Sabbath Discussion

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 22, 1864

Sabbath Discussion.

(Concluded.)

Fourth Evening.

ELDER CORNELL'S TENTH SPEECH.

This evening will close up the investigation of the question before us. I am glad to see the interest that is manifested. Some of the friends seem to think we use too much sharpness in our manner. Sometimes persons mistake hard arguments for abuse. If we have erred it has been of the head and not of the heart. Our aim has been to avoid everything unkind; however, I had much rather take back indiscretion in manner, if it has occurred, than to be under the necessity of taking back, or denying, my principal arguments.

My friend says, The Old Testament was bondage, but the New is liberty. This may be true, but it cannot apply to the law of God. Those who kept the moral law under the old covenant talk much like those who keep the law under the new covenant.

Ps. cxix, 165. "Great peace have they that love thy law, and nothing shall offend them." Rom. vii, 12, 22. "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."

Ps. cxix, 45. "I will walk at liberty, for I seek thy precepts." Rom. viii, 6, 7. "For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be."

My friend says, Those who have kept the Sabbath say they were in bondage. I have heard thousands say the Sabbath was their delight and joy. There is no bondage in the weekly Sabbath. It was made for man, to be one of his greatest blessings. That the Sabbath is not to be regarded as a bondage, is evident from Isa. lviii, 13. "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day;

and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words," &c.

The Lord directed men to call the Sabbath a delight, but Bro. Grant calls it a yoke of bondage. Who knows best? He says he is acquainted with some who kept it awhile, then gave it up, and they testify that it was bondage to them. I do not wonder that such ones gave it up. If I felt that it was bondage I would give it up too. But I know of more than ten thousand who have not given it up, and who regard the Sabbath as a precious gift from God. I have kept the Sabbath about eleven years, and can speak from personal experience. For several years I tried my friend's position of no-law, but I never knew what freedom was, till I, like the Psalmist, found "great peace" in the love of God's law.

The fathers are quoted to prove that the patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath. Does the Bible say the patriarchs did not keep the Sabbath? If the fathers got it in the Bible we can get it there. If they did not get it in the Bible, it is good for nothing.

We have shown that the reckoning of time by weeks in that age came from the well-known institution of the Sabbath. He has failed to account for this in any other way. Neither has he met the argument that the Sabbath was instituted at creation. That sanctifying it was the setting it apart by proclamation to a holy or religious use for man.

My friend has several times repeated the declaration that what is not commanded in the new covenant is not binding, and still asserts that we must keep the first day or deny the resurrection of Christ. Why don't he show where the first day is commanded?

My friend has finally condescended to tell us what was the bondage of the ten commandments. It was in the Sabbath, on account of the stoning penalty. But he has overlooked one important fact. The other nine commands also had the stoning penalty. Proof. For the first and second commandments see Deut. xiii, 6–10; third commandment, Lev. xxiv, 11–14; fifth commandment, Deut. xxi, 18–21; sixth commandment, Ex. xxi, 12; seventh commandment, Deut. xxii, 24; eighth, ninth, and tenth, commandments, Josh. vi, 10–25.

If the fourth commandment contained bondage because it had the stoning penalty, the other nine were bondage for the same reason. But he has the nine brought over without change, hence he has nine-tenths of the old yoke of bondage in his new constitution.

I will now advance. Ps. xix, 7. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." David must have referred to the decalogue, for that was the only perfect moral code ever given to man. There were ten precepts in that perfect law; now if one of them is left out it becomes so far imperfect. A perfect law will not admit of the slightest change.

Isa. lvi, 1, 2. "Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice; for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil."

This prophecy locates itself when, "salvation is near

to come." In Heb. ix, 28, we learn that salvation comes at the second advent of Christ, and in 1 Pet. i, 5, that salvation is ready to be revealed in the last time. If a blessing is pronounced on the man who keeps the Sabbath in the Christian age, of course it exists and is binding.

Paul's manner was to preach on the Sabbath. Acts xiii, 42, 44. "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God." Acts xvi, 13. "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither." Acts xvii, 2. "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Acts xviii, 4, 11. "And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them."

We learn from these scriptures that Paul, "as his manner was," preached every Sabbath-day, to the Jews in the synagogue, out by the river side, to the Gentiles, and when he was a located minister a year and six months at Corinth; in all eighty-four Sabbaths. We have no record of his ever preaching only on one first-day of the week, and that was the all-night farewell meeting with the disciples at Troas. The whole strength of apostolic example is in favor of the Sabbath.

