The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

TWENTY-NINTH SPEECH

[A mutual explanation was made, by which it was agreed to have the discussion close as before arranged, and I did not think it necessary to repeat what was said.—[Reporter.] PSDS 108.2

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—I wish to notice a few criticisms that have come up in the course of this discussion, and the first is Matthew 5:18. My opponent substituted the word sooner for “till” in his reading of it. I am satisfied that this is an incorrect translation, and in support of my view of the meaning of this passage, I wish to give the criticism of Mr. Wesley. He says: “It was not the design of Christ to abolish His Father’s law. He renders the phrase “till all be fulfilled”——“till the consumation of all things—all things in the universe.” [Query: Does the word “consummation” mean consuming by fire or otherwise?—Reporter.] I simply say that my opponent has thrown out the remark that he would leave certain things to any grammarian. Here is Mr. Wesley for one, that is against him, and I would add there are several others on the same side with Wesley, though they may be of humble pretensions. PSDS 109.1

Again, my opponent has declared of the “golden rule,” that it teaches purer morality than the ten commandments. PSDS 109.2

Look at Matthew 7:12. “Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them:” for this is better than the law and the prophets. Does it read so? No, “for this is the law and the prophets.” Do you look for anything plainer than that? PSDS 109.3

Again, in Matthew 5:28, it is claimed that the Savior imposes an obligation that is not found in the ten commandments. Now, let us take a Scripture that my opponent has often used. Matthew 22:23 to 33. Could he have read that passage in Exodus, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob,” and said that it referred to the resurrection? Christ only declared it as evidence of the resurrection. PSDS 109.4

A great many deny that it refers to the resurrection, but I think it conclusively proves the resurrection from the dead. PSDS 109.5

Again, I wish to notice 2 Corinthians 3:7. The position my opponent takes on this is nothing new. He stated that condemnation and death art not identical. He made a marked distinction between the two, and I wish to make it also. The same distinction that he recognizes between condemnation and death, I recognize between ministration and death. If the ministration be identical with death, then the ministration is not done away, and if the condemnation be not identical with—, then they are both done away, but I never have found anything of the kind in the Scripture. [I will not vouch for the correctness of this last sentence.—Reporter.] PSDS 109.6

Again, God never enjoined the observance of but three yearly feasts, and to say that every day on which a holy convocation was enjoined was a feast day, is not right. All the yearly feast days were not Sabbaths. Leviticus 23:4. Then verse 38, there is a distinction. Again, that righteousness is without the law, I have admitted. Righteousness is by faith in Jesus Christ, because all have sinned. When we have faith in Jesus Christ, we are under grace. PSDS 110.1

I am not satisfied with the criticism of my opponent on Romans 2. He says, in effect, that one was condemned by the law and one by a law. No one would infer that there is any such thing in the text. The substance of the law was to be written on their hearts. The nations beside the Jews had such a knowledge of this law that their consciences would tell them what was right and what was wrong. Does the apostle say, whatsoever the law says to the Jews and a law says to the Gentiles? No such thing. PSDS 110.2

Last of all, my opponent thinks by bringing up Romans 7, he has brought me to a dead set. Well, I supposed it was my privilege to take just as many of the chapters in Rom., as I saw fit, and I did so. We both consider the book of Romans very good authority on this question. But he cites to Campbell and Whiting. Now, I affirm that it does not depend upon the will or law of the husband, whether a woman be an adulteress or not, but upon the law of God. According to my opponent’s view of this subject, there is only a very slight difference between us and the favored ones of the old dispensation, who were allowed to marry as many women as they chose, and put away their wives at pleasure. But what does Whiting say? [Reads.] Now, what does the next chapter say? 1st verse, etc. PSDS 110.3

I would say to my friends here, that these frequent interruptions embarrass me. My strength of body almost failed me before I got here, and it is exceedingly embarrassing as well as fatiguing to be interrupted as I have been during my last two speeches. PSDS 110.4

My opponent has denied that obedience to any one promise or command would ensure eternal life, but I have not time to collate and compare scripture. There are many points on which I would like to dwell, but it is not possible for me to do so in the time allowed me. I shall, therefore, be under the necessity of leaving them untouched. PSDS 110.5

[Mr. Stephenson, rising said;]—He said that according to my view it was left to the will of the husband to have as many wives as he chose, and I would like to have him show how that is to be fairly inferred from my remarks. When I see him so cramped for time, I do not think it out of place in me to offer him all the time he wishes. I would be glad to have him continue if he feels so disposed. He can have the time, and I will add that, as far as I am concerned, if any of his friends have any argument that they would like to bring before the people on this subject they can, also, have time. PSDS 111.1

[Mr. Waggoner, resuming:] My time is up and I will not occupy more now. PSDS 111.2