman– abolished, and nine-tenths of her re-enacted. He has nine-tenths of the old Hagar of bondage in his own system!

He has quoted authors to prove that the Sabbath did not exist among the ancients, but we have shown that the Sabbath was sanctified at creation, and of course it existed from that time. Let God be true, though all men should be proved liars.

We now propose to let the Scriptures testify as to what was abolished. Eph. ii, 14-16. ‒For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.– Col. ii, 14-17. ‒Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.– Heb. ix, 10. ‒Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.–

The apostle carefully points out the law that is abolished. To the Ephesians, he says it is ‒The law of commandments contained in ordinances,– which was ‒enmity.– But there was no enmity in the ten commandments. To the Colossians, he describes that which was blotted out as the ‒hand-writing of ordinances that was against us,– which was a ‒shadow of things to come.– But the ten commandments were never against men, neither were they shadows of things to come. To the Hebrews, Paul says, the law which was only imposed until the time of reformation, consisted ‒only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances. Not one of these can possibly refer to the decalogue.

ELDER GRANT'S FOURTH SPEECH.

My friend is getting quite earnest. I admit that the reason for the Sabbath still exists, and that reason is found in Deut. v, 15. They had been in hard bondage in Egypt, needed rest, therefore the Lord gave them the Sabbath. Dr. Gill and others say that Gen. ii, 3, probably refers to what was done in the days of Moses, and that it was probably recorded parenthetically.

I admit that the nine commandments existed in principle before Sinai, and I will now show that they are brought over into the New Testament.

1st commandment. ‒Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.– Matt. xxii, 37, 38.

2d. ‒Neither be ye idolators, as were some of them: as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.– 1 Cor. x, 7.

3d. ‒But I say unto you, Swear not at all.– Matt. v, 34.

5th. ‒Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise: that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.– Eph. vi, 2, 3.

6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th. ‒For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.– Rom. xiii, 9.

If our charge that Christ broke the Sabbath offends the brother, we will take it back and let it stand that the Jews accused him of breaking it.

I admit that the Sabbath was binding on the Jews, and the old covenant was made with the Jews. But we are not Jews, and it was not made for us, surely.

My friend asks, Did God make a mistake when he put the Sabbath into the decalogue? I answer, No. He did not make a mistake, but he did make a new covenant, and left the Sabbath out of it.

I will look at Rom. vii again. I do not deny that this law made known sin and was good. I find no fault with it; it answered its design, and now we may be married to Christ.

ELDER CORNELL'S FIFTH SPEECH.

My friend goes back to Rom. vii, and admits that it refers to the ten commandments. This is all we claim. Paul declares that this law made known his sin; that it slew him, &c. Could an old dead law slay Paul? Bro. Grant makes the first husband in Paul's illustration, the law. I will read it again. ‒For the woman which hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.–

Here are three parties‒the woman, the husband, and the law. The husband dies, and the woman and the law are left. The law don't bind the woman to the old dead husband. She is at liberty to be married to another man. But the same law that bound her to the first husband now binds her to the second. We can not possibly, by any rule of language, make the law the first husband. The woman is bound by the law to her husband ‒so long as he liveth,– not so long as the law lives. Paul's application of this illustration is simply this. The first husband was the ‒old man– of sin, or the ‒carnal mind,– which Paul says is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Rom. viii, 7. The death of the first husband is ‒Our old man crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.– Rom. vi. When we are married to Christ, the second husband, we are ‒free from sin,– instead of being free from obedience to the law. Christ does not give those who are married to him license to break his Father's law.

Dr. Gill and others are quoted, against the perpetuity of the law. If this question is to be settled by the testimony of men, I can give two to his one.

I will quote only a few. Dr. Chalmer, speaking of the Sabbath, says, ‒It stands enshrined among the moralities of a rectitude that is immutable and everlasting.– John Wesley, speaking of the ten commandment law, says, ‒Every part of it remains in force upon all men in all ages. Neither time, place, nor circumstances make it liable to change.– Dr. Albert Barnes, speaking of the same, says, ‒True piety has respect to all the commands of God, and keeps them.– Bishop Hopkins is very earnest against the ‒Corrupt and rotten notion of the law's abrogation.– Alexander Campbell, on the precepts of the decalogue, says, ‒Which not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality.– H. H. Dobney (Baptist minister), of England, speaks of ‒The moral law, presented to us in the shape of distinct commandments, ten in number, prescribing to each one of us concerning God in the first place, and then concerning our deportment to all our fellow creatures.– Dr. Cumming, of England, says, ‒The law of ten commandments is in its nature unchangeable, and permanent. It was ordained by the Supreme Lawgiver, as the infallible rule of life, to all men, in every age of the world, in all places, under all circumstances, in every nation and generation of men on the earth. Not one jot or tittle of it was ever abolished, nor diminished, nor altered in the least degree, by the change of dispensation from Jewish to Christian.– The Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, on the fourth commandment says: ‒Its position in the midst of the moral law distinctly points to its perpetual and universal obligation.– The Religious Encyclopedia says, ‒It is wholly a mistake that the Sabbath, because not re-enacted with the formality of the decalogue, is not explicitly enjoined upon Christians.– Dr. Thomas Dick, on the fourth command says, ‒This is a command which never was abrogated, and which never can be abrogated, in relation to any intelligent beings, so long as the creation exists.– Dr. Clarke says this law is the ‒rule of life,– even for Christians. Dr. Thomas Scott says, ‒To imagine that any redeemed sinner should be allowed to disobey it, is absurdity, impossibility, blasphemy.–

