BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGEL, DISCIPLE.
THIRD PROPOSITION.
“Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh day Sabbath is to be observed by Christians throughout the gospel dispensation?”
ELD. WAGGONER, affirms; ELD. VOGEL, denies.
ELD. WAGGONER’S FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE.
By reason of a mistake in the direction, I did not receive Eld. Vogel’s second negative for a long time. To obviate delay I mostly prepared my third affirmative before receiving it. A few points deserve notice.
Eld. V. and myself have kept up a friendly correspondence during our discussion. In one of these private notes I expressed regret for some things he said in his closing reply on the first proposition. He answered that it was not a final summing up, and I had a chance to set right what appeared to me to be wrong. I needed no intimation from him to assure me that this was my right and privilege; and justice required that I should do so. Yet now, because I exposed his sophistry and hypercriticism, he publicly accuses me of pursuing a dishonorable course in discussion! This convinces me of that which I before feared, that there is a certain peculiarity in him which prevents his doing justice to an opponent. His assertion that I am not capable of giving a correct criticism on the Hebrew is a small matter, while I have proved that he has not made a reliable statement in regard to it. He is astonished that I should so “blunder” with Green’s Grammar before me, and refers to “section 346. 3.” As that section and number do not cover the whole scope of the use and omission of the article it cannot prove that I blundered in claiming a definite construction on Ex. 16: 23. But, if it does cover that entire field, then he has blundered in claiming a definite construction on Ex. 20: 10. There is nothing in that section to disprove my quotation from Gesenius. But he acknowledges that I am not alone in this “blunder”—that “better scholars than he or I have blundered” thus before. And I may add that better scholars than either he or I still cling to this “blunder.” But in what company does he place me in this? In that of Gesenius and “the old grammarians and lexicographers, Hebrew and Greek.” Verily, I am content. It is truth that the whole extent of my “blunder” is that I quoted and correctly applied a statement of the lexicon of Gesenius. But Eld. V. says Winer gives a list of examples to the contrary. What of that? Cannot an array of75
examples be given to show that definite nouns do not always have the article? Will Eld. V. admit that the “rule” he quoted is set aside by such examples? The complexion of a fact is wondrously changed according as it is for or against him! Gesenius does not claim that this is invariable in usage. Eld. Vogel did positively deny that there were exceptions to the rule he quoted; but I have proved that there are. Has this any bearing on his reliability as a critic on the Hebrew?
Green gives the names of thirteen grammarians whom he consulted in preparing his grammar, adding, “besides others of less note.” If Winer was consulted at all he belongs to this class. Green also says that his “work is mainly based upon the three leading grammars of Gesenius, Ewald, and Nordheimer;” and while he gives precedence to Ewald only over Gesenius as a grammarian he says, “Gesenius is unquestionably the prince of Hebrew lexicographers.”
The reader will bear me witness that I have never thrust any profession of scholarship before him. I confess to my entire dependence on the accredited authorities. Even in English I pay my respects to Dr. Webster! If the “young and untamed blood” of Eld. V. is able to carry him as by intuition through the mazes of Hebrew criticism, leaving Gesenius and his compeers behind as mere “blunderers,” we will only congratulate him, and trust to age and experience to teach him to bear his honors with more meekness than he can at present command.
On the term “Lord’s day,” Eld. Vogel says, “Under the former dispensation the Father was meant by the term Lord; under this dispensation the term refers exclusively to Christ,” and refers for proof to 1 Cor. 8: 6, which says that to us there is “one Lord Jesus Christ.” Certainly there is only one “Lord Jesus Christ,” but it is strange that any man with an open Testament before him should make the above assertion. In a partial examination of the N. T., I noticed over threescore places where the term is applied to the Father; a few I quote. Jesus said, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth.” Matt. 11: 25. “Times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ.” Acts 3: 19, 20. “Against the Lord and against his Christ.” Acts 4: 26. “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.” Rev. 11: 15. Can I not now with good reason quote, “My firm conviction is that Eld. V. is incapable of making a safe criticism based on”—a plain reading of the New Testament? Does he ever “blunder?” By such reckless statements he tries to set aside the proof I gave on “the Lord’s day.”
