FIFTEENTH SPEECH

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—Again, my beloved friends, we are permitted to purse our investigation. I shall, with very few preliminary remarks, proceed to the introduction of passages of Scripture which I have marked as worthy your attention. In the first place, I wish to notice some errors into which my opponent appears to have fallen. I have not stated any difference, nor have I claimed any difference between Exodus and Deuteronomy, as quoted by myself. Again, he seemed to misrepresent my position in reference to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, as if I had tried to introduce arguments showing an identity between the Sabbath of the fourth commandment and the fourth commandment itself. This is by no means what I endeavored to prove. It was the identity of the fourth commandment Sabbath with the Sabbath of the Lord. He said that in so doing I was going beyond the proper limits of the discussion; but, to acknowledge this would be in effect acknowledging that there was no such identity. But I deny this, or that he has introduced any Scripture showing that there was any distinction.PSDS 61.2

He wonders at my moving forward so fast into the New Testament; but I will just state, in regard to this, that I have got just as much Bible before me as my opponent. I have all the Old Testament as well as the New, and I intend to use them both conjointly. Moreover, I must be allowed to take my own course. If my opponent had known just the precise course I was going to take in this discussion, it might possibly have saved him some suspense, as well as not a few words; but I can’t help that. As I before remarked, he must allow me to take my own course.PSDS 61.3

I will now call your attention to Romans 3. The righteousness of God, which is by faith in Jesus Christ, is to all that do the law——to declare the same time his righteousness, etc. Now, mark, there is something necessary for God to be just. He would be just in judging by the oracles, only providing that these oracles are not made void, and not otherwise. The justice of God, in this matter, is only made contingent upon the perpetuity of the oracles. Now, mark the 31st verse. This is not an exact expression of the original Greek; by no means. [Whiting’s translation here referred to.—Reporter.] Now we want to examine what law is established by faith in Jesus Christ, and is not made void. Is it the law of faith? No. Is it the law of Christ? No. Well, is it by the law of Christ that we would be justified? No. Is it by the law of faith? No. What then? It must be a law made before. Justification must come by another means. Very well; then it is not the law of Christ, neither is it the law of faith, but it is another law in which the Jew rested, and that is not made void, but under which all are under condemnation. And the Old Testament scriptures were written while that law was in force. By this declaration of the Scriptures, Paul proves them all sinners. Romans 3:13. Now, 3:31, I ask, does faith in Christ make void the law? No. It shows our obligation to keep that law. How is that law vindicated? God would sacrifice His own dear Son rather than that law should be set aside. He could not save man in any other way and vindicate His law. Therefore the law is not made void by or through faith, but is established. Now, it is not a part of a law here spoken of, but the law—that is, the law which has been transgressed. This law is not made void by faith. Now, turn to Ephesians 2. When we get prepared, we shall see whether the two Testaments agree on that point. 14th and 15th verses. Now, what is meant by “the middle wall of partition?” “—Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” What has He done with that law? He has abolished it. But what has He done with that other law of Romans? We cannot read it abolished also, but what is affirmed of the law in one place is as distinctly denied of the law in the other. It is the work of Christ that Paul refers to in both cases. And here, beloved friends, we consider that there is a New Testament fact nailed to a certainty, and we wish to have your attention. We are not confined to the Old Testament to show the perpetuity of the law; by no means, although we go back there to show when this law was made.PSDS 62.1

I have produced what I considered sufficient testimony to show the existence of two laws—the one abolished at the advent of Christ, and the other not. My opponent claims that he can show there is no distinction between those two laws. If he can, well and good, for it is the negative of my proposition. But, as he was cut short in his argument, I cannot notice it at the present time.PSDS 63.1

The passage before quoted from Ephesians says that the middle wall of partition was broken down, and we understand this to be the law of ordinances as distinct from the law of the ten commandments. Whatever could distinguish the Jew from the Gentile would be broken down; but whatever could not so distinguish them would not be so broken down. We understand that this is the design or end of the Gospel of Jesus Christ—to reconcile man to his God. It is to bring him back to obedience to the Father. This is the work of Jesus Christ.PSDS 63.2

We find other declarations that are exact parallels of these. Ephesians 2:17—not only to those afar off, but to those that were nigh. He is for both parties. “For through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father,” etc.——no more strangers and foreigners, etc. Foreigners from what?—Commencing at the 12th verse: “—ye (the Gentiles) were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.” Verse 19. Because they were aliens and foreigners, therefore they must be brought into obedience to the principles upon which the commonwealth of Israel was established. And because they brought forth the fruits of their [good living,] they are no longer strangers and foreigners, but citizens. Well, we see in the 3rd chapter, 6th verse, that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs and partakers with the Jews. The division that had existed was broken down; they should be one in Christ Jesus and fellow citizens in the commonwealth of Israel. Now, I ask, would it be possible to take these two chapters and predicate the existence of two laws? It is the law in each case, and not a part of the law. This is testimony of the most positive kind. We shall see if there be any facts in the Old Testament that overturn what the New says. We have the most positive testimony in the New Testament that there was a law that has been abolished, and also one that has not been made void. I would like to produce a parallel between some other scriptures, but Romans 2. and Ephesians 3. are all that I now have time to present. We rest this with you for the present, but shall proceed eventually to the examination of other scriptures in their order.PSDS 63.3