The Discussion in Portland, Me.
QUESTION. The Seventh-day Sabbath observed by God's people prior to the crucifixion of Christ, is still binding upon mankind. Affirmative, M. E. Cornell. Negative, T. M. Preble. Cornell. If Eld. P. cannot get the Crisis open for the discussion of the Sabbath question, how does he expect we can get it open. We are willing to open our columns; they are not. He has had a long series of articles in our paper, all that he can probably get, unless he can get their paper open for an equally fair discussion. I expected his brother ministers would come right up here and help him, and endorse him, as he has been the leading man among them on the Sabbath question. Eld. C. here made an argument on 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2, setting forth the teaching of that scripture. Reads a quotation from History of the Sabbath in relation to Justin Martyr, to offset Preble's quotation from that author. Reads Neander's testimony concerning Sunday, Hist. of Sabbath, p. 204. Rallies Eld. P. back to the Bible. Reads Martin Luther's testimony in regard to the fathers, and what Adam Clarke says on the same subject. Hist. Sab. pp. 198-200. You can find testimony in the early church for sprinkling and image worship. My proof that the Scriptures thoroughly furnish a man unto all good works, stands with a host of my other arguments yet unanswered. Preble. I should think that my brother was in the negative, trying to disprove everything that I say, testimony of history and all. He has not touched some thirty passages that I have brought up. In regard to the discussion, if the Lord lets me live, and I get money enough to do it, it will be in print before long. I got about one thousand pages prepared in review of History of the Sabbath, but owing to the high price of paper, &c., I have cut it down to 350, and I do not know but I shall cut it down one or two hundred more. Eld. C. refers to 1 Cor. xvi, and says it means to lay by him in store; so say I. I did not bring that up to show that they worshiped on that day, but that they labored on the seventh day. Neander renounced his opinion in regard to Sunday, revised his earliest edition and threw it all away, and declared that he wished that it was burned. The Sabbath is an institution, no work at all about it; so the Bible furnishing unto all good works, is nothing. Eld. P. here returned to his articles and filled out his time by reading. Cornell. Would like to have Eld. P. remember the main points upon which the question rests, instead of complaining of him as being behind. Refers again to his fundamental arguments, oft-repeated but yet unanswered, because they cannot be answered. Sustains his assertion that Preble declared that those who keep the seventh day Sabbath, crucify the Son of God afresh, &c. The argument is good of the law as well as of the Sabbath. They stand or fall together. In this speech, Bro. C. introduced another new and conclusive argument based on the style of the sacred historian. Every writer has his style. And it was the style of Luke, the writer of the Acts, when an act was customary on the part of any one, to say that that was his custom, or manner, as shown in the following instance: “And, as his custom was, he [Christ] went into the synagogue,” &c. Luke iv, 16. “And Paul, as his manner was,” &c. Acts xvii, 2; xviii, 4. Luke is the only one who makes mention of a religious meeting on the first day of the week. It is claimed that Luke meant to teach that the disciples regularly met on that day. Now if this is so, his style would have led him to say that it was their custom or manner. How easily he could have said in Acts xx, 7, “Now upon the first day of the week, when the disciples, as their custom was, had met together to break bread,” &c. And he should have said so more particularly when laying the foundation of a new institution. Preble. I shall come to the proof that the Sabbath is changed pretty soon, I shall attend to that this evening. There is a battery that will be opened by and by. Goes back again to his article and reads. If we find any testimony of the right to change the law, we have the change. Christ had a right to change the Sabbath, as he was Lord of the Sabbath day. I introduce him as our first witness. Cornell. Every letter of the New-Testament scriptures was written in this dispensation. The first writer who took up his pen to write, did so about eight years this side of the crucifixion of Christ. It was written therefore after the dispensation had fully commenced, was written by inspiration, and for the men of this dispensation, and as our guide. Therefore the terms of the New Testament are the inspired terms that we are to use in this dispensation. From these premises Bro. C. drew forth another conclusive argument based on the use of the term