There is yet another important Scripture fact bearing on this point. Of Jesus Christ, as “the Word,” John says, “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” John 1: 1–3. See also Col. 1, and Heb. 1: 1–5. “By whom [the Son] he [the Father] made the worlds;” and verse 10, “And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands.” Now as the Son of God was actively present in the making of the world in six days, so was he also in resting, and blessing and sanctifying the seventh day. The work being equally that of the Father and the Son, so of necessity was the rest-day. This separating between the Son and the Father, and putting one in conflict with the other, is a necessity of that theory. Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath by the work of creation, and according to his own declaration. Mark 2: 28. And it is the only day concerning which either the Father or Son ever put forth such a claim. Eld. V. may use all the sophistry he pleases, but he will never point to one text of Scripture which contradicts this statement.
On 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17, he plays on the words, saying that “all Scripture” is not now binding on us as it was on the Jews. But he entirely ignores the point I made, which is, that the Scriptures which Timothy knew from a child—the Old Testament—thoroughly furnish the man of God “unto all good works,” containing as they do the immutable law of Jehovah. This truth may be covered up, but it cannot be destroyed, and it is a sure vindication of the law of God.
His position on the law, if he can be said to have any position, is a curiosity.
(1) He says the moral, ceremonial, and judicial were parts of the same law; hence “part” of that law is moral.
(2) He admits that what is moral cannot be abolished; hence “part” of that law to Israel cannot be abolished.
(3) He then quotes Scripture to prove that “the law,” “the whole law,” was abolished; thus perverting the Scriptures and contradicting himself.
(4) He denies the distinction between moral and ceremonial law, saying the Scriptures make no such distinction. The Scriptures do not use those terms, but they clearly prove the existence of the two laws, which we correctly express by those terms. The Scriptures do not speak of “probation,” nor of “moral character;” do these therefore not exist? But query, Do the Scriptures speak of the “moral part” and the “positive part” of the law? Does Eld. Vogel find these expressions in the Scriptures? Is not this another specimen of his hypercriticism?
Having asserted that all the law is abolished, does he not in this deny that any part of the law is moral? Did I not say clearly, that whatever abolishes the Sabbath, abolishes all moral law? If the law against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, &c., is not moral, where shall we find moral law? Eld. Vogel, in asserting that these are abolished, directly asserts that they are not moral. Reader, are you prepared to follow him in this?
Once more: to prove (what he has now virtually admitted) that his position strikes a death blow at all morality, I instituted a comparison between marriage and the Sabbath, in their origin and appointment. His answer was that he was not concerned whether or not marriage is moral! I think not! He has thus far shown a marvelous unconcern about all that exposes his theory, and about the fate of all morality when it stands in his way.
He must presume largely on the blindness of our readers if he thinks to make them believe that I argued that all that is “duty” now, originated before the fall. My distinctions between original and secondary obligations were clearly made. Nor did I intimate that all “divine law” grew directly out of the will and attributes of God. Baptism is a “divine law,” but my argument excludes it from the list of original duties. The Saviour explains his “new commandment,” “This is my commandment, that ye love one another as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15: 12, 13; see 1 John 3: 16. The moral duty of “love” did not originate in the New Testament; but to lay down life for a friend cannot possibly be an “original obligation.”
He admits that moral law grows out of the attributes of God. Yes, so manifestly so that whatever
grows exclusively out of these attributes, not referable to the action or will of man, is moral. But the distinguishing attribute upon which the knowledge of the true God is often, in the Scriptures, made to depend, is that of creative power. The reader well knows, on the authority of Jehovah himself, that the Sabbath institution, the seventh day Sabbath, grew solely out of this attribute: it is a memorial of the exercise of this power.
He thinks I could make a better sermon if I stood where I could preach to my brethren from Gal. 4: 10, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.” Let us look at that in its connection.
(1) It is spoken to them of whose former practices Paul said they “did service unto them which by nature are no gods.” This could not refer to keeping the Sabbath, nor to anything which the true God required, but to the practices of heathenism.
(2) It includes observing “times,” which is expressly forbidden in Deut. 18, and other places, and is designated as a heathen practice.
(3) Myself and brethren observe but one day in each week, the seventh, which the true God, the Creator, set apart at creation, and in the most solemn manner commanded its observance.
(4) Eld. Vogel says the first day of the week should be “sacredly kept,” and therein he and his brethren keep just as many “days” in a year as we do—fifty-two. Did he know this?
