SECOND SPEECH

Mr. Stephenson in the Negative.—In the first place allow me to remark that I am willing to do as I would be done by, and therefore, if in the course of this discussion, my opponent should lack a few moments at the close of any speech, of having time enough to express his ideas, let him have it, I shall wish the same privilege extended to me.PSDS 6.4

I can, with all my heart, indorse all the preliminary statements of my opponent, as well as the sentiments expressed in the opening prayer.PSDS 7.1

I hail this auspicious morn with delight. I have long desired to see the day when there would be a fair and thorough investigation of this question, and while I can but deprecate my own want of ability to do justice to my side of the argument, I am still glad of the opportunity presented to meet my opponent. Though I do not, and shall not feel worthy to redeem the trust reposed in me by friends, I am still willing to go forth, with the armor of truth, and engage in the argument.PSDS 7.2

As I before remarked, much that my opponent has said I can fully indorse. But the question is that the Sabbath was made at creation, and it gives my opponent a chance to try to prove the affirmative. As to whether he has shown it to be true, will be seen in the sequel. It is one thing to make an assertion, and quite another to prove that assertion to be true.PSDS 7.3

He says the reason why the Lord sanctified the Sabbath must be shown. This reason is given in Exodus 20:11, instead of the 10th verse, as Elder Waggoner has stated.PSDS 7.4

My opponent has proved the fact of the creation of heaven and earth to be perpetual and eternal. This I will not deny.PSDS 7.5

There are so few points of difference in this first speech, that I do not know as I shall be able to consume all my hour in the reply, but one proposition I wish to notice, is the statement that the original and only reason given for keeping the Sabbath, was that God created heaven and earth in six days and rested the seventh day. This would have been true if he had not appended the exclusive adverb “only.” It was a reason, but not “the only” reason. He has stumbled at the very first step. He gives the general reason and ignores the specific one, which was, that God brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, and the house of bondage. This fact will be perpetual and eternal also. One word as to the record given by Moses. I believe he was a faithful witness.PSDS 7.6

I have said there was a specific reason for the observance of the fourth commandment, Sabbath, and I will prove it from the 15th v. of the 5th ch. of Deuteronomy: “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand, and by a stretched out arm; therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.” Is not this a reason? If it is, does it conflict with the reason given by my opponent? I indorse the general reason; will he indorse the specific? This reason not only limits but localizes the fourth commandment. While I freely admit his as a general reason, will he admit mine as a specific one? From this specific reason, it follows that the obligation enjoined in the fourth commandment was limited to one people, and was subsequent to their deliverance from the house of bondage. As long as God exists it will be a fact that he created heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh. The fact may exist a million of years, may exist forever. But it is the origin of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment with which we have to do. I admit the fact that God rested on the seventh day, but will the obligation to observe that day, as a Sabbath, exist through all eternity because the fact exists? By no means. God’s resting on the seventh day was a reason, but not the “only” reason. That was a general reason. The specific reason was that God delivered the children of Israel from Egyptian bondagePSDS 7.7

There is one thing that I am conscious of being, and that is an honest man up to this point. I can endorse Elder Waggoner’s reason, but not all of his language.PSDS 8.1

It seems to me he avoids the real question at issue, but I shall wait. The real point I shall not move just now, as I do not wish to anticipate him in his arguments.PSDS 8.2

Several times he declared that the creation is an eternal fact, and beyond the reach of God’s power to abrogate. This I admit as well as the fact of God’s resting on the seventh day, which is an eternal and immutable fact.PSDS 8.3

“Sabbath and rest signify the same.” No issue between us here. “The Lord’s Sabbath was the Lord’s rest-day.” My opponent says “turn to Exodus 20:8 v. If the phrases Sabbath and Rest signify the same, the Sabbath-day and Rest-day would be the same.”PSDS 8.4

I do not wish this dispute to consist of a mere bandying of words, and therefore, where there is no difference between us, I shall not take issue.PSDS 8.5

“The creation of heaven and earth eternal” again. I will admit it as an eternal fact, and hope that my repeated admissions will satisfy my opponent. He remarked that “God blessed the rest-day because He rested from his work.” The phrase “the rest-day” wants something to qualify it. It should be “the Lord’s rest-day.” “The seventh day was not blessed because He made heaven and earth, but because He rested.” No issue here. “God blessed and sanctified the seventh day because He rested.” I want to reach a point where I can make an application of this admission. I indorse nearly all the statements my opponent has made up to this point. I do not wish to anticipate him in my first speech.PSDS 9.1

The reason why God rested on the seventh day, and the reason why man was to observe it as a Sabbath are two different things, notwithstanding my opponent thinks he has “dug to the rock” in calling them the same.PSDS 9.2

“The Sabbath was made for man,” and set apart for the observance of man at creation, my opponent says, because God rested on that day, sanctified and made it holy; but he must travel over four thousand years from the time of God’s resting, etc., to the New Testament declaration, and this he does at a single leap. He thinks he has proved to you that the “Sabbath was made for man,” because God rested on that day, but, did God call the seventh day on which He rested from the creation of heaven and earth, holy? Did He call the Sabbath of the fourth commandment holy because He rested on that day? It was because He blessed and sanctified that day, and not because He rested on it.PSDS 9.3

“Why was the Sabbath of the fourth commandment called holy? Because God rested on that day at creation.” This, my opponent says, is the only reason he shall give throughout this discussion. “Because God rested on that day.” He supposes so, let him prove it from the scriptures and one important point is gained.PSDS 9.4

