The first remark of my opponent was an answer to a criticism on Mark 2:27, 28 verses. He denies the justness of the criticism because the word “son” was not added. He says “I do not say the Bible does not say that the Sabbath was made for the son of man.” How remarkably fair he was in making this statement. “The Sabbath was made for man; the Sabbath was made at creation; therefore the Sabbath was made for man at creation.” How does he make this connection between premise and conclusion? He might just as fairly have said thus: “The Sabbath was made for man; the Sabbath was made for man at creation; therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” There is his logic. Again, I ask, how does he connect his premise and conclusion? Are they analogous? Is not my opponent doing that which is not lawful—the very crime with which he charged me?PSDS 25.7

[Mr. Stephenson was here called to order by the chairman for the affirmative. The chairman for the negative sustained Mr. Stephenson, so there was no decision.—Reporter.]PSDS 26.1

This chairman was very generous in allowing liberty of expression to my opponent, but if they say so I will sit down. Perhaps my language is more exceptionable than his.PSDS 26.2

(A short pause and Mr. Stephenson proceeded.—Reporter.)PSDS 26.3

Now if it was lawful for the priests only to eat the shew-bread, it was not lawful for David; therefore David violated the law. If the Bible, which is the law of our discussion, says the Sabbath was made for man at creation, then I have done that which is not lawful in denying it. But the conclusion of my opponent has no connection with the circumstances under which this language was written.PSDS 26.4

David had eaten the shew-bread; the disciples had done that which was not lawful; what is the distinction between them? None. They had both violated the law, but neither had done wrong. The reason is given why the disciples had not sinned was the fact that the Sabbath’s master had set aside the commandment, as the high priest did in the case of David. “The phrase son of man is not in the premise.” Cannot I make an application as well as my opponent, if I go according to his logic? I affirm that I have a right to follow him in all his arguments.PSDS 26.5

We may reason two ways—from cause to effect, or from effect to cause. Now mark one thing, while no new fact or element may be introduced in different phraseology. I would ask my opponent if the fact of his assumption that the Sabbath was made for man at creation is not a new element inserted into the conclusion? Is there in all this no digression from sound logic?PSDS 26.6

You will find in works on logic, that different words are used to indicate the same thing. A fair construction of the passage in Mark shows that the Sabbath was made for the son of man, and I will take the position that Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth; “therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Can it be possible that my reasoning is out of place, and that his reasoning is not out of place? I do believe that there has been much said in this argument that was entirely irrelevant to the subject under consideration, and I wish the chairman could find some way to confine us to the real issue. I will endeavor to stick to the question if my opponent will.PSDS 26.7

Again he says that obligation does not grow out of precept. Where then will he go to get proof of the eternity of principle? But he contradicts himself and annuls his own statements before he gets through. He says “I grant that moral obligation grows out of precept.” Moral obligation is just what we were talking about. I wish I could hold him to this admission. The Apostles, Paul and John, both unite in saying that where there is no law, there is no transgression.PSDS 27.1

But he says that he can prove by my course of reasoning that it was not wrong to take the name of God in vain before the ten commandments were given at Mount Sinai. I admit it was not before the third was given. We must have a standard of right before we can do wrong. I grant the whole. I will grant it in connection with any of the ten commandments—the fourth included. If my opponent places New Testament scripture before you in connection with passages from the Old, I will claim the same privilege.PSDS 27.2

Deuteronomy 5. ch. 15th v. By quoting this I do not intend to prove that the Sabbath was made for God or man. I have done it to show and prove the specific reason for which the fourth commandment was given. Neither have I ever said it was for that purpose. Nothing is said of the Sabbath of the Lord in this 15th verse. No Sabbath of the Lord is mentioned here.PSDS 27.3

“A local reason does not nullify a general one. So says my opponent, at least in substance, but I have shown you that there is a proviso attached to this commandment that limits its observance to the children of Israel. If, in the publication of a reason for the observance of a precept, a limitation is placed upon it, it can never be generalized till that limitation is taken away from it. Now, I ask, could not the Lord declare that He would set apart a day and sanctify it because He had rested on that day after the creation of heaven and earth, and then command the children of Israel to observe that day because they were brought out of Egyptian bondage? My opponent will not admit that a specific reason for observing a precept localizes or limits that precept, and consequently he would ignore the specific reason entirely. The same reason cannot be both general and specific. I aver that the reason why the fourth commandment was given, was because the Lord delivered the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage, and not because of the creation of heaven and earth and the rest of the Lord on the seventh day.PSDS 27.4

I call upon my opponent to show a single passage in the holy scriptures, proving that the children of Israel or any nation on the face of the earth, before or since the giving of the ten commandments, were required to observe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment because the Lord rested on the seventh day after the creation of heaven and earth. Will he? can he do it?PSDS 28.1

Again, he says, I acknowledge that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was not the identical day on which the Lord rested. As well might he acknowledge that this is not the identical day on which the sun rose and set 2500 years ago. Such acknowledgements have no bearing on this discussion. Two days 2500 years apart cannot be identical. “For the sake of peace on this point, I will here acknowledge that the fourth of July, 1858, was not the identical day in 1776 on which the Declaration of Independence was first promulgated to the civilized world.” I believe in peace on right principles.PSDS 28.2

The preposition of is used hero instead of the possessive case. Could there be any Lord’s Sabbath (or Sabbath of the Lord, for they are synonymous expressions,) before there was any Lord? My opponent claims that the Sabbath of the Lord and the Sabbath of the fourth commandment were the same; but if we admit this he will not hold to the true issue. My granting that the Sabbath of the Lord originated when the Sabbath of the fourth commandment originated would not satisfy him, for see where it would lead. The Sabbath of the Lord could not exist before the Lord existed, and the Sabbath of the fourth commandment could not exist before the fourth commandment existed. No Lord, no Lord Sabbath, no fourth commandment, no fourth commandment’s Sabbath. He would either have to admit that the fourth commandment dated back to creation, or else that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment did not date back to the creation, and either one he would deem too much of an admission I presume.PSDS 28.3

In the absence of Bible record we can have no idea either of the time when or how the sabbatical institution originated, but, blessed be God, we are not left in the dark valley of conjecture.PSDS 29.1

If my opponent admits that the Lord’s Sabbath and the fourth commandment’s Sabbath are the same day, then he must prove that they both originated at the creation. He will have to do this or it will go to the world that he has failed to sustain the affirmative of this proposition. It is the origin of the fourth commandment’s Sabbath that he has undertaken to prove. But he ignores the issue. He denies that the origin of the fourth commandment is synchronous with the obligation to observe it, but again I say, he ignores the issue. We affirm that obligation does not exist before precept. We wish him to reconcile these things. “We want logic.” I apply this remark to his arguments in all its force.PSDS 29.2

I am anxious to have my opponent get along to a discussion of the second part of the proposition, but I will try to wait patiently till he gets to it in his own way. He will come to it after a while I have no doubt, and have something to say about, or in regard to the obligation of man to observe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment at the present time.PSDS 29.3

He brought some passages or one passage to prove that the ten commandments are called a law, but I have not time to notice it. You all know my position on this point, and that I deny that the phrase law is applied to the ten commandments within the two lids of the Bible.PSDS 29.4

FIFTH SPEECH

SEVENTH SPEECH