(5) Alexander Campbell said the first “public authority” for keeping Sunday was of Constantine; and he enforced its observance in the towns and cities only, under the title of “the venerable day of the sun,” Sunday, not the Lord’s day.
(6) The Am. S. S. Union Bib. Dict. says the first day derived its name, Sunday, from the heathen who dedicated it to the sun, to which they held it sacred. And this was the only dedication and sacredness it ever had.
(7) And therefore Eld. Vogel and his brethren are subjects of the apostles’ comment in this text, as they observe a heathen “time;” a “day” instituted by, and only sacred to, “them which by nature are no gods.” And he is no nearer to the truth on any other text in Galatians than on this.
Eld. Vogel said he knew of no text which calls the ten commandments the law. I quoted literally Ex. 24: 12, which has the article in the original. And how does he endeavor to set aside the evidence of this text? He says the word law is qualified by the words “which I have written,” and it may take the article out on account! These words could as easily qualify “a law” or “a part of the law” as “the law” if that were the idea. But he asserts that the Hebrews so understood it, because “over the word ‘law’ is found the conjunctive accent kadhma.” Here, again, his pedantry crops out to as little purpose as before; for, 1, the accent is not kadhma, but pashta, which is a disjunctive accent; and, 2, the influence of the accent in that respect is imaginary rather than real. Jehovah wrote only the ten commandments on the tables of stone, and he called them “the law.” Will Eld. V. next try to account for the fact that no more than this law was written on the tables of stone? Is his ingenuity equal to the task he has undertaken? He caught at a straw on Ex. 24: 12, but even that eluded his grasp.
On Jer. 7: 22, 23, he says, “My voice may apply to anything which God has commanded, whether directly or through an agent;” and then argues around until he gets to the point of affirming that sacrifices and offerings were a part of the voice of God! But against his vain reasoning, two facts stand sure: When God spoke with his voice in the hearing of Israel, he spoke only the ten commandments; and the Lord himself says he did not speak concerning sacrifices, &c., but he said, Obey my voice. Eld. Vogel here places himself in direct conflict with the word of Jehovah rather than yield to a plain truth. I do not envy him in his position.
I will collate some of the evidences of the Scriptures on the two laws.
They could offer sacrifices, &c., and not keep the law. Jer. 6: 19, 20. And when God spake the law which he wrote on tables of stone, he said nothing concerning sacrifices. Jer. 7: 22, 23.
There is one law to which the carnal mind is not subject because the carnal mind is enmity. Rom. 8: 7. The other law was called the enmity. Eph. 2: 15. These laws are in contrast.
One law, which is established by faith and not made void (katargoumen—Gr.). Rom. 3: 31. The other, which is abolished (katargesas—Gr.). Eph. 2: 15.
On the abolition of the law of types we have no dispute, but I must deny the abolition of the moral law. Nor can I admit that “the law ended and the gospel began” on the day of Pentecost, as Eld. V. asserts. “The beginning of the gospel” may be found in Mark 1. See also the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah 61, in Luke 4: 16–21. And Paul says of the positive law of the O. T. that Christ “took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross,” Col. 2: 14; see also Eph. 2: 14–16. But query: did Christ nail it to the cross on the day of Pentecost? Was the crucifixion on the day of Pentecost? Eld. Vogel’s system will be complete when he can show that the resurrection was also on the day of Pentecost. Then he will surely have put sufficient honor upon that Jewish yearly festival to warrant its perpetual observance on every first day of the week!
I have said that the law was the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, and is a rule of righteousness to the Gentiles. Rom. 2: 17–29. Paul also says in Gal. 3: 13, 14, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, . . . that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ.” By this we learn that
(1) The curse of the law rests on all, Jews and Gentiles, which proves that they are all amenable to the law; for the law cannot curse those who are not amenable to it. See my remarks on Rom. 3: 9–19.
(2) The curse of the law must be removed before we can inherit the blessing of Abraham; which proves that they who are not in harmony with the law, or are its transgressors, cannot inherit the blessing of Abraham; and of course the Abrahamic promise has the law for their basis. Comp. Gen. 26: 1–5. I have before shown that the gospel is a nullity without the law for its basis, and the Abrahamic covenant is identical with the gospel. So Gal. 3: 13, 14, is a confirmation of my position on Rom. 2.
ELD. VOGEL’S FOURTH NEGATIVE.
For want of space, some passages in Eld. W.’s third affirmative remain unnoticed. These shall first receive attention.
