The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

TWENTY-FIFTH SPEECH

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—I do not know that it is necessary on my part, when I have shown a false issue, for me to follow in every point of the conclusion deduced from it, but, in the present instance, as my opponent charges me with overlooking the most important part of his argument, I will notice the 9th verse. [Reads.] Now, says he, what is glorious? He replies, the ministration of condemnation. Well, then, of course, the condemnation and the ministration of condemnation are not identical. Hence, there is a distinction to be made between death and the ministration of death. Here is expressly the distinction that I have claimed, and he has brought it out a little clearer than I did—that’s all. PSDS 93.2

Now, to proceed farther, in reference to the new covenant—1 Chronicles 16:15, 16, etc. My opponent often refers to his being troubled by not having his Scripture before him, and at a certain point of his remarks last night, he said Eld. Hall had difficulty relative to 2 Corinthians 3:7. Eld. Hall, as well as himself, had told me that he considered it settled beyond dispute. Now, he must have spoken positively, and he may be in doubt about some of the positions he now takes. But to go back to the text. The covenant here spoken [original illegible] was the ten commandments. He has shown that, and I will not, of course, attempt to disprove it. He says, I have admitted that the covenant made at Horeb or Sinai is the ten commandments, but I deny that I have admitted it, and shall deny it so long as I see good reason to do so. PSDS 94.1

My opponent makes a distinction between a law-giver and a law-maker. We claim the sole distinction is between making a law and conforming to the provisions of that law. Now, what need to go away to dictionaries, in order to know the Scriptures? etc. We think dictionaries are very important to the proper understanding of any language. From the readings of this Scripture, are we to conclude that the ten commandments are the covenant of God? Well, then, how could the children of Israel break these commandments? No man can break the covenant, or promise of God. God alone can break the covenant of God. I claim a distinction between a covenant and the condition of a covenant. He refers to Genesis 26:1-5. I have put no words in the mouth of the Lord, but I have gone to the Scripture in every instance. He considers that he has proved a parallel between the ten commandments and God’s covenant. It is true that the promise regarding the land was given, or repeated at the same time of the giving of the ten commandments, but they are by no means one and the same thing. But he pleads a parallel between Genesis 26. and 1 Chronicles 16:15 and 18. In the one case we have not only the promise given to Abram, but the reason, which is because of his obedience to God’s law. We have in both the promise and the commandments. My opponent goes on to show that the ten commandments are a covenant. I challenge him to show that there is another covenant commanded beside the one given at Sinai. This is the very covenant upon which the promise recorded in the context is based. But we will see if this is not the only commanded covenant in the Scriptures. He proved that the ten commandments were a covenant and that they were done away, and why didn’t I give right up? Simply because I don’t yield quite so easy. 2 Kings 23:3. Thus we see that there was a covenant that they had agreed to keep, and their agreeing to keep it was a covenant also. What is the definition of the word covenant? I must go to Webster, as he is acknowledged to be the best of all our authorities, in such matters. The first definition he gives, is a mutual agreement between two parties. Now, their agreement, and their promise to keep that agreement, were two different things—Exodus 19:3 and 6. The Lord here expresses a condition. Here is a promise on the part of the Lord, and a promise on the part of the people. That same condition is given as many as three times afterwards. Then, of course, the covenant was one thing, and the mutual agreement to keep that covenant was another thing. It was the covenant that demanded obedience. What covenant is it that demands obedience? Why, the ten commandments. Had they heard His voice? No; for His covenant was declared unto them by Moses. They did not see God. PSDS 94.2

I want to remark right here, that holiness of character depends upon obedience to God. Here was a law, it has been argued, that did not reach the heart. But obedience to God was recognized here, and how could a man love God well enough to obey Him without having his heart made better? If they transgressed that law, what? They were stoned to-death. But if by any means that penalty was avoided, how could he be punished except at the final judgment? To assume that a man could keep the ten commandments and only have temporal blessings conferred upon him, is an assumption unworthy of a professed Christian. PSDS 95.1

However, I am only under obligations to deny that assumption, not to prove its fallacy by argument. “All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do.” No one can deny that the mutual agreement was not made upon mutual conditions. They were promising to keep their covenant with God, and in return He was to call them His peculiar people. I do not think the law of Christ Jesus will place us in a better position than that. PSDS 96.1

But I want to examine one position, viz: That this is the very covenant that Moses made at Horeb. Was it the ten commandments? If we can show that God made a covenant at Horeb, and then made a covenant of the ten commandments or that that covenant was based upon the ten commandments, it will not prove that the ten commandments were of themselves a covenant. Now, what was the covenant made at Horeb? You say it was the ten commandments. But were they made at Horeb? Some of these precepts were binding before they were given at Mount Horeb. I want to know if sin was not recognized with reference to disobedience of the fourth commandment, before the ten commandments were given at Mount Sinai. The children of Israel had not got to Horeb, when that obligation was made known to them. When we bring the most positive evidence to this, for he went right back to the wilderness of sin, to prove that the obligation did not begin at Horeb. You will begin to allow that the obligation to observe the fourth commandment existed at the time of Abraham. 1 Chronicles 16. If at any time we have felt embarrassed by any of his sarcasms, it was certainly not when he accused us of thinking more of—. The contrast that we have got cannot be broken down, except by fair argument. We have intended from the beginning to rest this discussion upon plain, unequivocal, Scriptural facts. I believe my brethren will not boast of my having defended what we believe to be the truth by anything except the plain word of God. We can only trust the result with the God of truth. That God hath declared that His commandments shall stand forever and ever. Abram understood the obligation imposed in every one of the ten commandments. The subject of the fourth commandment is revealed to man, before any of the rest. But we are asked, why was not this commandment recorded before? Moses did not write this history for the guidance of those of whom he wrote in this history. If a history of the United States should be written, you would not expect all the laws of the U. S. in it; and when we come to Moses, he was writing for the times in which he lived—for those of his own age. We have shown by implication, the pre-existence of these precepts. It is in Genesis 2. The Sabbath there recorded is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and no quibble on the land or earth will avail anything. What is the definition of sanctify? It is to set apart for a particular use. We do not understand that because God rested on the seventh day, therefore He, in creating other worlds, must rest on the seventh day. We understand that the seventh day was set apart for want, use and observance. Supposing we bring in seven articles for a friend to use, but one of them is to be set apart for a particular purpose. The only way is to tell that person of the use you wish him to put that particular article to. Thus it has been with God. He gives us seven days in each week, and they are for our use, but He says the seventh day shall be used only for a particular purpose. PSDS 96.2