ELDER GRANT'S TENTH SPEECH

My friend quotes David and Paul that the law was a delight, &c. True, the old law was a delight, but it is no more a delight since the new covenant, surely. He says the Sabbath penalty is done away. Now I call on him to show one instance where the penalty of a law has been done away and the law remain in force. He says Paul preached on the Sabbath. True, but he did not keep it. He says, "Let no man judge you in relation to it." If I was among Sabbath-keepers I should preach on the Sabbath as Paul did.

For further testimony on the new law I will read Rom. xiii, 9, 10. "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. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Acts xv, 28, 29. "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

Why not enjoin the Sabbath here if it is so important? It may be asked why several other commands were not mentioned. I answer, because they were observing them. If the Sabbath was binding, why not bind it upon the disciples in that council. Grotius says, "These three points were the only ones between Jews and Gentiles that admitted of dispute."

In regard to keeping the seventh day, it is a fact that a definite day cannot be kept. If two men sail

around the world, one will gain while the other will lose a day. When they come together they would find themselves keeping different days.

I will now give a few facts for the brother's consideration:

1. It is a fact that Adam's first day corresponded with God's seventh day.

2. It was a fact that the Sabbath was made only for the Jews.

3. It is a fact that Gen. ii, 3, does not prove the Sabbath from creation; for it was not written till after the exode.

ELDER CORNELL'S ELEVENTH SPEECH.

My friend calls for one instance where a penalty has been done away and the law still remain in force. He has furnished it himself. He admits the nine commands still in force without change. They had the stoning penalty. He calls on me to show one case, when he has furnished nine instances in his own argument.

He quotes Rom. xiii, 9, 10 for his new law.

Paul refers to some of the commands which relate to our duty to neighbor and then adds "If there be any other commandment it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Wakefield has it 'Every other such commandment.' Neither of the first four commands relating to our duty to God are quoted there. If the text proves that the Sabbath is left out in the New Testament, because not quoted, it equally proves that the other three are left out. That which proves too much proves nothing in the case.

My friend next resorts to Acts xv, 28 and asks why the Sabbath was not enjoined if it was binding?

I answer because their question did not relate to the moral law, but to matters in the ceremonial law. He says, the reason why the other commandments were not quoted was because they kept them. Good! Let me apply the same rule to the Sabbath. The Sabbath was not mentioned because there was no dispute in regard to it. They had never changed the day, all were agreed, and hence no need of taking it up in council. He quotes Grotius, that the three points mentioned were the only ones in dispute between Jews and Gentiles. Better still. Then the Gentile Christians must have been unanimous in keeping the seventh day. If they had not there would have been trouble enough. The Jews took occasion to find all the fault possible with the Christians.

I am astonished that my friend should bring up that old objection to the Sabbath, that the world is round. Is it not just as round when his first day comes?

He makes many assertions and says "It is a fact," that this and the other is so, or is not so. Now I ask what all such assertions, without proof amount to, they are simply thrown in for effect, or to take up my time. I deny every one of his assertions. Now let him prove them. Until then, we are even so far as they are concerned.

I will now advance another direct proof that the Sabbath exists in this dispensation. Rev. i, 10. "I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." John undertakes to tell us on what day he had his vision. It was the "Lord's day." What day did John understand to be the Lord's day? John wrote his gospel two years at least after he wrote Revelation, and there he simply calls the resurrection day, "The first day of the week." John xx, 19. If the first day had become the Sabbath or Lord's day, John would have said so. But he still called the seventh day the Sabbath. We now inquire what day is the Lord's day in the Bible. I challenge him to show where the first day is ever once called the Lord's day.

Mark ii, 28. "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." His father was Lord of it, and he "also" was Lord of it. His being Lord of it signifies that it was his day. The man is Lord of his wife, signifies that she belongs to him. So with the Sabbath. The day that Christ is Lord of is "The Lord's day." No other day was ever called the Lord's day in the Bible. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord," &c. And "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day," &c., shows conclusively what day is the Lord's.

ELDER GRANT'S ELEVENTH SPEECH.

My friend accuses me of saying things for effect. Of course we do. That's what we talk for. He quotes, "The law was holy, just and good." We do not deny that the law was holy. But God has abolished some things that were holy. They are not all binding now, surely.

I admit that the penalty for the nine commandments is the second death, and if the Sabbath is brought over it is the same.

