The Perpetuity of the Seventh-day Sabbath

THIRD SPEECH

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—We need not introduce the subject to you by any remarks. Elder Stephenson has said that he was glad there was so many points upon which he could agree with us. We do not claim an agreement to all his admissions. Indeed we believe the converse of some of them to be true. PSDS 13.1

He led out and anticipated positions which he supposed I might take or would take. He has gone entirely beyond me. He has been considering the last part of the question in dispute, and that is a point at which I had not arrived. I had only taken the first part of the issue. I did not endeavor to establish the precept, and I am not bound to follow him in all the arguments he has adduced on this point, and prove them false. I have not got to that part of the subject. The preliminaries are indorsed, and then the question is raised whether I have met the issue. The main issue will be the time when the Sabbath originated, and then the question of its observance afterwards. PSDS 13.2

God rested on the seventh day, and this is the ground of the institution, and the argument is based on the institution. But mark, he says there is a “specific” reason given in the 5th ch. of Deut., and that is because the Lord brought the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; and then the question is raised, does the general reason supercede the specific one? He admits that my reason is a general one, and, I ask, does the specific reason, which follows the general one, in any way supercede that general reason? My question is, I think, as pertinent as his. In order to “read” the force of this, he has led out and stated positions that the conditions of the discussion or progress of the debate will not warrant, and which do not militate against what I had said. There is a general reason, then, for the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, but, he has gone on to show that the specific reason localizes and limits the observance of the precept to the children of Israel. PSDS 13.3

But what was that seventh day? My opponent is very tenacious that it was the seventh day from the falling of the manna, and he don’t wish me to leave the context. It seems I don’t argue exactly to suit him, but this I cannot help. PSDS 13.4

[Here the 14th ch. of Deut. is referred to, but I cannot see the application made of any passage taken from it.—Reporter.] PSDS 14.1

Exodus 34th, etc. It is a sign and a peculiar sign, especially to that people. PSDS 14.2

[I cannot exactly get the connection of the passages here referred to, with the remarks made upon them. The verse is omitted and I am not at liberty to supply it.—Reporter.] PSDS 14.3

We have not turned to the passages referred to, but the substance of them is that the Sabbath was a sign. PSDS 14.4

Can we identify this seventh day? Let us see if we can prove it to be the same on which the Lord rested after the creation. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the seventh day He rested.” This my opponent seems to have overlooked. By a comparison of this with Exodus 16th, we prove that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was the identical seventh day on which the Lord rested. My proposition was to prove that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment originated at the creation, but my opponent says it originated at the wilderness of sin. And he is bringing in another affirmative question against the affirmative question presented for our discussion. He makes the admission that I have given a general reason for the setting apart of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment; therefore the seventh day is the Sabbath, and because the Sabbath was the seventh day of the creation, it was set apart. This he admits to be the general reason. Does his “specific” reason destroy the general one? We have his admission. If he wishes to make such an issue he can argue alone. His admission we wish you to mark, and also that he has said nothing to go against the point I had proved. He says, and truly too, that this is an arrangement, by Moses, of the ten commandments that God had given to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai. We shall in the course of the discussion, have something to do with the observance of the fourth commandment Sabbath, by other people than the children of Israel, but this is not the time to introduce it as we are now on the first part of the proposition under consideration. PSDS 14.5

But here is a reason, he urges, that limits and localizes the fourth commandment injunction, and shows it to have been made subsequent to the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage. In reply I would ask, why was the seventh day sanctified? Why was the seventh day chosen in preference to any other day? “Keep the seventh day as the Lord has commanded thee.” The Sabbath then must have been given previously, or the Lord would not have commanded them to keep it. “In it thou shalt do no work,” etc., that is in the seventh day. Why was the seventh day chosen to be sanctified? The only reason that can be given, was that God rested on that day after the creation. There has been nothing brought forward by my opponent that militates against this position. Even my opponent’s admission goes to strengthen our arguments. PSDS 15.1