Ps. 19: 7: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” Is it the office of “primary law” to convert the soul? David is here, then, speaking of the Mosaic code as a whole, whose perfection or completeness is manifest in this, that it contains a remedial system, “converting the soul,” as captives are caused to return (Jer. 32: 44; 33: 11), and ruined cities restored (Dan. 9: 25); for in these passages the same original word is used. That “the law of the Lord” embraces the whole Mosaic code, I have already shown from Luke 2: 22–24, where it is interchanged with “the law of Moses.” Hence it includes the law of the priesthood, and is thus again shown to be in part “remedial.” Hence also its “perfection” is only relative, suited to that age; but in an absolute sense “the law made nothing perfect” (Heb. 7: 18); there was therefore need of a “change.” “For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Heb. 8: 7. Paul is rather severe on those who look to “the law” for justification: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Gal. 5: 4.
Eccl. 12: 13: “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” To say nothing against “duty” as a supplement here, and how “happiness” would be at least as good if not better, I call attention to the fact that the Lord has “commanded” many things not found in the decalogue. Each man, whether Jew, Gentile, or Christian, is under obligation to attend to the things commanded to him. Many “commandments,” as keeping the passover, concern only the Jew; so of the Sabbath.
Isa. 5: 6: “My righteousness shall not be abolished,” has no reference to the ten commandments. It is equivalent to the “salvation” of the same verse. It is a prophecy concerning the gospel, and the “eternal salvation” of which Christ is the “author.” Heb. 5: 9.
Rom. 3: 21: “But now the righteousness without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.” This passage, also, my brother completely mistakes. When a person complies with every requirement of a law, he is righteous (Rom. 10: 5), since that law cannot condemn him, and this is the righteousness of the law; he is also “perfect” and “holy,” as measured by that law, whether the law itself is perfect or imperfect. Hence, to argue the absolute perfection of a law from the fact that the one obeying it is perfect, as measured by that law, is a sophism. “The righteousness without the law,” i. e., without perfect obedience to the law, “is now [i. e., in the gospel] manifested.” How? By forgiveness upon faith in Christ. This is “witnessed by the law.” Where? Gen. 15: 6: Abraham “believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” Compare Rom. 4: 3. Thus we see that Paul had not Bro. W.’s narrow view of “the law,” but he included even Genesis in it. “Witnessed by the prophets.” Where? Hab. 2: 4: “The just shall live by faith.” Compare also Ps. 32: 1, 2, and Rom. 4: 6–8.
Rom. 2: 17, 18, is also misapplied when confined to the ten commandments. It is the same law which we have just seen includes even Genesis. While still speaking of this law, Paul quotes in Rom. 3: 9–18, from the Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah, and says in the next verse (19) that these are quotations from “the law.” This, to borrow two words from Paul, ought to “stop” my brother’s “mouth.”
Rom. 3: 1–6. To find proof in this that the ten commandments are to be “the rule” in the future Judgment, is to interpret into the passage what cannot be interpreted out of it. Paul simply says that God is not unrighteous in punishing transgressors, else he could not judge the world, since judgment implies punishment. But not one word does he say about the law by which men will then be judged. If the law of the context is to be assumed as the rule, then the whole Mosaic code is that rule, which is absurd, since all men are not under it.
Rom. 3: 9, 19, does not prove the Gentiles amenable to the ten commandments. I have already shown that in this place Paul quotes from the Mosaic law as a whole. But as a whole it was only given to the Jews, and “we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law.” Therefore “all the world” here refers only to the whole Jewish world, and to “every mouth” therein. For similar uses of this expression, see Luke 2: 1; Acts 11: 28.
Verse 9: “We have before proved, both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin,” does not prove that the ten commandments were given to the Gentiles. The Jews were proved sinners by the Mosaic law (chap. 2: 21–24), and the Gentiles by moral principles so far as they have by them been discovered and set forth in their civil laws (chap. 2: 1). “For as many as have sinned without [revealed] law shall also perish without [revealed] law. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law [by revelation], do by nature [by their native ability to discover moral relations and obligations] the [moral] things contained in the law, these, having not the law [given to them], are a law unto themselves: which show the [moral] work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.” Rom. 2: 12–15. It is not to be supposed that they could observe every moral item of the Mosaic code, but many of them they could and did. So Paul says; and by these they are proved guilty, not having lived up to them. See chap. 1: 18–32. But no positive institution can be thus discovered, since it has no moral element, but rests simply on the will of God. Hence they knew nothing about the passover or the Sabbath, and will not be judged with respect to these.
