The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

TWENTY-SEVENTH SPEECH

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—I was speaking, this morning, of the covenant of God spoken in the ten commandments, showing that the obligation of man to observe them was not for the first time revealed or made known at Horeb. All that we can ascertain in reference to these laws is by implication. We infer that the law was recognized, from the fact that the principles of the ten commandments were recognized, and that the transgression of those principles was recognized and punished before the ten commandments were given at Mount Sinai, through Moses, to the children of Israel. In regard to the fourth commandment, we have seen that the obligation to observe it was imposed before it was given at Horeb. God sanctified the seventh day when He rested on it from the work of creation. To sanctify means to set apart for an especial purpose or use. The seventh day was not to be used by man as the other six days were, else it would not have been set apart or hallowed by the Almighty. Suppose I bring several articles for the use of a particular person or friend. One of them could not be set apart for a particular use without enjoining upon the person to whom it is given that it is so set apart. Thus the seventh day would not have been sanctified by God if it had not been set apart when it was given by Him to man. We find also that this covenant was subsequently set apart by God for a thousand generations. I shall not quote Scripture now to prove this, as it will only consume time. PSDS 102.1

Again, in regard to the assumption put forth by my opponent, that the ten commandments are not a law. They are a covenant complete, and my opponent has over and over admitted it by saying that there was nothing in the ten commandments except certain conditions, the keeping or observing of which was to be rewarded by a possession of the land of Canaan. Now, I wish to call your attention, to Hebrews 8., as quoted from Jeremiah 31. Verses 7-10. Now, we would inquire if it is not evident, from what we have shown, that the ten commandments are the conditions of both agreements? The firs covenant was an agreement, and the second was likewise an agreement, and both were based upon the same condition—the keeping of the ten commandments. Now, are the laws that God puts in the hearts of the people the same as the ten commandments and nothing else? The ten commandments, therefore, gendered to bondage. We think our opponent has more special pleadings on the ten comments than we have. PSDS 102.2

He quotes 2 Corinthians 3, to show that the ten commandments have been abolished or done away. He has claimed that there was a law abolished, and we have shown what that law was—that it was the law of ordinances. But he will not admit that anything else was abolished except the ten commandments. I’m sure I cannot help thinking my opponent’s conclusions are erroneous. PSDS 103.1

But there is something else to be noticed in Hebrews. I wish to notice the difference between the promises of the first and second covenants. Exodus 19. Moses stood between the people and the Lord. He took the word of the Lord to the people, and then took the word of the people to the Lord. He was, therefore, minister between the people and the Lord. PSDS 103.2

If the people broke a single covenant or condition of the covenant, God could not fulfill His promise to them. If they broke that law, He could not consider them His peculiar people at all. The heathen had done the abominations He prohibited, and He drove them out. This law was given to the children of Israel that they might develop holy characters. Now look at Hebrews 8:9. They did not keep the covenant of the ten commandments, therefore, the ten commandments must pass away. Some infer this, but I wish to inquire whether any one of the ten commandments is invalidated because the people broke it? If I make an agreement with another man, and he does not keep his part of the agreement, then it is, of course, invalidated; but with the covenant of the ten commandments, it is different; they, being given by the authority of God, were not invalidated because they were not obeyed by the people. There was no blood offered by that covenant that could take away sin; therefore, the law is not made void by faith. By faith the individual is brought into obedience or subjection to God’s law. There was no forgiveness brought by the ministration of the old covenant, but by the ministration of this new covenant we have forgiveness and the remission of sin. Hence, there are better promises given in this covenant than in the old, but the condition of these promises remains the same—obedience to the law of God. PSDS 103.3

But it is argued that if obedience to this first covenant only brought temporal blessings, disobedience would only bring temporal punishment, and vice versa. Now if the transgression of the conditions of the first covenant only brought temporal punishment, why did persons mediate? This is a nail fastened in a sure place that cannot be removed. PSDS 104.1

Chron. and Gen. He intimates that I need not go away back to Gen. again, but I want to do so—I don’t know how he can prevent it. I am perfectly willing to have him refer to as many passages, or to the same passage as many times as he may see fit, and he must give me the same privilege. I think, however, that the 26th chapter is the best parallel. In Psalm 60, it is just as distinctly stated, that the law of God shall be fulfilled in the meditation, as in the hearts of those who are to be the subjects of that meditation. Contrast does not mean a comparison. Webster does not give that as any definition whatever, of the word contrast. “I will put my law in,” etc. I say, if they understood what the Lord was speaking about—it was that He would take His law and put it into the hearts of the people, and by His law He meant the ten commandments. Not a law in contrast with this which was written on stones, but the same law. What would a law in opposition, or contrast to the ten commandments be? I, for one, do not want any law in contrast with the ten commandments put into my heart. Can any one wish it? I really hope not. Can any one show that the contrast or opposite of the ten commandments, are put into the hearts of God’s people, by the New Testament? I wish I had the time to pursue this position taken by my opponent, farther, and examine it in all its parts, but I have not. But I would ask every individual here, to decide the question fairly, whether it is the teaching of the Bible that the law of Jesus Christ puts the contrast of the ten commandments into the heart of any man—into the heart of the christian. PSDS 104.2

Galatians 5:19, etc. The exact application that I was going to make of this, has slipped my mind. But we could not suppose that the contrast of the ten commandments is put into the hearts of the people of God, either under the old or new dispensation. Christ is meditating, not only for those who have transgressed this covenant, but the first covenant also, for transgressions under both covenants are identical in their nature. The very individuals who had their sins taken away in type by the sacrifice of bulls and goats, have their sins taken away in fact in this dispensation. This is making a separation of God’s law into distinct parts that I cannot allow or assent to at all. PSDS 104.3