ELDER CORNELL’S TWELFTH SPEECH

My friend says he has not denied that the law was holy, but Paul writes to the Romans twenty years this side of where he says the law was abolished, and says The law is holy. Bro. Grant’s “was holy” is not there.DSQ63 58.1

He now admits that if the Sabbath is binding it has the same penalty as the other nine commands. Thus he has now given up all he has said about the Sabbath having no penalty if it is now in existence.DSQ63 58.2

If I will read church history I will find that the first day is the Lord’s day. Indeed! Has it come to this that we must leave the Bible and take history for our guide. Take the Bible as far as it goes on our side, and history for the rest. This is the Catholic rule in full.DSQ63 58.3

He says Paul kept back nothing profitable, but never said a word about keeping the Sabbath. This argument assumes that what Paul did not teach is not now binding. Let us apply this rule. Paul never said one word about keeping the first day in honor of the resurrection of Christ, therefore it is not profitable. Here again, my friend has run full till against his own position.DSQ63 58.4

I will now refer to some of our arguments:DSQ63 58.5

1. We have shown that Christ recognized the Sabbath in his teaching as an existing institution. He said it was “made for man,” and taught that it would be in existence in a. d. 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed.DSQ63 58.6

2. The disciples rested on the Sabbath, according to the commandment, after Christ was crucified. He has not even attempted to answer this. It is too late for him now. He cannot leave my main proofs until his last speech, so that I can have no chance to notice his reply. He saw no way to answer it, and therefore concluded not to grapple with it.DSQ63 58.7

3. We have shown that the Sabbath was instituted for man at creation; that God sanctified it there; and the word sanctify means “to set apart for a holy use,” which could not be done without a proclamation to that effect.DSQ63 59.1

4. That the Sabbath existed before the covenant of Sinai, and independent of it: hence the passing away of that covenant could not affect the Sabbath.DSQ63 59.2

5. We have given the most positive proof that the moral law, as a whole, is endorsed and enforced by Christ and the apostles. Paul proves all the world sinners by the law, twenty-nine years this side of the cross. Romans 3:19. If the law was abolished, it could not prove that any were guilty before God.DSQ63 59.3

6. That the Sabbath or Lord’s day is recognized by John in a. d, 96, on the isle of Patmos.DSQ63 59.4

7. We have seen in numerous instances that the negative has overthrown his own positions. All ten of the commands were abolished, then only one. The trouble some Sabbath is not binding now because it is not commanded over again. But the first day blinding without ever being once commanded. If the Sabbath is still binding, the stoning penalty is also, but the nine commands can be brought over without that penalty.DSQ63 59.5

We have seen that the reasons and facts on which the Sabbath institution was based still exist, hence the institution must exist. This argument has not been met. Before the Sabbath can be abolished, he must destroy the facts and reasons on which it is based. 1. God rested on the seventh day. 2. He sanctified the day on which he rested. 3. Conclusion: therefore we must “Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” This was our argument on the institution of the Sabbath. We are now ready to submit the question, and we do so with the kindest of feelings to all, hoping that the investigation may result in much good.DSQ63 59.6