Report of a Discussion in Gridley, Ills., on the Sabbath Question.
By Isaac Sanborn
PROPOSITION. Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh-day Sabbath was made at creation, and is binding through the gospel dispensation? I affirmed; Eld. Moss [Disciple] denied. 1. My first argument was based on the institution of the Sabbath. Gen. ii, 1, 2. I showed that God labored six days, and that he rested on the seventh day, which made it his Sabbath, or rest-day. I showed that this fact yet exists, and hence the institution based on the fact, yet exists. This was not replied to by Eld. Moss. 2. God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his works which God created and made. Gen. ii, 3. I then called on Eld. M. to show that God ever removed his blessing from it, which he did not attempt. I then proved that it was made for man, Mark ii, 27, and that man in that text must include the whole human family, according to Barrett's Grammar: "A noun without an adjective is invariably taken in its broadest sense; as, Man is accountable." Therefore the Sabbath was made for all men, which would perpetuate it through the gospel dispensation, as men would live through it. I next proved that it was a sign between God and his people forever, that they might know that he was the Lord that sanctified them, Ex. xxxi, 13–17, which perpetuates it as long as God has a sanctified people in this world, which will certainly reach through the gospel age. Next I proved from Rom. iii, 19, that every mouth would be stopped, and all the world be made subject to the judgment of God, by what the law said. As the fourth commandment of the law says that the seventh day is the Sabbath, therefore the Sabbath is binding throughout the gospel dispensation. These arguments were not noticed at all. The Eld. said he would prove that no man could be a Christian and keep the first commandment. And how do you suppose he undertook to do it? He tried to show that we have two Gods in the gospel dispensation, therefore the first commandment was done away by the coming of Christ; for since that time we have had two Gods. I then quoted Paul, 1 Cor. viii, 4–6, "We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one; for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many and lords many; but to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." This silenced his battery in that direction. His next position was that there was not one of the ten commandments in the Christian institution, especially the last six, because they were political; therefore they were not binding. I pressed him to know when they ceased. He said, When Christ fulfilled them. They ceased as fast as he fulfilled them. I then showed that according to his own argument the law passed away at least three years before Christ was crucified, notwithstanding they crucified two thieves with him, three years after the elder's argument proved that the law, Thou shalt not steal, was done away. He next said that the ten commandments and ceremonial law were all one law, which was the law of Moses, and all expired together, by being fulfilled. I then showed that there was one law nailed to the cross. Col. ii, 14. He then took the position that the ten commandments were abolished at the cross. His position stands as follows: 1. The ten commandments ceased by limitation, 2. By being fulfilled, 3. By being nailed to the cross. As the Elder had asserted that the law was dead, and that there was not one of the ten commandments that could be found in the Christian system, which he said was contained in the twenty-one epistles, I pressed him till he acknowledged nine of them in the aforesaid epistles. Here he was completely down again. In his next speech he brought forward as his new law, what Christ said in Matt. v, 27, 28: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery. But I say unto you that69whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." I admitted that the Saviour here told what adultery was, but did not tell whether it was right or wrong. So the Elder had to fall back to the original command, Thou shalt not commit adultery. So in 1 John iii, 15: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer." But John does not say in this text that it is wrong to hate. So we are thrown right back to the original command, Thou shalt not kill. I then showed that all that the Elder referred to as a new law, was but a fulfillment of the prophecy of Isa. xliii, 21: "The Lord is well pleased for his [Christ's] righteousness' sake. He will magnify the law and make it honorable." Here the Elder never attempted a reply. We have large congregations, with a seemingly deep interest among the people to learn the truth. May God bless them and lead them out, is our prayer.