The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

ELEVENTH SPEECH

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—I remark first in regard to the question of order. You will see that I have treated the Mosaic dispensation as but one part or branch of God’s plan of government. I regard the purposes of God as a unit, and I claim that God’s commands never conflict with each other. I have taken several of the precepts of the ten commandments, and have shown that they existed before their promulgation from Mount Sinai. I intend henceforth to pursue another course and show the perpetuity of that law. I called your attention to the fact that several of the New Testament writers have recognized the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and, so far as we know, there has been no abrogation of that or any other of the ten commandment precepts. It is my privilege to show that there has been no abrogation of that law, as well as other things relevant to our discussion. My opponent intimates that unless I lead out faster, he will go on and prove the negative. He may do so when I give him the privilege, but not before. One thing should be taken into account, our temperaments are widely different; and therefore, he may be displeased with my mode of pursuing an argument; or I may be displeased with his. But let me say, once for all, that I have led in this discussion just as fast as I intended to lead. I wish to get the truth fairly before the people, so that they could judge for themselves. PSDS 46.2

I will acknowledge that I have no very extensive or remarkable knowledge of logic, and I must say that I have never had an opportunity to take lessons except in this tent and during this discussion, in such logic as has here been presented by my opponent. He has acknowledged, virtually at least, that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was made at creation, for the only Sabbath mentioned in the fourth commandment is the Sabbath of the Lord. There is certainly but one Sabbath mentioned in the fourth commandment. Either the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was made at the creation, or the Sabbath of the Lord was not made at the creation, for they are the same. And yet, according to my friend of the negative, the Sabbath of the Lord existed at the creation, and the Sabbath of the fourth commandment did not; that is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not identical with itself. I confess that I cannot see why he makes this “distinction without a difference,” I confess, freely, and before all these intelligent people, that I do not understand such “logic.” I do not wonder that my friend desired that I should lead off into another field, for, if I were in his place, I should wish the same. I should wish to leave this part of the subject and my own “logic” as soon as possible. PSDS 46.3

1 Chronicles 16:16 v. Is it “logic” to affirm that this covenant was a promise? Can the people keep or break the promise of God? We hear that they sometimes break the law, but never the promise. Why should the two terms be brought together? The promise and the law. It would take considerable of my friend’s “logic” to convince me that they are the same. PSDS 47.1

Now, the commanding of the covenant “to a thousand generations” we would like to have kept in sight, as we may refer to it again. PSDS 47.2

My opponent remarked in one of his speeches that I made a tremendous bound over the Old Testament into the New, but I must take the course I think best, whether it is what he would term leading out or not. PSDS 47.3

Jeremiah 6:19. The law written on the two tables of stone is the one here spoken of, and it was rejected. PSDS 47.4

17 ch. 20th, 21st, 22nd verses, also. I want to know if they were not to hallow this Sabbath day according to the law God had given them at Mount Sinai. But some will say this was according to the ceremonial law instead of the moral law. You may take all the ceremonies of the Mosaic dispensation, and you will find they are all instituted in consequence of a violation of the law of the ten commandments. “Sin is the transgression of the law,” and if they had not transgressed the law, there would never have been any ceremonies instituted. Again, the Lord spoke the ten commandments with his own voice. He declared the covenant and commanded them to keep it. We wish to claim a distinction between the covenant made and the covenant commanded. Jeremiah 7:22, 23. They were the condition of the covenant—“that it may be well unto you.” Now we only claim a distinction which God himself has made. We wish to call attention to the 89th Psalm. Here David is speaking by prophesy. 27th v. He has made a covenant with David according to the first part of this chapter. “——and their iniquity with stripes.” There is a condition laid down here which is keeping of the commandments of the Lord. Jeremiah 9. We want to ascertain the law upon which His promises are based. The chapter commences with a most bitter lamentation. It is a very peculiar chapter. 22nd verse, etc. The obedience required of the children of Israel is that they forsake, not the Lord’s law which He set before them. They are required to obey his voice, that is, the law spoken by His voice at Mount Sinai. My opponent claims that God gave this law only to His special people—the children of Israel—but could not the other nations—the Gentiles—be made partakers of its benefits? Look at the New Testament on this point. Matthew 23. Here is a parable commencing at the 33rd verse, but I will not take the time to read it all. “——therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you,” etc. The condition was their disobedience to the voice of God, and therefore He would give the kingdom to those who would obey his voice, or keep his commandments. PSDS 47.5

[I find nothing about the “voice” or “commandments,” either, in the parable referred to, but have given a true copy of my phonographic report, here, as elsewhere. Perhaps Mr. W. may have found something about “voice” or “commandments” in the marginal references, but if so, he did not allude to them so as to enable me to note it.—Reporter.] PSDS 48.1

John has declared that this is the love of God that they keep His commandments. But this is more clearly brought to view in the 5th ch. 17th and 18th verses of Matthew. “I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill,” etc. Now the only chance of avoiding the conclusion that Christ did not do away with the law of the ten commandments, is to claim that the word fulfilled means the ending; but I shall not meet this position till it is advanced. “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,” etc. Now, if the word fulfill means the ending in the 17th verse, fulfilled must mean ended in the 18th.——Then this cannot refer to the law which was declared to be abolished——distinct from the law given on Mount Sinai.——What is the conclusion of the whole matter? That He is not going to abolish the ceremonial law till heaven and earth pass? No: because it was the condition of the covenant that He came to preach.——or, as Campbell renders it, “shall be of no esteem,” if I remember right.—— PSDS 48.2

[This is badly “mixed” here, but I can’t help it.—Rep.] PSDS 49.1

And then Christ goes on farther, and, if I can judge correctly, directly across the track of my opponent’s remarks last evening. He has given us the same that the prophets had.——What is adultery? 27th v. It is a transgression of the seventh commandment, and Jesus has not here introduced a new law. Does He say that a man’s mind may be filled with adultery, etc., (as my opponent did last evening,) and yet not transgress the commandments? Has He gone one side of the seventh commandment? My opponent says he can have as many wives as Brigham Young, and still keep all the ten commandments. Our Savior has quoted the seventh commandment, word for word, from the decalogue——. That is the Savior’s statement.——I might go on to other declarations to show that hatred is a violation of the sixth commandment.—If a man kills his brother by accident, his is no murder; but if he hates him, he is. It must include sinful feelings as well as actions. About drunkenness: Permit me, my friends, to take the scripture in this case. Is not drunkenness the gratification of a depraved appetite? Is not the drunkard one of those mentioned by the Apostle, who “make a God of their belly?” Do you believe that this is literal, or figurative? I consider that drunkenness is a species of idolatry, and therefore that it is a plain violation of the first commandment. PSDS 49.2

Now, what about the fifth commandment? My opponent says it is a different one in the New Testament. What does Paul say in Ephe. 6, 1, 3? Now, it is claimed that this is not the same promise, because that is the land, and this is the world, or the earth. Very well, we will see—[Time up.] PSDS 49.3