Why is the seventh day denominated the rest-day? I can bring testimonies plainly pointing out that God recognized or recognizes the seventh day as the Sabbath or rest-day; because on that day He rested when He had made heaven and earth. PSDS 15.2

But I wish to make another point just now, and therefore, I would refer to Deuteronomy 6:24 v. PSDS 15.3

[The 10th and 16th verses are also referred to, but I cannot see any connection with the subject, so I leave them out of the report, thinking they might have been named by mistake.—Reporter.] PSDS 15.4

“And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day.” As you perceive, I can show from this scripture that the fear of God is based upon the same specific reason named by my worthy opponent, viz., that God brought them out of the land of Egypt. Will Elder Stephenson carry his logic as far as it will carry him? Will he claim that the same specific reason exists for an observance of the injunction to fear God that applies in the case of the fourth commandment Sabbath? Will not his “principle of logic that an argument proving too much proves nothing,” apply to his “specific reason” argument? I think it will. If his specific reason holds, then no man is under obligation to fear God except he has been delivered from Egyptian bondage. Will Elder Stephenson acknowledge the position to which his “specific” reasoning has led him? PSDS 15.5

Let us apply it to another passage. Take Deuteronomy 24:17, 18 verses. “Thou shall not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take the widow’s raiment to pledge; but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence; therefore I command thee to do this thing.” Now it follows as a legitimate, and I might say “logical” conclusion, on the principle of my opponent’s argument, that if any one had not been a “bondman in Egypt” and redeemed thence as stated in the text, then he could do all these things so expressly prohibited by the word of God. The same course of reasoning would prove that all those who then lived on the face of the earth, and those who had lived before the deliverance from Egyptian bondage could do those things that are here expressly forbidden, with impunity. How would my opponent bind any injunction of God upon other nations? The same local and specific reason would apply to any obligatory commandment. Will he claim that none were required to keep the commandments “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor,” and so on; except they were first brought out of the land of Egypt?—except they had been delivered from Egyptian bondage? I will take the same position with regard to every one of the ten Commandments, as well as all of God’s Old Testament Laws. Will my opponent come up and face his own “logic?” PSDS 16.1

But, can we keep the creation Sabbath? We cannot keep the identical day on which God rested after the creation, for that day is in the past, but we can keep a day answering to that day. Just as we celebrate the fourth of July every year. We do not observe the same day, A. D. 1776, on which our forefathers first proclaimed the Declaration of Independence to the world, but it is a day answering to that day. This is another local and specific memorial. I wanted to call your attention to these points because they may be brought up by my opponent to militate against my position or arguments. PSDS 16.2

Sanctification of the Sabbath. He does not take issue. I have produced testimony to show that it was sanctified at the creation, and upon it I shall rest, for the present at least, or until my opponent shakes or attempts to shake my position. He says he does not want to anticipate, but he does; and why? For the purpose of cutting off ray arguments, but he will find it of very little avail after all. PSDS 16.3

He does not wish to have me go back and leave the context, but the question is not when was the Sabbath made, but when was it sanctified or set apart to be observed. He would deprive me of the privilege of bringing scriptures together when they are pertinent and relevant. I am willing to have him anticipate as much as he pleases, but I claim the privilege of bringing such scripture proofs as I may see fit to the support of my positions. The truth is what we want—“God’s word is truth.” I wish to have my hearers mark the facts. I do not wish to have them overlooked. Irrelevant truths should not be brought into the discussion. PSDS 17.1

The reason of the sanctification of the seventh day is appended to the fourth commandment, in Exodus 20:11 v. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” Now, I ask, cannot I go back to the Bible account of the creation and show an analogy of facts? PSDS 17.2

I am very sorry that the admissions of my opponent have so scattered his argument that I cannot take them up in the order in which they were presented. He admits the Sabbath has a general reason for its observance. We have claimed it was made at creation. The local and specific reason I am willing to admit, but I shall claim the same in regard to every other commandment without distinction or reserve. PSDS 17.3