Rom. 3: 20: “By the law is the knowledge of sin,” does not prove the ten commandments still binding. For (1), as already shown, the ten commandments as such and exclusively are not here referred to. (2) This simply declares that the existing law convicts of guilt; and this is true whether the law is perpetual, or temporary; moral, positive, or both.
That this is a general proposition, referring to no law in particular, but to all law in general, is further evident from the Bible-Union version which reads thus: “By works of law no flesh shall be justified in his sight; for by law is the knowledge of sin.” The76
article is wanting in the original before law, and while it may sometimes be supplied without material injury to the sense, here undoubtedly it should not be. But for the sake of shortening the controversy, I will not press this point.
From the preceding there follow these conclusions:
1. That my brother has wholly misinterpreted these passages, restricting them to the ten commandments, whereas their true sense requires a broader application.
2. That a theory which cannot be sustained without such a perversion of Scripture is radically false, unscriptural, and anti-scriptural.
3. That the Mosaic code is a unit, one “whole law,” of which the ten commandments are but a part.
4. In further confirmation of this conclusion, and in addition to all that I have before said on this point, I beg leave to cite two more passages of Scripture.
(1) “He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses.” Heb. 10: 28. Here Paul alludes to Deut. 17: 2–6, where this language is found, and the ten commandments are spoken of. Thus Paul declares the decalogue a part of “Moses’ law.”
(2) In 1 Kings 2: 3, David urges Solomon to “keep the charge of the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses.” He who will not be convinced by such testimonies as these is beyond the reach of argument.
Eld. Waggoner’s fourth affirmative having not yet arrived, I will begin a second negative argument.
II. The ten commandments are abolished.
Be it distinctly understood that I do not argue for the striking out of a single moral principle contained in the decalogue. Moral principles are eternal as Jehovah. Hence Paul says in effect that whenever the abrogation of a divine law is spoken of, it must not be taken to the extent of obliterating moral principles. Heb. 12: 27. Hence the ten commandments are only abolished in so far as they were statutory, i. e., positive. Hence that which is wholly positive, as the Sabbath, is entirely abolished; and that which is in part positive, and in part moral, is only abolished in part.
Is there, then, a positive element in all of the ten commandments? Yes; the use made of them at Sinai is positive; and I give the following as proof:
1. In my last affirmative on the second proposition, I have shown them all to be, to some extent, positive. I shall not here repeat that argument, but simply refer the reader to it.
2. The arguments which I shall produce to prove their abolition are undoubted proof that they are positive; for it is out of all character to speak of abolishing that which is wholly moral. But the Scriptures do speak of the abolition of the decalogue; therefore it is positive.
3. In still another way do the Scriptures declare the ten commandments positive. They call them “statutes” time and again, but a statute is positive. “Statute. An act of the legislature of a State or country, declaring, commanding, or prohibiting, something; a positive law.”—Webster. Mark well, however, that a statute may have a moral basis; i. e., aside from its statutory value, it may also have a moral value. Thus, it is a moral duty that we give of our means to carry out God’s purposes among men. The “statutes” of the law required a tenth; this was positive, resting solely on the will of God, the Legislator; and because it was positive it was abrogated with the rest of the law. The moral principle of giving alone remains now. Nor has this principle been again expressed in a statutory way specifying a definite amount, but it stands solely on its moral basis, leaving it to the promptings of love to say how much to give (Acts 5: 4; 2 Cor. 8: 8; 9: 7). Nevertheless, the abolished “statute” of tithes is still “profitable,” not that it speaks with authority now, but as a counselor, it suggests and admonishes us as to what once was God’s will, so that we may suspect ourselves as not under the control of “love” or of “a willing mind,” but under selfish covetousness when we fall below a tenth.
4. That the ten commandments sustained a relation to the Jews, which they did not to the patriarchs and Gentiles, is unmistakably implied, yea, asserted, in Deut. 5: 2, 3: “The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us alive this day.” But as moral principles, so far as they contained them, they were known to the “fathers,” or patriarchs, as can be abundantly shown. What, then, is this new value they received? Not moral, certainly, but a positive or statutory value.
