FOURTH SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Negative.—I am always sorry to be under the necessity of anticipating an opponent, but still more so, to be obliged to confess that I have admitted the issue, as it certainly puts me in an awkward position before the audience. I beg of you all to remember that there are two sides to every question—one true and the other false. In the consideration or discussion of every subject there are usually two extremes, and between them we must strike a just medium in order to arrive at the truth.PSDS 17.4

“It appears from what my opponent has told you, that I launched out to prove the perpetuity of the Sabbath; that I assigned proofs, etc. In this it seems I have incurred his displeasure.” But he did not confine his argument to the origin of the fourth commandment Sabbath. In the first place he made the admission that it originated at creation. Then he admits my reason also. He seems to think himself under no obligation to answer me in some cases, but if I have digressed from my proper limits in this discussion, the chairman ought to have called me to order.PSDS 17.5

But he admits my specific reason and still thinks the general one is the true one. Now a man may tell a portion of the truth and yet convey a wrong idea.PSDS 18.1

I proved that a specific and local reason limited and localized a general one. I wish the reason of the fourth commandment to be considered as not a general reason. If it was given before the children of Israel were delivered from Egyptian bondage, it was a general reason. If it was given subsequently, it was never a general reason.PSDS 18.2

He says a specific reason does not supersede a general one, hence we must admit that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is to be observed by all men, in all ages of the world. But his premise is false, and consequently his conclusion must be false also. I look at my notes and I cannot remember or see a single argument that he has advanced in support of the affirmative side of the question. We are both digressing from the issue. It is not the origin of the Sabbath of the Lord, but it is the origin of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment that we are to discuss. The word of is a possessive preposition. The people of God are God’s people. The children of God are God’s children. There is not an exception to this rule.PSDS 18.3

I affirm that an obligation cannot antedate a commandment. We may talk about the eternity of principle as long as we please, but this has nothing to do with a moral obligation. You may apply this to earthly rulers. The principle of a law may be right, but until that law is given, no man is under obligation to observe that principle; and even though I should admit the holiness of the institution, no Sabbath of the fourth commandment was made, or could have been observed until the fourth commandment itself was given, for “where there is no law there is no transgression.”PSDS 18.4

I understand, and we certainly should agree upon this, that the preposition of is a possessive preposition. Every work on Grammar calls it a possessive particle, and if I am wrong I pause to be corrected. All admit it. If my opponent has touched the real issue I have not seen it. I will not dispute the origin of the obligation contained in the fourth commandment, but when did the commandment enforcing this obligation originate? I will confine my arguments to this till they are answered, or at least noticed.PSDS 19.1

Preferred to Exodus 16:29, to show that the Lord gave the Sabbath at the wilderness of sin, as a corroborative testimony to Deuteronomy 5:15, and not to show that the Sabbath did not exist anterior to its publication on Sinai. This is a misrepresentation of my language, as well as my views, though it was undoubtedly unintentional. I do not think my opponent would intentionally misrepresent me in any particular. It most assuredly proves that the precept for man to observe the Sabbath originated after their exodus from Egypt. Again, he says, does the specific reason supersede the general one? Certainly not.PSDS 19.2

I deny that I admitted that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment originated at the creation. I believe that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment did not, and could not antedate the fourth commandment itself.PSDS 19.3

“The Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and the day on which the Lord rested from the creation, are identical.” He did not at first pretend to affirm that it was the identical day on which the Lord rested. He instances the fourth of July. My intelligent opponent will not take the position that the fourth of July which we observe, is the same identical day, A. D. 1776, on which our glorious Declaration was first proclaimed to the world. The question is, when did the Lord command that a day should be kept answering to the day on which He rested from the creation of heaven and earth? Was it when the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was enforced upon man? I affirm that not one of the ten commandments given at Mount Sinai were binding upon any man before it was enforced by precept upon man. No precept, no obligation. We never should confound things that ought to be kept separate. Now the facts are these: They must observe either the first, second, third or some other day of the week. Why was the seventh day selected in preference to any other? The reason was because the Lord rested on the seventh day. Let my opponent prove that it was because God created heaven and earth. Deuteronomy 5th ch. 15th v. I can believe that the reason why they were commanded to observe a Sabbath at all, was because they were delivered from Egyptian bondage. The reason why the seventh day was set apart was because the Lord rested on that day after the creation. The Bible can always be made to harmonize on the truth. The Sabbath was a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel because they were delivered from Egyptian bondage. By reference to Exodus 16:4, 5, the specifications in reference to all the days were there arrayed. The “to-morrow,” verse 23rd, was the day after the sixth, being dated from the first day of the giving of manna. The Divine reason why God gave twice as much manna on the sixth day, was the fact that he had given them, i.e., the children of Israel, the Sabbath. “See for what the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days,” verse 29. Let me compare the foregoing reason with my opponent’s reasoning; and get out the logic in it. “See that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath 2500 years ago; therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days.”PSDS 19.4

The obligation growing out of the precept recorded in Deuteronomy 24:17, 18, together with the principles involved in the ten, and all other commandments, did not exist anterior to those precepts; for “where there is no law there is no transgression.” This position has been admitted by my opponent a number of times. Now, I say, upon the principle of the gentleman’s argument, precepts are entirely superfluous, as they neither originate nor enhance obligation. My opponent ignores the real issue that is between us. Did the duty to observe that precept exist before the precept itself existed. It is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment that we are discussing. I am very glad my opponent referred to logic, and I wish he could in some way bring a little of it to bear upon this question; but I am obliged to confess before this audience, that I cannot see the force or point of his argument. I hope I shall be more fortunate after a while. I wish to ask how could the obligation to observe the fourth commandment exist before the precept existed. Obligation and precept always go hand in hand—the former cannot antedate the latter. Will my opponent take a position contrary to this? Where there is no law there is no transgression. We shall have that remark to make many times over in the course of the discussion. We wish you all to bear it in mind.PSDS 20.1

Has my opponent brought a single argument to show the pre-existence or subsequent existence of the obligation to observe the precept of the fourth commandment? We do not think he has done it, or that he will be able to do it. We are making no progress in the discussion of the question before us. I hope the chairman will prevent the dragging in of things foreign to the real issue. It is the Sabbath of the precept of the fourth commandment with which we have to do. I hope my opponent will mark the fact and act accordingly.PSDS 21.1

[Mark 2:27 v. From what follows I infer that this passage was quoted by Elder Waggoner, but I have no note of it, and don’t know as it was so.—Reporter.]PSDS 21.2

He says he does not quote Jesus because he wishes to show that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is to be observed through the present age, but to show that the Sabbath was made for man at the creation. Let us look at his reasoning. “The Sabbath was made for man. The Sabbath was made at creation. Therefore the Sabbath was made for man at creation.” Will not Elder Waggoner try it again? Truly his premises are as wide as creation. I will ask my friend to assent to one principle of logic: A conclusion always grows out of a premise. Now let us look at Mark 2:28 v. “Therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Verse 27th reads in the Greek: “the Sabbath was made for the man etc. The Sabbath was made for the man. Christ Jesus, therefore—PSDS 21.3