My friend repeats his denial that the Sabbath originated at creation. If the Sabbath was not known from creation, what was it that suggested to the patriarchs the reckoning of time by weeks. There was nothing in nature to suggest such a division of time. They must have received it from God's original appointment of the week and Sabbath. Josephus remarks: ‒Moses says that in just six days the world and all that is therein was made, and that the seventh day was a rest and a release from the labor of such operations; whence it is that we celebrate a rest from our labor on that day, and call it Sabbath; which word denotes rest in the Hebrew tongue.–‒Antig., Book I, chap. 1.

At last my friend has brought forward his code of re-enacted commandments. Let us examine it. For the third commandment he quotes Matt. v, 34, ‒Swear not at all,– but this was spoken about three years before the crucifixion. So that he has the third command re-enacted before he has the ten abolished! He has found where the nine commandments are quoted or referred to in the New Testament, but in no place are they given over upon new authority. They are simply quoted, the same as the prophecies are quoted, upon original authority. Christ enforced his teachings by quotations from both law and prophets. Matt. vii, 12. ‒Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.–

I will now show that the Sabbath is plainly recognized as an existing institution in the New Testament. Proof: 1. Christ honored it as his regular preaching day. Luke iv, 16, 31. ‒And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath days.– Luke xiii, 10. ‒And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath.–

2. He recognized the existence of the Sabbath law by declaring his acts on the Sabbath to be ‒lawful,– i. e., according to the Sabbath law. Matt. xii, 12.

3. When he was speaking to the disciples concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in A. D. 70, he recognized the Sabbath as an institution that would actually exist at that time. Matt. xxiv, 20. ‒But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.– No hint that the Sabbath would be abolished any more than the seasons of the year.

4. Those who had been favored with most of Christ's personal instructions, kept the Sabbath after Christ's crucifixion, ‒according to the commandment.– Luke xxiii, 56.

5. Jesus says, ‒The Sabbath was made for man.– Mark ii, 27. If it was made ‒for– man, it is not abolished. This is the very best evidence that the Sabbath is not for any particular age or class of people, but for the entire race.

ELDER GRANT'S FIFTH SPEECH.

It seems we have come around together on Rom. vii. I do not deny that the law was alive, and that it slew Paul. If the Sabbath is binding, no one can be a Christian without keeping it. How is it that I receive such great blessings from God, if it is sin to break the Sabbath?

My friend has quoted several authors, but I would ask him whether any one of them believed in keeping the Sabbath?

I do not claim that the ten commands were abolished, and then nine of them re-enacted. ‒Thou shalt not kill– never was abolished. The nine commands were brought over into the new covenant without change, but the fourth command was left out. The Sabbath is not commanded in the new covenant.

There was nothing in the old covenant to forbid a man's being at variance with his neighbor. The Sabbath was classed with feast days in Lev. xxiii. They had feasts and holy convocations, and the first one was the seventh day Sabbath. Those feasts were all abolished together.

I will now proceed to show from the Scriptures that no man can be justified by the law. Gal. v, 4. ‒Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.– Gal. ii, 16-19. ‒Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves, also, are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.– Gal. iii, 19, 24, 25. ‒Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.–

This law was not added in Abraham's time. There is no evidence that Abraham kept the law. It was four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abraham.

ELDER CORNELL'S SIXTH SPEECH.

It seems that we are progressing. Bro. Grant has admitted ‒law– in Rom. vii means the ten commands, and now he admits that this law was alive when Paul was converted. If the ten commands were alive, of course the fourth was alive. This is all we claim. Paul says, ‒I had not known sin but by the law.– An abolished law could not have made known sin, hence it is certain that the law was in full force when Paul was converted.