He denies that the Lord's day is the first day of the week, but if he will carefully read church history he will find that the first day is called Lord's day.

He admits that the ceremonial law is done away; hence the Sabbath must be done away; it was that law that regulated the keeping of the Sabbath.

Paul says he kept back nothing that was profitable, but he did not mention the keeping of the Sabbath. He declared the whole counsel of God, and yet not a word about keeping the seventh day for the Sabbath.

We will now look at what we have said by way of recapitulation. 1. What we said on Rom. vii. "For the woman which hath an 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."

The same thing is presented just before the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. We read on, "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. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." This we regard as conclusive. We are married to Christ, when the law is dead.

ELDER CORNELL'S TWELFTH SPEECH.

My friend says he has not denied that the law was holy, but Paul writes to the Romans twenty years this side of where he says the law was abolished, and says The law is holy. Bro. Grant's "was holy" is not there.

He now admits that if the Sabbath is binding it has the same penalty as the other nine commands. Thus he has now given up all he has said about the Sabbath having no penalty if it is now in existence.

If I will read church history I will find that the first day is the Lord's day. Indeed! Has it come to this that we must leave the Bible and take history for our guide. Take the Bible as far as it goes on our side, and history for the rest. This is the Catholic rule in full.

He says Paul kept back nothing profitable, but never said a word about keeping the Sabbath. This argument assumes that what Paul did not teach is not now binding. Let us apply this rule. Paul never said one word about keeping the first day in honor of the resurrection of Christ, therefore it is not profitable. Here again, my friend has run full tilt against his own position.

I will now refer to some of our arguments:

1. We have shown that Christ recognized the Sabbath in his teachings as an existing institution. He said it was "made for man," and taught that it would be in existence in A. D. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed.

2. The disciples rested on the Sabbath, according to the commandment, after Christ was crucified. He has not even attempted to answer this. It is too late for him now. He cannot leave my main proofs until his last speech, so that I can have no chance to notice his reply. He saw no way to answer it, and therefore concluded not to grapple with it.

3. We have shown that the Sabbath was instituted for man at creation; that God sanctified it there; and the word sanctify means "to set apart for a holy use," which could not be done without a proclamation to that effect.

4. That the Sabbath existed before the covenant of Sinai, and independent of it; hence the passing away of that covenant could not affect the Sabbath.

5. We have given the most positive proof that the moral law, as a whole, is endorsed and enforced by Christ and the apostles. Paul proves all the world sinners by the law, twenty-nine years this side of the cross. Rom. iii, 19. If the law was abolished, it could not prove that any were guilty before God.

6. That the Sabbath or Lord's day is recognized by John in A. D. 96, on the isle of Patmos.

7. We have seen in numerous instances that the negative has overthrown his own positions. All ten of the commands were abolished, then only one. The troublesome Sabbath is not binding now because it is not commanded over again. But the first day is binding without ever being once commanded. If the Sabbath is still binding, the stoning penalty is also, but the nine commands can be brought over without that penalty.

We have seen that the reasons and facts on which the Sabbath institution was based still exist, hence the institution must exist. This argument has not been met. Before the Sabbath can be abolished, he must destroy the facts and reasons on which it is based. 1. God rested on the seventh day. 2. He sanctified the day on which he rested. 3. Conclusion: therefore we must "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." This was our argument on the institution of the Sabbath. We are now ready to submit the question, and we do so with the kindest of feelings to all, hoping that the investigation may result in much good.

ELDER GRANT'S TWELFTH SPEECH.

I have not intimated that Christ commands us to keep the first day. I have shown that the Sabbath was abolished with the feast days.

My friend refers to the women resting, "according to the commandment." But this took place before the resurrection, and of course is no proof for us.

He has quoted Matt. v, 17: Christ did not come to destroy the law, &c. I believe that I have not denied it. But there was something abolished. If we are dead to the law, and the law is dead, as we have seen in Rom. vii, then of course the Sabbath is dead also.

I have shown that the Sabbath is positive, and hence not binding now—that the Sabbath penalty was stoning, and if that is done away the Sabbath must go with it.

The claim that the law of ten commands, as a whole, is brought into the New Testament, has not been sustained.

We have given good historical testimony that no Sabbath was binding on the patriarchs. We brought several testimonies, and nothing was brought to rebut them.

We are willing to submit the question right here. We think the negative of this question has been well sustained. We shall part as friends. I will join with my friend in the hope that good will result from this investigation.