The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

SEVENTEENTH SPEECH

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—It is of course true that a statement affirmed is not worth anything till it is proved, and if the other overthrows the affirmative, it is of course good for nothing. Now, the ten commandments are a law spoken of distinct from all other laws, and we read that it was spoken by the voice of God. The testimony is that God did not speak any more, and there is no evidence that God wrote any more than the ten commandments. But my opponent claims that God did not write them at all—they were written by an angel. If I thought myself really mistaken, I might stop in my argument and notice my friend’s position. He thinks an angel wrote the law, but I cannot see that an angel could have written the law of the ten commandments any more than he could have written what Moses wrote. Exodus 31:12-18. Now is it admissible to read “an angel” for the “the Lord” in this instance? Have we any evidence that the ten commandments were written by proxy—by an angel, instead of “with the finger of God,” as this Scripture plainly declares? We have none. There was an angel there when it was written, but that does not prove that an angel wrote the law. We might, with equal propriety, claim that it was written by Moses, because Moses was there. Exodus 31:16.—Deuteronomy 33:2, etc. But let us look at Psalm 68:17. We believe there were many angels there, but the Lord was among them. Now, the claim that because an angel was on Mount Sinai, therefore the Lord did not do as He said He did, is poor argument certainly. PSDS 67.1

It is indeed a matter of regret that we have to go over and over the same ground so many times. Now, it is no more true that the ten commandments area Jewish law because they were given to those that came up out of the land of Egypt, than it is that the God who gave these commandments was or is only the God of those who came out of the land of Egypt. I have thus far failed to get my opponent to read the fourth commandment. He will neither quote directly from Exodus or Deuteronomy. I must say that I hope we shall not be under the necessity of going back to examine such points again. PSDS 68.1

We will now turn our attention to some texts in the New Testament, and I will go a little farther in my argument, which, by the way, my opponent has not yet touched. The phrase “the law” refers to different things at different times, or it does not. If I can show a distinction between the signification of the term law in one place and the same term in another place, then I shall have proved the existence of two separate laws. But my failure to establish the fact of two separate laws will be “published to the world,” as my opponent says. My defeat will be “published to the world” in language unmistakable. The hottest part of the battle will have been fought and victory forthwith declared to the negative of our proposition. We will see. PSDS 68.2

Turn again to Romans, where Paul is arguing a distinction between two laws—7:14, etc. Now, we will look at the declaration in Hebrews 7:16. The law of the carnal commandments was abolished—was broken down. Now, Romans 3:19 proves that that law was spoken to the whole world. Then, in Ephesians 3., instead of governing the whole world, this law or middle wall of partition was broken down. Here is a marked difference between the two laws, one of which was declared to be broken down or abolished. Now, we will look at James 2:10-12, and see if we have got a law abolished there. [Reads.] I have before endeavored to establish the fact that when the middle wall of partition was broken down, Jesus Christ brought them all into subjection to the principle or law on which the commonwealth of Israel was based. Verse 8-11, etc. Here he is again in harmony with the law of God. The condition of the kingdom is obedience to the equal law. It is according to this scripture that they are to fulfil the royal law, or they cannot be heirs of the kingdom—11th verse—because the law is an unit. He that said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” said also, “Thou shalt not kill.” If thou kill, thou art become “a transgressor of the law.” Very well; then this is to be fulfilled according to that scripture which says “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” and this is the law by which they are to be judged. By taking the second chapter of Romans, we have shown that this is the very law by which God will judge the world. Here [on his card, I suppose.—Reporter.] is the one by which they shall be judged. But this other law is spoken of in Colossians 2:14, etc. Now, here are the ordinances exactly declared in Ephesians 2:15. But there is something that is not abolished. The law of ordinances is taken out of the way and nailed to the cross, but the other is not taken out of the way. Between Romans and Ephesians, and farther between Matthew and Ephesians, we institute a comparison, and infer the existence of two laws. “I am not come to destroy,” etc., “but to fulfil.” Haying abolished in His flesh even the law contained in ordinances. But there is a law which has not been abolished, and here it is. [On his card, I suppose.—Reporter.] But, says one, do you not see that He has given a new condition that does not appear on the tables of stone? If He did not destroy them or nail them to the cross, they must still be in effect. Now, my opponent will claim that because Christ has got some commandments that were not written on the tables of stone, therefore He has reversed all that were written. I am not willing to admit that an individual could hate his neighbor in any particular and still keep the ten commandments. I do not believe that a man can love God with all his heart and still hate his neighbor. God blesses them that love Him and keep His commandments, and they are to love Him according to the letter of the commandments. My opponent says he can keep the six commandments and not love his neighbor; but I do not believe any such position can be assumed and maintained. He charges me with making assumptions, but I claim there has been more assumed on that side of the question than can be sustained by quotations from the word of God. Many of my opponent’s assertions certainly cannot be successfully supported by scripture. We have the testimony of the Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, that the Lord wrote on the tables of stone with His own fingers, and we have the confession of our opponent that nothing save these ten commandments were written on the tables of stone; therefore God must have written them Himself with His finger. Romans 5:19, etc. The entering of a law that the offense might abound must be the entering of the same law that was violated, because you cannot make a man sensible of committing an offence against a law in reference to which he had no previous knowledge. We think we have proved from the Scriptures that this means the law that was confirmed to them at Mount Sinai. vi. 1, 2, etc. By that are we to presume that we are to do every thing commanded in the Old Testament? By no means. The law of ordinances was abolished. PSDS 68.3

But I would like to notice Romans 5:19 a little more particularly. What is sin? Now, I consider that sin is disobedience of law. Obedience is not the transgression of the law, certainly. Hence, the keeping of the law is the opposite of transgression. Jesus Christ came to bring man to obedience. Shall we continue in disobedience that sin may abound? By no means. [Time up.] PSDS 70.1