Turn to the 23 ch. of Leviticus and you will find many feast days, all called Sabbaths of the Lord, as I shall prove. Now I do not wish to anticipate in the argument, but why were the festival sabbaths called holy? Why were they called rests? Because the Lord feasted and rested. Were they called sabbaths because the people had rested? or because the Lord had commanded the people to feast and to rest? The latter I think the most reasonable, because the Lord commanded the people to observe those days, and not because they had observed them.PSDS 9.5

It is a principle in logic that an argument proving too much, proves nothing, and I think my opponent’s argument proves too much, according to these applications.PSDS 10.1

It is a fact that the Lord planted a garden, and that fact will exist to all eternity; but does that prove that the garden itself will exist to all eternity?PSDS 10.2

Just in the same way it is proved that precepts will exist to all eternity, because the facts upon which they are based will thus exist. Will the existence of facts give permanency to the obligation or precept growing out of them? There is nothing to be deducted from such a flimsy premise.PSDS 10.3

Exodus 16:23 v. Now where had the Lord said “to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord?” “At the creation,” says my opponent; but did he prove it? He found nothing about “to-morrow” at the creation, but he did find the “seventh day.” So he puts the seventh day of one passage with the seventh day of another, and calls them the same. But where the context fully explains and illustrates the text, my opponent should not digress from it. There is nothing here to show that the “to-morrow” was the seventh day on which the Lord rested. It was the seventh day from the giving of the manna. No reference is made to the creation week. A mere coincidence of words does not prove the coincidence of days. The “to-morrow” of the text was the day after the sixth; therefore it was the seventh day, and it is here called “a holy Sabbath unto the Lord,” but, remember it was the seventh day after giving of the manna, and we have no proof that it was the day on which God rested from the creation. It could not be the identical twenty-four hours.PSDS 10.4

In v. 27 we find that the people went out in violation of this commandment and found no manna. “And the Lord said unto Moses, how long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?” Now we admit that in this, as in all cases, a law must be given before it can be violated. But what need of going back to creation as my opponent does? It almost seems that he can only see two points, and they are the creation and the giving of the fourth commandment. Why go back beyond Egyptian bondage to find a reason for this law? Because, just take time out of the obligation and there is no obligation there, and my opponent knows it. He has given you the particulars with reference to two days. The Sabbath of the text was given to the children of Israel after their deliverance from Egypt, and my opponent claims that it was given to them 2500 years before; but, could that have been the reason of their receiving twice as much bread on the sixth day? God could not give that people a Sabbath before they existed. Is not this “a nail in a sure place?”PSDS 10.5

[Here Mr. Stephenson got to talking in “double quick time,” or at the rate of about 200 words a minute, and therefore the report is imperfect, for which I am sorry.—Reporter.]PSDS 11.1

There are two points between which the Sabbath must have been given, i.e., creation and the giving of the law at Sinai, after they had been brought from Egyptian bondage. Read the law regulating the gathering of manna, v. 4. They were to gather twice as much on the sixth day. This law goes just as far back as the wilderness of sin.PSDS 11.2

They gathered twice as much on the sixth day. Some of the rulers came and told Moses “that the people had violated his commandments,” No.; for they had obeyed this commandment of God, as communicated to Moses, Exodus 16:5. Now, said Moses, “this is what the Lord hath said, to-morrow is the Sabbath unto the Lord,” 22 and 23 verses. Does Moses tell the truth or not? An inspired man should always tell the truth. The Lord must have said so at that time, and not at creation. The Lord did say so at the time, and did not refer back to the creation, as my opponent did. Did the Lord give that people the Sabbath at creation? Were they required to observe it because it was given to them at creation? I call upon Elder Waggoner to prove when the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was given to man, if it was not at the time the fourth commandment itself was given. Where? at what time? before the children of Israel entered the wilderness of sin? Was the Sabbath of the fourth commandment given to them? Its observance was enjoined in connection with the giving of the manna, but God does not intimate, Moses does not intimate that it was to be observed by man, or had been observed by him before that time. It was given at the wilderness of sin, and commemorates the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage. This is evident from the specific reason for its observance, before quoted from Deuteronomy 5:15. It is agreed that obligation and precept go hand in hand, but obligation between child and parent cannot be shown before child and parent exist. Why did God command them to observe a Sabbath at all? Because God brought them out of the land of Egypt. The commandment itself grew out of the Lord’s delivering the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage. With the fourth commandment this Sabbath must stand or fall.PSDS 11.3

This specific reason will also appear from Exodus 31:17. “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel.” The time when the Sabbath was ordained, and the time it ceased to exist, the two great points of the discussion, are here clearly shown. Let us not fight at swords’ points. Let every body see and hear our arguments. With all my heart I say, I indorse the idea expressed in the prayer that truth may prevail. If the words or arguments of either disputant are not the truth, let him be vanquished. But about the time. I refer to the ch. last mentioned, commencing at the 13th v. “Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep, for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations.” “Between me and you.” So says the scripture, and it cannot be applied, at least not justly applied to anybody else. “Throughout your generations.” Not everybody, but “your.” Next verse, “for it is holy unto you.” Who now can say that the Gentiles should observe it when it is here expressly declared to be a sign between God and the children of Israel? We think we have proved that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment originated in the wilderness of sin. Elder Waggoner thinks he has proved it to have originated on the day God rested from the creation of heaven and earth. Both positions cannot be true. That would be impossible.PSDS 12.1

Again, in Deuteronomy 4:13: “And He declared unto you his covenant which He commanded you to perform, even the ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.” By the fourth commandment we mean the fourth of the ten, and they are God’s covenant with the children of Israel, (and with no other people,) made at Mount Sinai.PSDS 12.2