EIGHTEENTH SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Negative.—He will be misrepresenting me all the time. He misrepresents himself at least half the time. He referred to the fifth commandment, and not only referred to it, but read it. The words fourth commandment were not mentioned at all when he requested me to read, or, if so, they were inaudible. He referred to the fifth commandment, (as in the 20th of Exodus,) and wanted to know why I did not read it. We do not want to jangle here just for the sake of jangling. He says truly, I have several times said that I will publish this discussion to the world, but the other I deny. He did not refer to Exodus 34:27, 28. I believe that Moses did write them, and that what God does by His agent, He does Himself. Stephen declares that it was an angel spoke in the mount. Acts 7:38. This varies slightly from the reading of the same by my opponent, but I do not accuse him of being a knave, as he has several times accused me, at least in effect, if not in those very words. I think these are personalities unworthy a discussion of this kind.PSDS 70.2

Acts 7:30. There an angel spoke for the great I Am—God by His agent. Now, why did he not emphasize this as it should be emphasized? Again I say it is an easy matter for a man to overlook the real issue.PSDS 71.1

Turn to Galatians 3:19. Paul says the law was ordained by angels. Moses uses the Hebrew word Elohim, which is rendered gods and angels in other places. God made His covenant with Abraham by an angel; and Jesus Christ authorized an angel to speak in His proper person. Revelation 1:1, 18. What God said and did by His agent, He said and did Himself. What Jesus Christ said by His agent, He said Himself. God not only spake by His angel, but He spake in times past by the prophets. Hebrews 1:1. Just so with the writing of the commandments. God wrote them and the angel wrote them. Take the inflexible position that God wrote the ten commandments and that the angel had no hand in it, and reconcile it with Hebrews 1:1.PSDS 71.2

Matthew 5. Mark the law here spoken of by Jesus is not the ten commandments exclusively, but the book of the law. My opponent says whenever He quoted any of the other commandments He abolished or repealed them. [Reads.] Did Jesus declare it of the ten commandments that the heavens and earth should pass before one jot or tittle of them should be left unfulfilled? But suppose He did abolish these commandments: does it prove that He did not enforce them before they were repealed? There is nothing in the seventh commandment that proves a man guilty of adultery who has only looked on a woman to lust after her. God could not in justice hold a man responsible or amenable to these precepts of Jesus Christ under the ten commandments, for they do not contain the principles He enforced. But my opponent asks if a man can keep God’s commandment without loving Him? He claims that if we keep the ten commandments, we shall love the Lord our God with all our hearts, and our neighbors as ourselves. According to his view of the subject, a man cannot keep the ten commandments without loving his neighbor as himself. But mark, this precept is not in the ten commandments; it is only found in the book; and to confound the two is to make the two the same, which he denies I’m to do. Matthew 5:17 again. [Reads.] According to Campbell’s translation, “Heaven and earth shall sooner perish than one iota or tittle of the law shall perish without attaining its end.” Now, this teaches that, having attained its end, it must perish, which would be altogether superfluous language if it never should perish. The law and the prophets are here used in conjunction. Turn to Luke 24:44. I will not consume time by reading it; but it appears that all things which were written in the law of Moses and in the prophets and in the Psalms concerning Jesus were to be fulfilled in His resurrection. Here “the law and prophets” prophesy.PSDS 71.3

Well, you will probably hear, before you get through, that the ten commandments are a school master to bring us to Christ. Now, if it is the design of the ten commandments to bring us to Christ, we must conclude that when that design is fulfilled, they will cease.PSDS 72.1

I will now call your attention to a few passages of scripture in support of the negative side of our question, inasmuch as my opponent has freely admitted that if I prove the negative, then the affirmative will of course be overthrown. He has shown you that a law of ordinances has been abolished by a comparison of Romans and Ephesians. But what becomes of the Sinaitic covenant, which my opponent declared or admitted to be the ten commandments? I wish to read enough scripture to place the whole matter beyond dispute. Galatians 3:10 and Exodus 24:1-3. By reference to the first quotation, you will find that the commandments God had given up to that time, including the ten, were written in the book, and called the “book of the covenant.” In the last quotation, it is called the “book of the law.” My opponent claims that “the law,” the “schoolmaster” referred to in the third chapter of Galatians, is the ten commandments. Are the ten commandments the “book of the law?” By reference to the 16th and 17th verses, we may learn when the (which is claimed to the ten commandments) law originated, i.e., four hundred and thirty years after the Abrahamic covenant. This synchronizes, in point of time, with the time the ten commandments were published on Mount Sinai, and declared to be God’s covenant; and also that this covenant was not made with the fathers, (i.e., the ten commandments were not given to the fathers with whom the Abrahamic covenant was made.) By reference to the 17th verse, we learn how long the law was to continue—namely, “Till the seed should come to whom the promise (i.e., the promise covenanted to Abraham’s seed—Christ—verse 16) was made.” This harmonizes with the termination of “the schoolmaster,” (which is used as the equivalent of the “book of the law,” verse 10, and “the law,” verse 17,) whose office was to “bring us to Christ.” Hence we learn definitely the time when the law commenced, and the time when it terminated. But my opponent says that to be “under the law,” verse 23, is not to be amenable to the law, but to be under its penalty. Did Paul’s brethren desire to die? Did they desire to be under the penalty, which was death? Chapter 4:21. Is it the office of a schoolmaster to kill his pupils, or to teach them? The latter, of course. So with the law. By reference to chapter 4:22-30, it will be seen that the Sinaitic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant are represented by the “bond woman and her son,” and the “free woman and her son.” At the 30th verse, the bond woman and her son, (i.e., the Sinaitic covenant, which has been proved to be the ten commandments,) are represented as being cast out to make room for the free woman and her son—i.e., the Abrahamitic covenant, as the basis of the Gentile believer’s hope. And to show that this transition has actually taken place, Paul, including Gentile believers with himself, declares that they were “not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” Verse 31.PSDS 72.2

In the foregoing quotation of Scripture, the Sinaitic covenant—the ten commandments—is cast out, abolished, preparatory to the incorporation of Gentile believers into the Abrahamitic covenant, and constituting them joint heirs, with Abraham and Christ, to the promised inheritance. Galatians 3:16-29. Of the same import [original illegible] Paul’s teaching in Hebrews 8:13. In chapter 9:19-22, he quotes from Exodus 24:1-8, where the Sinaitic covenant is written [original illegible] the book; hence it is called the book of the covenant. From the 1st to the 5th verses of Hebrews 9th chapter, he contrasts the first and second covenants—the Sinaitic and the new. That we may not mistake his application of the first covenant, he refers to the covenant written upon tables—i.e., the tables of the covenant. Verse 4. In chapter 8:13, he declares that this “first covenant” (i.e., the ten commandments) was ready to vanish away. [Time up.]PSDS 73.1