Sabbath as applied to the seventh day in the New Testament. The seventh day is called the Sabbath fifty-nine times. Inspiration in the N. T. speaks of the first day of the week eight times; but never calls it holy time, nor applies any other title of sacredness whatever. Hence it is entitled to no such distinction. This argument is parallel to one on the immorality of the soul, which Adventists generally consider good; namely, the soul is not immortal because it is never so called in the Bible. So the first day is not the Sabbath, because the Bible nowhere calls it such. The patriarchs had a commandment for the Sabbath; for Ex. xvi, shows that there was a commandment before Sinai. I admit that the old covenant is done away; but the Sabbath existed before that covenant, and independent of it. Moral laws are commanded because they are binding; but ceremonial laws are binding because they are commanded. Christ's having power to change the Sabbath does not prove that he did it. Let him find the text. Meeting with the disciples does not prove anything; for Christ met with them on other days besides the first day. He met with them for forty days. Preble. About the word Sabbath he misapprehends a little. It appears that the word Sabbath was the word used by the apostles, though it is not in the English translation. The eight times in which we have the expression, first day of the week, the word is sabbaton. It is in the original, and he knows it is there. [After indulging in a few more remarks on points too often introduced already about the patriarchs, no command for 2500 years, first occurrence of Sabbath in Ex. xvi, the right of Christ to change it, Webster's definition of Sunday and Sabbath, and a quotation from Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, he laid. Now I come to an argument. At this announcement, we expected the before-threatened battery; but instead of bringing out anything new, he only turned back and treated us to some more of his articles.] Cornell. Right to enact laws does not prove the act. So with the assumed right of Christ to change the Sabbath. Paul says that he kept back nothing that was profitable; then why has he not said something about the change of the Sabbath? Keeping the commandments of God, Sabbath with the rest, is among the good works unto which the Scriptures thoroughly furnish us. The law written upon the heart is God's law, not a new law. Jer. xxxi. Bro. C. here made an argument on the atonement, showing that Christ must plead his blood over the very law that was transgressed in the former dispensation, in order to take away the sin of that dispensation; for the atonement there made was only typical. Preble. Fills up most of his time in this speech reading again from his articles in the Crisis. Cornell. Makes an argument on Matt. v, 17, showing the perpetuity of the moral law. Reads from Matt. xv, how the scribes and Pharisees transgressed, and made void the commandments of God by their tradition, showing that Sunday-keeping was an exact parallel to the sin so severely rebuked in the Pharisees. Preble. When Christ fulfills a law, of course it does not fail. Fills out his time by reading again from his articles. Cornell. Refers to the circumstances attending the giving of the moral law. There is a significance to whatever God does. The first tables of stone were broken; Moses prepared the second tables, and God wrote on them the same words that were on the first. It has been thought by some that the breaking of the tables represented the change of dispensations. Moses preparing the second tables represents the sinner preparing his heart for the divine impress. Now what law was written upon the second tables of stone? Answer. The very same law that was written upon the first. So with the sinner's heart: the same law written upon the tables is now upon the Christian's heart. The negative says that the fourth commandment is written upon his heart. Now I want to know how it reads as written upon his heart, and in obedience to which he is keeping the first-day of the week. I ask him to tell us. Eld. C. here introduced an argument in relation to shadow and substance, showing that as Eld. P. holds the Sabbath to be a shadow or type of our future rest, and yet has the Sabbath jogged over from the seventh to the first day, there must be according to his view, a corresponding jog over in the Christian's rest! Introduces the monument argument. Creation is a great monument that God has set up. The Sabbath is the inscription upon it, showing whose power is displayed. Has the monument been torn down and the inscription erased or changed? Christ never took the first-day into his lips. Preble. The fourth commandment on my heart, reads just as it did in the tables of stone, exactly, word for word. The first day of the week has become he seventh. 