We are now ready to proceed with the arguments for the abolition of the ten commandments.
1. I have already stated as a rule, and here challenge its refutation, that it requires just as express legislation to transfer from one dispensation to another a positive enactment, law, or institution, as it did to first establish it. It is, therefore, simply a matter of course that the ten commandments were abolished to the extent that they were positive or statutory. And since the Sabbath was purely a statute, it is wholly gone.
2. Since the law is a unit and is politico-ecclesiastic, the ten commandments, as used in the law, are, also, of a political character; and in this character they are, of course, positive, or statutory. But the New Dispensation is purely ecclesiastic, hence cannot receive the political laws of the Old; they were therefore necessarily abolished in their statutory aspect. Hence, the Sabbath is entirely gone, since it was purely statutory.
Or, to state it differently, the word “covenant,” in Deut. 5: 2, 3, is used in the sense of “constitution.” It was the only word which the Hebrews had to express this idea. The decalogue is the constitution of the Mosaic laws, i. e., it sustained the same relation to the law that the constitution of the United States sustains to our laws. Some of their laws, as Ex. 21–23, are an elaboration of that constitution, and are laws based directly on it, others were merely in harmony with it. Whatever, therefore, is the nature of the law as a whole, is the nature of the ten commandments, i. e., if the law, as a whole, was mainly political, so was the decalogue, the constitution. And, if this was mainly political, it had to be abolished to the extent that it was such, since the New Dispensation is purely religious, or ecclesiastic.
Was, then, the law political? I answer, Yes. And, if this answer is demonstrable, the abrogation of the decalogue is established. Now for the proof:—
(1) Paul expressly calls the Jewish compact, or confederation, “the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2: 12). But the law was the only bond of union in this “commonwealth;” therefore, it was political.
(Continued on page 79.)
Eld. Vogel’s Fourth Negative.
(Continued from page 75.)
(2) There is not a single reference, in all the law, to the future life; but all its rewards and punishments looked to this life. See Deut. 28. This is precisely the nature of a secular compact, but not of a purely religious institution.
(3) This is further evident from the fact that God stood to the Hebrews in the relation of a political ruler, law-giver, and king. For when they said to Samuel, “Make us a king to judge us like all the nations,” Jehovah replied: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.”
(4) That the law was chiefly political in its bearings, and religious only in a limited and restricted sense, is further apparent from the fact that many of the transgressions thereof were purely of a civil or secular character, or, in the style of Paul, affected only “the flesh;” and the rites and sacrifices in atonement for these were of a like character, being adequate to their remission without borrowing efficiency from the blood of Christ, so that Paul was warranted in saying, “The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying [purging] of the flesh.” Heb. 9: 13. This, however, is not to be confounded with transgression of such laws as had the religious mingled with the civil, the guilt of which, to the extent that it invaded the domain of the religious, affected “the conscience,” and whose sacrifices for expiation had, to this extent, to borrow efficiency from the blood of Christ (Heb. 9: 9; 10: 4).
(5) It was because all the laws of the Mosaic code were political or civil, some wholly, and others only in part, yet mainly, that such enlightened teachers as Paul could offer animal sacrifices for the remission of guilt without inconsistency (Acts 21) even after Christ was recognized as the true and only sacrifice for the “purging of the conscience” or for the remission of sins which looked in their consequences to a future existence and judgment. They were offered on political grounds and for political offenses, as we could still celebrate the Fourth of July after our government was changed to a monarchy. On any other ground, such conduct as that of Acts 21: 26 defies explanation.
3. My third argument for the abrogation of the ten commandments is as follows:—
(2) They are further described as “The covenant of the Lord which he made with our fathers when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.” 1 Kings 8: 9, 21.
(3) God said, “I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” Jer. 31: 31–34.
(4) Paul says that this “new covenant” has been made and that the old has “vanished away.” Heb. 8: 6–13. He who presumes to say that it still stands must give God the lie.
4. Christ “abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of the commandments contained in [their] ordinances.” Eph. 2: 15. And since the Sabbath was nothing but an ordinance, a positive command, it is wholly gone. In bold contrast with this is my brother’s main position, that on which the life of his theory depends. “The law of which the Sabbath commandment was a part, was not abolished, but is now binding!” Reader, whom will you believe, Bro. Paul or Bro. Waggoner?