ELDER CORNELL’S NINTH SPEECH

If the testimony of men is reliable proof the question must be settled. The fathers are quoted to prove the Sabbath abolished; and many of these same fathers declare that the Soul is immortal, the dead conscious, etc. If their say-so is to be taken on one point why not on another. Bro. Grant himself rejects their testimony on other points. Concerning such testimony Martin Luther says, “When God’s word is by the father expounded, construed, and glossed, then, in my judgment, it is even like unto one that straineth milk through a coal-sack; which must needs spoil the milk and make it black.” Dr. Clarke says, “We should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the doctrine of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of those subjects, they blow hot and cold.”DSQ63 44.1

My friend says, The expression “made for man” shown the Sabbath to be ceremonial and hence it is done away. He has once in this discussion discarded the term “ceremonial” but he has come now to use it as glibly as if he never even thought of its being objectionable.DSQ63 44.2

But if the Sabbath was only a ceremonial ordinance why was it placed in the midst of nine perpetual and moral precepts? Was it not because the all-wise Lawgiver saw that it was worthy of their company. It has been said that a man is known by the company he keeps. So with the Sabbath. Its neighbors on both sides were very moral and respectable citizens. There is not a community in the world that can compare with it in morality. The Sabbath is like the commandments with which in was associated on the tables of stone. If one is abolished they all are. If nine are in force they all are.DSQ63 44.3

There are two institutions “for man” from the very beginning, the Sabbath and marriage. Paul says, 1 Corinthians 11:9, “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Both these institutions originated at creation before the fall of man. Both of them are holy and sacred. The fourth commandment guards the sacredness of the Sabbath, and the seventh commandment the sacredness of the marriage relation. Now if as Elder Grant says, the expression. “The Sabbath wag made for man,” proves it only ceremonial and therefore abolished, then by the same rule the declaration. The woman was created for man, proves that she is only a positive institution, and that marriage is only a ceremonial ordinance, and hence is done away. That which proven too much proves nothing.DSQ63 45.1

My friend inquires why there is no mention of the Sabbath during the first 2500 years, if it was binding. I answer. The history of that period is very brief. How short the account of so good a man as Enoch! He walked with God three hundred years, and was not, for God took him. There is no definite mention of the doctrine of the resurrection during the same period. Shall we therefore infer that the patriarchs did not believe in the resurrection? Future punishment, and Christ’s second advent in flaming fire, and the Judgment of the great day are not definitely mentioned in the book of Genesis. But there is a period of over five hundred years this side of Mt. Sinai, and the Sabbath is not mentioned in the history of it, and that, too, white the Sabbath was enforced by the death penalty. Shall we conclude that it was not binding during that time?DSQ63 45.2

My friend goes back to the fathers again to prove that Colossians 2:16, embraces the weekly Sabbath. The fathers can be quoted to prove almost anything. They neither agree with themselves, nor the Bible. I appeal from the fathers up to the grand-fathers, Paul, Peter, James, John, and others. If Paul designed to embrace all Sabbaths in Colossians 2:16, why does he qualify it with “which are shadows of things to come?” The weekly Sabbath being instituted at creation before the fall, could not be a shadow of anything in redemption. The Sabbaths mentioned in Colossians 2, were those “contrary to man and against him,” but Jesus says of the weekly Sabbath, it “was made for man.” Could it be “for man,” and yet “against him?” Does Paul contradict Christ? If not, then he cannot refer to the weekly Sabbath.DSQ63 46.1

I will now show that there were two distinct laws: that the word “law” does not always refer to the same thing.DSQ63 46.2

David speaks of the moral law when he says, “The law of the Lord perfect, converting the soul.” Psalm 19:7. In verse 11 he says that in keeping it there is great reward.”DSQ63 46.3

Paul in Hebrews 7:18, speaks of the disannulling of the law “for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.” In chap 10:1, he declares that [original illegible] never could “make the comers there unto perfect.”DSQ63 46.4

Paul speaking of the ten commandments in Romans 7, says, “We know the law is [original illegible] But in Hebrews 7, [original illegible] he mentions “the law of [original illegible] commandments.”DSQ63 46.5

Christ speakers of the law, that [original illegible] should pass from, till heaven and earth should pass away. Matthew 5:18.DSQ63 46.6

Paul speaks of another law and says, “The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.” Hebrews 7:12.DSQ63 47.1

Paul declares that Christ abolished “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” Ephesians 2:15. But of another law Christ says. “Think not that I am come destroy the law.” Matthew 5:17.DSQ63 47.2

Nehemiah says that God gave on mount Sinai “right judgments, true laws, good statutes and commandments.” Nehemiah 9:13: but in Ezekiel 20:24, 25, God says. “I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.”DSQ63 47.3

Peter calls “the law of Moses” a yoke “which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.” Acts 15:5, 10. But Paul on the ten commandments in Romans 7, says, “I delight in the law of God after the inward man;” and, “with the mind I serve the law of God.” Verses 22, 25.DSQ63 47.4

God has carefully distinguished between the moral and the ceremonial laws: 1. He spoke the moral law in the hearing of all the people: but the ceremonial law he gave privately to Moses. 2. He wrote the mora1 law with his own finger on stone: but the ceremonial law was only written by the hand of Moses in a book. 3. The tables of the moral law were place in the golden ark made for the express purpose: but the book of the ceremonial law was placed by the side of the ark. The moral law was the rule of life, and showed what sin was; but the ceremonial law was given to point the mind of the sinner to the atonement for sin. It was added because of the transgressions of the [original illegible] law. God had made a distinction. What God does is significant. In the light of these facts I protest against jumbling all the laws of the Bible together, and then sweeping them all away together at the cross. The moral law cannot change with the change of dispensation. It is as immutable as God himself, and can no more be abolished or changed than God’s eternal throne.DSQ63 47.5