My friend thinks the Sabbath cannot be binding, because he has been so blessed while disregarding it. This is evidently for want of better argument. Does God bless men only when they are right on every point? This argument would prove the soul immortal, consciousness of the dead, and endless misery. Let us try this rule. Bro. Grant goes to a certain place to preach that the soul is not immortal. One of his hearers rejects his testimony, because he has been so blessed while believing the opposite. The Elder replies that his reasoning is not good, for God blesses

men because they are honest, and not always because they have all the truth. They are blessed because they are living out what light they have.

I have not intimated that a man could not be an honest Christian unless he believed in the Sabbath. A man is not condemned until he is enlightened on the truth, and he chooses darkness rather than light.

My friend objects that my authors did not keep the seventh day. So much the better witnesses. They were all keeping, my friends, first-day Sabbath, and yet they dare not deny so evident a truth as the perpetuity of the fourth commandment. President Mahan says, ‒Testimony in favor of truth from the ranks of its enemies constitutes the highest kind of evidence.–

I am astonished at my friend's denial that he has argued in this discussion that the ten commands were abolished. He now says the nine commands never were abolished. I regard this as backing square out. He has argued that the ten commands were the old covenant, which was done away. He has quoted 2 Cor. iii, 7, to show that the law written on stone was done away. He also quoted Rom. vii, and remarked ‒The law is dead.–

But now that he has taken back that position, or rather denied it, he has destroyed his own application of many of his best proof texts.

He says the old covenant did not forbid a man to be at variance with his neighbor. That this is a mistake see Lev. xix, 18. ‒Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord.– The last six commandments of the decalogue are all to prevent any injustice to neighbor.

He says the Sabbath was classed with the feast days, &c. Lev. xxiii. It is true, the seventh day Sabbath is mentioned in the same chapter with the feasts, but in verses 37 and 38 we find they were to keep all those feasts ‒Besides the Sabbaths of the Lord.– Here is a clear distinction made between those days.

Scriptures are quoted to show that no man can be justified by the law. But is the law abolished because it will not justify those who have broken it? The apostle gives the reason why it will not justify. Rom. iii, 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.– When sinners are justified by faith for their past sins, then it becomes true that ‒the doers of the law shall be justified.– Rom. ii, 13.

In reply to the assertion that Abraham did not keep the law, I will read Gen. xxvi, 5. ‒Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.–

The law that was added because of transgression, was the remedial law of types and ceremonies. It was the typical law that was the schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. But there is not a word in the decalogue that pointed to Christ. The Sabbath pointed back to creation.

My friend has repeated several times that if we show that the Sabbath is brought into this dispensation, he will yield the question. Very well. I will again refer to Matt. xxiv, 20. Christ taught his disciples to pray that their flight from Jerusalem should not happen on the Sabbath. This was to take place about forty years this side of the crucifixion. They must regard the Sabbath at that time. It is of no use to try to evade this by saying that Christ taught them to pray that their flight might not happen on the Sabbath, because he foresaw that the Jews would have the gates locked, and would not let them out on that day. If the gates were locked so that they could not flee on the Sabbath, what need was there of praying that their flight should not happen on that day?

ELDER GRANT'S SIXTH SPEECH.

My friend says it was the ‒ceremonial– law that was added because of transgression. The Bible does not say one word about a ceremonial law.

Eph. ii has been quoted to show what law was abolished. He says this cannot refer to the ten commands because there is no ‒enmity– in that law. If that fourth precept is now binding, every man must put out his fires and suffer. This would be enmity enough, surely.

He quotes Col. ii, 16, for his ceremonial Sabbaths, but we find Paul also speaks of ‒holy days.– Was not the weekly Sabbath a holy day? No scholar will deny that Col. ii, 16, includes the seventh-day Sabbath.

We are referred to Matt. xxiv, 20, for proof that Christ taught the obligation of the Sabbath in the year A. D. 70. It was the custom of the Jews to keep their gates shut on the Sabbath. Christ knew they would be keeping it, and they keep it yet.

I will proceed to give some evidence for the observance of the first day. Barnabas says, ‒We observe the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus arose from the dead, and having manifested himself to his disciples, ascended into heaven.– Ignatius says, ‒Wherefore, if they who were brought up in these ancient laws came nevertheless to the newness of hope; no longer observing Sabbaths, but keeping the Lord's day,– &c.

It has not yet been shown where Christ commands us to keep the Sabbath. If Christ commands it I will keep it, if I have to freeze in the act.

The commandments of Christ in the New Testament are called God's commandments. 1 Jno. iii, 22, 23. ‒And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.– Acts xvii, 30. ‒And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.–

The expression, ‒commandments of God,– don't always mean the ten commandments. James ii, 8, ‒The Royal law,– don't apply to the ten commands, but to ‒Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.–

I repeat, there is no love to God or neighbor in the ten commandments. A man may keep all of them and yet not be saved.

(To be Continued.)