The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

SEVENTH SPEECH

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—I have, respected friends, to notice some of the points that my opponent and myself have not yet fully settled between us, and I would remark in regard to the logic displayed on Mark 2nd, that I cannot see that it is by any means mended. PSDS 29.5

The conclusion I before arrived at, I repeat. The Sabbath was made at the creation, and Christ says “The Sabbath was made for man.” Now if it was set apart for man, it was for man’s use or observance, and if it was made at creation, it was made for man at creation. His position or proposition is this: that if it was made for man, it was made for the son of man. Well, I did not know before now that he claimed an identity between the son of man and the children of Israel, but so it seems, for he has claimed during the whole discussion that the fourth commandment was given especially to the children or Israel, and now he says that commandment or the Sabbath enjoined in it, was made for the son of man. I don’t know whether he will go further with his logic and claim that the son of man was delivered from Egyptian bondage or not, but this would follow from his reasoning as a matter of course. But please to note that in arriving at all his conclusions, he don’t quote a single scripture. PSDS 29.6

“Therefore the son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” This also must mean something. To whom does it refer? Will my opponent say to the son of man? I cannot see that his “logic” would mend the matter in this case either. PSDS 30.1

I am very confident that I did not make the statement that “obligation does not grow out of precept,” but I do not accuse him of misrepresentation as he has frequently accused me, at least impliedly. PSDS 30.2

The commandment was given to enforce the obligation. It is not necessary that the person under the obligation should be aware of the existence of that obligation. But the statement that “obligation does not grow out of precept” needs qualifying. Obligation is not always dependent upon the existence of precept for its existence. Now I think we shall have him trying to prove that the obligation growing out of the precept contained in the fourth commandment was not promulgated till that commandment was given upon Mount Sinai. PSDS 30.3

Leviticus 18:21 v. Here is one of certain specifications God has enjoined. 24th v. From this we see that in all these things the nations were defiled, and they were driven out because they had committed these abominations. PSDS 30.4

The promise, as recorded, was given to Abraham and his seed, but still these nations were driven out because they had done these abominations. One of these iniquities was the taking the name of the Lord in vain, as we have seen by v. 21st. Had they any law or commandment from God prohibiting or forbidding this sin? We do not know that they had, and yet they were driven out because they had committed it. Now I ask, does obligation always grow out of precept?—or must there necessarily be precept before there can be obligation? PSDS 30.5

Deuteronomy 5 ch. He intimates that I quote this scripture with a different purpose from himself. Well, I claim to have a different purpose, a very different purpose from his. He must not find fault with me for this. PSDS 31.1

He may argue that neither of these contain the fourth commandment, but both contain what they call the Sabbath of the Lord It was to prove this and the identity of this Sabbath of the Lord with the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, that I quoted the 14th v. Now, the verse that he quoted does not tell what the Sabbath was, but the verse that I quoted does. “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” etc. This passage that we have both quoted, proves something more than the reason why they were commanded to keep the seventh day. It proves that that seventh day or Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the Sabbath of the Lord. PSDS 31.2

But my opponent says that God’s resting on the seventh day after the creation of heaven and earth, is not the reason why He commanded its observance as a Sabbath, but it was because He delivered the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage. But why was the seventh day preferred over any other? God preferred that day because it was His rest-day. It was his holy-day, and this holy-day is recognized all through the Bible as the Sabbath of the Lord. Isaiah 58:13 v. Now the Lord had a holy day, and to avoid the point by saying that holy-day was not the Sabbath of the Lord, would be unworthy any honorable disputant. It is just as much recognized here as the day on which God rested from His work. Every seventh day is the Lord’s holy day, and the Lord’s holy day is the Lord’s rest-day or Sabbath. Every seventh day is a memorial of the creation of heaven and earth. I am not going to notice the proposition of my opponent that the Sabbath of the Lord could not exist before the Lord existed, a great many times. We notice that because he has got another thing appended to it that makes it a little more important. We admit that the Sabbath of the Lord could not exist before the Lord existed, but we do not admit that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment could not, therefore, exist till the fourth commandment existed. These things are not all necessarily contemporaneous. Now, I ask, could not the Lord of the Sabbath exist before the Sabbath of the Lord existed? But it is the fourth commandment Sabbath, and it could not exist, so says my opponent, before the fourth commandment existed. This we by no means admit. The Lord says, you will remember, “I am the God of Abram, Isaac,” etc. Shall we say therefore the God of Abram could not exist till Abram existed?—the God of Isaac could not exist till Isaac existed? Wonderful logic. Now I shall leave this point before an intelligent and discriminating people without further remark. PSDS 31.3

The turning point of my destiny seems to rest upon my being able to prove the identity of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment with the Sabbath of the Lord. My dear friend of the negative, do not publish me too soon. I pray you to wait till this discussion is over, at least. I just want to have the people see and judge for themselves whether I deserve to be published or not, before my name is sent out on its literary pilgrimage. Perhaps I may do something to prevent it yet. PSDS 32.1

I have already introduced Leviticus 18 ch., from which it appears that obligation existed without precept. “Where there is no law there is no transgression,” and “sin is not imputed when there is no law,” but we will see if any of these laws were binding before they were given. Genesis 18:20 v. Now, what is sin? A transgression of the law. But here we find sin before the law was given. I ask my opponent did the law exist before the sin spoken of in this passage existed? But this is not the first account of sin before the law was given. Cain slew his brother Abel before the law was given. Genesis 6:5 v. Here is wickedness or sin before the law was promulgated. But I shall not stop at the mere declaration of sin and consequent transgression of law before the law was given. I shall add a few quotations bearing directly upon those precepts which were written upon the tables of stone at Mount Sinai. Genesis 35:2, 3. Now, here Jacob enjoined it upon his house to put away their strange gods and build an altar to the true God, which plainly proves a violation of the first commandment. Was not this before the first commandment was given? PSDS 32.2

Sin existed among the heathen that knew nothing of the law, and that sin was recognized and punished. They had rendered themselves abominable though they knew nothing of the law; from which we see that sin is imputed where there is no law. PSDS 32.3

We find that Cain was recognized as a sinner before we have any record of the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” being promulgated on Mount Sinai. Exodus 1:17.——did not as the king of Egypt commanded them. They feared God, that is, they feared to sin against God. Genesis 20:9, etc. Here we find a transgression of the seventh commandment. Genesis 39:9, is also in point. We cannot find the first particle of evidence that these laws or commandments had been promulgated. God only reiterated in these commandments the obligations that had previously existed, for here we find sin recognized and duty recognized that could not be on any other principle. “How can I do this great wickedness,” etc. In the 31 ch. 30th and 32nd verses, the eighth commandment precept is recognized. We find the same in the 44 ch. 8th v. “How then should we that are honest never steal?” In the 9th v. we find a pretty severe sentence against them that sinned before the law was known. Now, every person knows that the book of Exodus is recognized as the book of the law, and no record of the promulgation of the law is to be found in Genesis, therefore—[Time up.] PSDS 33.1