TWENTY-THIRD SPEECH

Mr. Waggoner in the Affirmative.—The point under discussion last evening, in the course of our investigation of the proposition just read, was based upon 2 Corinthians 3. I was much surprised at the remarks made by my opponent regarding my failure on this chapter. He said I failed to notice all he wished me to notice; but I had barely made a commencement, and to boast of triumphs under such circumstances was certainly somewhat out of place, to say the least. During the discussion, it has been intimated by my opponent, at least by implication, that I have been excessively embarrassed. Now, I have never expressed the idea that my opponent was embarrassed, at any time. I think perhaps he never was, in his life.PSDS 87.1

I am farther astonished that my opponent has taken it for granted that I admit sin to be not merely a transgression of the ten commandments, but the transgression also of the law of the carnal propensities. Did I say anything to that effect? Walking contrary to their natural propensities is not sin. Is it sin to keep the law of God as well as to break the law of God? Is there an individual present, aside from my present opponent, who drew such an inference from anything I have said in this discussion? I must say I hope not.PSDS 88.1

About Romans 7. He has taken what I said at another time and place, and I might expose what he has said to others; but I do not consider it at all relevant to our present discussion. The law there referred to was not the law that bound the woman to her husband, but the law that gave the husband power over the wife. Now, by what law will she be judged? By the law of her husband? She is proved an adulteress, if her husband did not permit her to have two husbands; but it is by the law that binds the husband to the wife, and not by the husband’s law.PSDS 88.2

My opponent has sometimes designated my remarks as rambling; and if I were obliged to follow him, they would be rambling indeed.PSDS 88.3

I acknowledge that we do receive justification wholly through Christ, but not because we have the contrast of what was written on the tables of stone in our hearts. My opponent says the contrast was between the things written, but it is truly impossible to imprint even nine-tenths of the ten commandments upon a man’s heart and yet get the contrast of them upon his heart at the same time. The contrast of “Thou shalt not kill” is not written on the heart of the Christian, for then he would be a murderer. No such contrasts are made in the Christian dispensation. Let my opponent prove that the contrast of these ten commandments that were written upon tables of stone is written upon the fleshly tables of the Christian’s heart. Any one can see what that contrast would be, and I do not believe that the contrast of this law is written upon the heart of any human being by the hand of God.PSDS 88.4

2 Corinthians 3:2, 3, etc. He will compare this with other scripture. Moses was the minister of God’s law, and it was subsequently carried out by the Levitical priests. Moses began this ministration when he brought the ten commandments down from Mount Sinai. Now, I ask, was it not the glory of Moses’ countenance that was veiled? I say that the ten commandments were not veiled, and that the glory of his face did not represent what he held in his hand. Was not their service based upon the law? Certainly; that law was the basis of their ministration. The glory of Moses’ face here represents that ministration, and the contrast is placed between Moses and the Apostles. 12th and 13th verses. They are declared in the Scriptures to be shadows of things to come. 17th verse. Now, we will look in reference to the term used in the 7th verse, “ministration of death.” Now, it is claimed that the law written or graven on stones is comprehended in the ministration of death. I contend that the word “ministration” has reference to Moses and those who served or ministered in reference to that law. In this case it is precisely the same as with any one who administers law of any kind. The ministration may change, as in the case of our government, once in four years; but that does not change the law that is to be administered. We have a change of administration every four years, but our law or Constitution, on which that administration is based, remains unchanged.PSDS 88.5

Whatever may be said about our going here and there in our arguments, we only reply that the very Scriptures themselves are written here a little and there a little; and I will not be Jewed out of any Scripture I may chance to bring up for your consideration. Proverbs 3:21, 22, etc.; also Proverbs 4:20-22, 22; also Deuteronomy 32:46, 47. Now, what was their life? It was to keep the law of God. It was therefore their death to break that law. This last we will show from the Scripture: 2 Corinthians 3; Deuteronomy 20:19. “—for the tree is the field of man’s life,—“In what sense? Only in the sense of that which will sustain life. One more: 2 Kings 4:40. The effect is taken for the cause in every case. Romans 7:10, etc. Here the law is shown to be both life and death to us. Verse 9th. “When the commandment came, sin revived and I died.”PSDS 89.1

He could occupy the two relations to it. Here the effect is taken for the cause in every instance.PSDS 89.2

And now, beloved friends, I am willing to rest it with you all, whether the difference between the law, and the ministration of the law is not a clear point. Moses was the minister, and the ministration that he commenced was carried out by the Levitical priesthood. Jeremiah 31:31, 32, 33. This is not the language of similitude, for it is plain and unequivocal. All the old ordinances were representations of things future. They were shadows of something to come in every case, but God’s law has never been changed—only the ministration. Jesus makes an actual atonement for sin, but in the old dispensation there were only types of that atonement. The old dispensation only wrote the law of God upon tables of tone, but the new puts it into the heart of man.PSDS 89.3