1 Cor. xvi, 2, proves that the six working days ended with the seventh day. God never sanctified any particular day except in Gen. ii. Accuses Eld. C. of perverting Matt. v. An answer may be found in Rom. iv; fulfilling the righteousness of Christ. I have shown from the types and otherwise, that the seventh day has been changed to the first day of the week. Now to the word and testimony in relation to this. Reads from Reeve's translation of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, and says, Here are arguments that are worth having. Reads further from Tertullian and Peter Heylyn. Cornell. If the fourth commandment on Preble's heart reads just as it did on the tables of stone, it means just exactly what it did there. This is all that we claim. Admit that the fourth commandment has come over unchanged and is now written on the heart just as it read on the tables of stone, and we ask no more. Makes a pointed application to Sunday-keeping of the declaration of Solomon, Men “have sought out many inventions;” Eccl. vii, 29; and of the prophet, that they have “hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” Jer. ii, 13. Preble. Expresses some surprise at the arguments of the affirmative, and after a few scattering remarks on points not new, returns to his quotations from historical authors. Cornell. Reads a scorching testimony from Heylyn completely rebutting all Eld. P.'s quotations from that author. Asks Eld. P. if God rested on the day of the week he now keeps for the Sabbath; followed by a short argument on the fact that God will not accept of substitutes. We must worship in the way of his own appointing. Preble. Endeavors to bolster up his construction of Heylyn's testimony. Returns to history, dealing principally with the testimony of Mosheim. Cornell. Takes up Preble's fatal admission that the fourth commandment on his heart reads just as it did in the former dispensation, on the tables of stone, and announces to the congregation, that he is now going to preach a short sermon from Preble's heart, from which he proceeded to give a comprehensive view of the Sabbath question, taking the fourth commandment as a text. Sabbath-keepers know what a mighty fortress of truth can be reared on that foundation. Of course Bro. C. could not complete his examination of the subject in a twenty-minute speech. Preble. Regrets that so much of his time has been taken up69during the discussion correcting mistakes. Claims that one quarter of it has been spent in this way. Makes a few more remarks on 1 Cor. xvi, 2, and some other points, introducing no new arguments. Cornell. Continues his sermon from Preble's heart. Preble. Remarks about there being no commandment for 2500 years from creation for the observance of the Sabbath; yet admits that God might have told Adam how to observe it, and he might have taught it for about a thousand years. Reads from Jone's church history to prove principally that the Waldenses kept the first day of the week. The two closing speeches were but the summing up of the arguments advanced on each side. Thus closed the discussion, having continued through eight sessions of two hours each, giving to the disputants twenty-four speeches apiece. In Eld. P.'s statement concerning Neander, he fell into the following mistake: Neander's testimony concerning Sunday, that Sunday was always only a human ordinance, &c., occurs in his complete history of the first three centuries of the Christian church, translated by Rose. The work to which Eld. P. referred was a subsequent work by Neander, more condensed and general in its character, embracing the entire history of the church to the time of the writer, and translated by Torrey. It was the first volume of this latter work that Neander revised to such an extent as to render a new publication necessary. But the publisher says nothing about his having renounced his views of Sunday-keeping, regretting that they were ever published, and wishing that the books were burned, &c., nor anything of the kind. Eld. P. must have read history through very curiously-colored goggles, to have found room for even such an inference. The last evening the congregation was much larger than at any preceding session of the discussion. It was before this audience that Bro. C. preached with good effect his sermon from Preble's heart. He showed the utter absurdity of keeping the first day of the week, under the pretense of obeying the commandment which enjoins the seventh. All, no matter how set their prejudices, or bleared their theological vision, must have seen and felt the force of this. We advertised in the beginning of this report, that we should indulge in no boasting. The reader now has a summary of the arguments before him, and he can judge for himself in what plight Sunday-keeping came out of the encounter.