ELDER CORNELL’S FOURTH SPEECH

First, I will notice my friend’s denial that there was any penalty to the ten commands before Sinai. I can just as well deny that there is a penalty to “Thou shalt not kill,” in this dispensation. I have already shown that sin was imputed to those who broke the ten commands before Sinai. But “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Temporal death never was the full penalty of the law. The real penalty was and still in eternal death.DSQ63 20.3

The Elder has admitted that if we show that the law as a whole is brought over into the New Testament, we have gained the question. I will now proceed to do that very thing. And 1. The ten commandments alone were a “whole law.” Proof: Exodus 24:12. “And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount and be there and I will give thee tables of stone and a law, and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.DSQ63 20.4

2. This whole law is enforced in the New Testament. James 2:10, 11. “For whosever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said, also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”DSQ63 20.5

The “whole law” referred to in this text is the one that says, Thou shalt not kill, and, Thou shalt not commit adultery, and the same law said. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.DSQ63 21.1

To show that a law given at Sinai is brought over, we refer to the sermon of Stephen, the martyr preached this side of the day of Pentecost, when the New Testament was fully in force. Acts 7:38. “This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel, which spake to him in the mount Sins, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.”DSQ63 21.2

This shows that the “lively oracles” received on mount Sinai were to be “given unto us,” Christians. Stephen takes this law to show men their sins in this dispensation: hence, it must be in force. Proof: “Who have received the law by the disposition of angels and have not kept if.”DSQ63 21.3

Further proof that the law is still in force is found in Luke 16:17. “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” Also, Romans 3:31. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”DSQ63 21.4

If the law is not “made void,” but “established,” by faith, and it is “easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail,” we must conclude that the law, as a whole, is brought over into the New Testament.DSQ63 21.5

My friend reads several verses in Romans 7, and says thin means the ten commandments. Here we agree exactly. But Paul says, We are dead to the law, and Bro. Grant says, We have got through with it, have nothing more to do with it, etc. Now I will commence and read from where he left off, and show that Paul concludes that the law is still in force. Verses 7-12. “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid, [original illegible]. I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.”DSQ63 21.6

This law must hate been in force, else how could it convince Paul of sin, and slay him? Did Paul refuse to have anything more to do with that which was “holy, just and good?” In verse 22, he says, “I delight in the law.” Did Paul delight in that which was dead?! So we see Paul had not got through with the law; it was binding then, and it is binding still.DSQ63 22.1

My friend next tries to get out of his no-Sabbath dilemma by asserting (without a particle of proof) that the first day is to be kept in honor of Christ’s resurrection. But neither Christ nor the apostles have anywhere commanded any man to keep the first day; and Bro. Grant’s rule is that what they have not commanded in the New Testament is not binding. Now he knows there is no command for the first day, and yet he says if we don’t keep it we “virtually deny the resurrection of Christ.” He will keep the first day of the week without its ever being once commanded, but at the same time refuses to keep the seventh day because it has not been commanded the second time. Would he have God speak louder than he did before?DSQ63 22.2

It in now strangely asserted that the ten commandments were abolished, and all re-enacted but the fourth. Did the Infinite Lawgiver ever enact a law, then abolish it, then re-enact it? Did the All-wise God make a mistake, and put the Sabbath [original illegible] mere ceremonial ordinance in the midst of the nine moral precepts, and then abolish all of them to get rid of the troublesome Sabbath?!DSQ63 22.3

Let me illustrate the absurdity of such a position. Suppose a man has an incurable sore on his fourth finger. This finger has several him well in the past, but it is of no more use to him. He calls a surgeon, who advises him to have it amputated. He consents to it, and the doctor cuts off all ten of his fingers and thumbs, throws away the diseased finger, and then goes to work to splice on the nice good ones for his future use! Would not my friend cry, O, foolish doctor! And shall we charge God foolishly?DSQ63 22.4

He has once in this discussion applied the old covenant of Hagar, Galatians 4:24, 25, to the ten commandments, but he now has the old “bond-woman” abolished, and nine-tenths of her re-enacted. He has nine-tenths of the old Hagar of bondage in his own system!DSQ63 23.1

He has quoted authors to prove that the Sabbath did net exist among the ancients, but we have shown that the Sabbath was sanctified at creation, and of course it existed from that time. Let God be true, though all men should be proved liars.DSQ63 23.2

We now propose to let the Scriptures testify as to what was abolished. Ephesians 2:14-16. “For He is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances: for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” Colossians 2:14-17. “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Hebrews 9:10. “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”DSQ63 23.3

The apostle carefully points out the law that is abolished. To the Ephesians, he says it is “The law of commandments [original illegible] in ordinances,” which was [original illegible] But there no enmity in the ten commandments. To the Colossians, he describes that which was blotted out as the “hand-writing of ordinances that was against us,” which was a “shadow of things to come.” But the ten commandments were never against men, neither were they shadows of things to come. To the Hebrews, Paul says, the law which was only imposed until the time of reformation, consisted “only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances. Not one of these can possibly refer to the decalogue.DSQ63 23.4