EIGHTH SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Negative.—My friends, I am here to answer for myself, once more, and I am happy to have the privilege of so doing. I wish to notice first, before I review his arguments of this evening, some positions taken by my opponent in his speech of this afternoon. If my opponent contents himself with responding to me, we shall never get beyond the 5 ch. of Deut. He appears to be advancing in the wrong direction all the time.PSDS 33.2

It seems that I have been misrepresenting him in regard to his statement that there is no obligation without law. But in all his last argument he endeavored to prove that there could be no moral obligation without precept. He has argued my point most successfully and triumphantly.PSDS 33.3

Were I sure that he would reach the 5 ch. of Deut. again, I should think there might be some hopes of an end of the discussion, but at this rate, of progression, backwards, we shall soon be once more at the creation.PSDS 33.4

I know that he has taken the position, in his book, that the ten commandments are a perfect law, but according to the ten commandments I can have as many wives as Brigham Young. Is there anything in the ten commandments prohibiting drunkenness? I am not pledged by the observance of the ten commandments to love my neighbor. I merely throw out these ideas to show how imperfect the ten commandments are as a code of morals. I wish to investigate the nature of the ten commandments, and see whether they are a perfect code of morals or not.PSDS 34.1

Again, he introduced the covenant or promise to Abraham, but I will wait till he takes a more definite position.PSDS 34.2

He assumed that the ten commandments are separately called the law; but in all his quoting scripture he does not reach the point proving his assumption. When he gets there I will attend to him.PSDS 34.3

One word more in regard to the conclusion of my opponent, that, from the fact that the Sabbath of the Lord existed from the creation, therefore, the obligation based on that fact, existed from the creation. I might take the position that from the fact that the month and tenth day of the month has existed from the creation, therefore, the obligation to observe that day as a feast-day, has existed from the creation. Take the fourteenth day of the first month mentioned in Leviticus 23:5, also verse 32nd, and you will find that the duty to sabbatize did not exist until the commandment enjoining that duty was given.PSDS 34.4

Now about the proposition that the God of Abram could not exist till Abram existed, my opponent must know that I would not sacrifice the Bible to grammar. In many cases we are bound to digress from grammatical rules. He says that according to our reasoning God did not exist till Abram existed. Certainly the promulgation of a misapprehension is equivalent to a misrepresentation. I make no insinuations, but I believe a man may just as easily misrepresent as not apprehend. I do not intend to ironize, but merely wish to express my views in as few words as possible. It does not prove that God did not exist till Abram existed. Twice two are four, but twice four are not two. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment could not exist till the fourth commandment existed. This is a different case altogether. He has twice admitted that there was no obligation without precept, and twice denied it. Once more, did the obligation contained in any of these ten commandments exist previous to precept? I call upon him to show the pre-existence of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, either by implication or by any other means. He certainly has not done it.PSDS 34.5

Let us come directly to the point. There is no use in our talking just to fill up our half hour. We wish to expedite the discussion as fast as possible.PSDS 35.1

Has my opponent produced a case in which the Lord enforced the precept of the fourth commandment before the fourth commandment existed? You may take the sixth, seventh, eighth and several others, but I will present them all at once, and propose the same question that I have upon the fourth. Did the Lord enforce any of their principles before the commandment existed?PSDS 35.2

My opponent says that in the absence of precept there can be no transgression, and his remark applies on my side of the question, for he thereby teaches that obligation is dependent upon precept. Thus, with my opponent and the Bible to sustain my position, I must gain the point.PSDS 35.3

He denies referring to Deuteronomy 5:4, except to prove the Sabbath of the Lord. I deny referring to that verse at all. Why should I multiply quotations upon this point? I quoted Deuteronomy 5:15 v. to show the reason why the fourth commandment was given. He fails to see why the seventh day was set apart. I will state my argument once more. The fault may be with me that I do not state it plain enough for him to see it, and I will try to accommodate my words to his comprehension if possible.PSDS 35.4

It is important to see the difference between the reason why a certain day of the week should be selected, and the reason why God enjoined the observance of that day as a Sabbath. On the seventh day God rested from the creation of heaven and earth and all that in them is. It was God’s rest-day after finishing his great work. These great events clustered around that day. When great events or the completion of a great work is connected with any day, that day becomes a marked day. It is the case with the fourth of July and many other days that might be mentioned. It is somewhat with nations as it was with God—they render certain, days remarkable by the performance or completion of some great work. Now why did God select the seventh day in preference to any other? Answer. Because he rested on that day. But is this the reason for the observance of that day as a Sabbath by man? I quoted Deuteronomy 5:15 v. to show the reason why the children of Israel were commanded to observe the Sabbath day, and not to show why that particular day was set apart. “And remember that that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt,” etc., “therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.” Now it seems to me this is as clear as a sun-beam. The reason why the fourth commandment was given, was because the Lord with His Almighty arm brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt. The reason why the Sabbath was fixed upon the seventh day was because on that day rested from the great work of creation. The two reasons must be different. It seems to me that any child could see this. You might as well argue that any two streams of water are identical as to argue that any two reasons are identical. The commandment was given to a certain people—to the descendants of a certain house, and never can apply to any other people while these two reasons remain upon this holy record. I care not where the tables of stone on which these commandments were written are deposited, or whether they yet exist. I affirm that this fourth commandment was limited to one people, and, in regard to its origin, to one day. My opponent very fairly acknowledged that God did not require them to observe the same identical day on which He rested. Is it possible that the same day could exist 2500 years? But he says the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is only a day answering to that. He admitted this because he must admit it. If one answers to the other, the other will of course answer to the one. But I understand that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment became a Sabbath because God commanded it, and not because He rested on a day answering to that 2500 years before. Why were the children of Israel commanded to keep the feasts of the Lord? Because the Lord feasted? No. Why were all these feast-days called sabbaths of the Lord? Because the Lord rested on those days, or on days answering to them 2500 years before? The idea is absurd. Just so with the fourth of July. The obligation, (if there is any obligation attached to that day,) could not exist before the day was set apart. As far as obligation of any kind is concerned, if there had never been a precept there could be no obligation. There can be none till there is precept. I indorse the sentiment quoted by my opponent that “where there is no law there is no transgression,” and I will try to keep it before this people that “sin is not imputed where there is no law.”PSDS 35.5

We are both of us tremendous talkers, (?) but it is my privilege to have the last word, and I will have it as long as my opponent says anything for me to respond to. It is not my duty, according to the rules of debate, to go on and prove anything in advance of his arguments, but to respond to what my opponent says.PSDS 37.1

Now he affirms that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was made at creation. I wish to ask him when were the feasts of the Lord made? At the creation? No, certainly not; but when they were commanded. Just so with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.PSDS 37.2

Mark 2:27 v. I will give you Matthew if I have time. This is the Divine comment on the Sabbath, therefore we must believe it is correct. We will see whether Jesus Christ is not the man spoken of here. This is an important point. Why were the disciples guiltless? The Illustration given in the context shows that though they had done that which was not lawful, yet they were guiltless. Will you accept the Divine construction of duty in this matter? This is the reason: that the Lord being master of the Sabbath He had a right to grant full license to His disciples to do that which was not lawful on the Sabbath day. [Time up.]PSDS 37.3