Close of the Discussion.
By Editor
THIS number brings us to the close of the discussion in Portland. From what is written the reader can get a tolerably full idea of the relative strength of the two sides. We are not conscious of having omitted anything essential to a correct understanding of the debate, nor of having set forth anything in a false or colored light. Some of Eld. P.'s bold and reckless assertions can be accounted for only on the ground that as the light in a person becomes darkness, the more presumptuous he grows. And in view of his utterly groundless arguments, it was not without a shudder that we heard him self-confidently declare near the close of the discussion, that he would risk ten thousand souls, if he had them, on the truthfulness of his position. His deception in this matter seems to be complete; and we could but think of the language of Paul, concerning those upon whom there is sent strong delusion that they should believe a lie. One noticeable feature of the discussion was the attempt on the part of Eld. P. to change the issue to a discussion of the merits of Bro. Andrews' History of the Sabbath; and after this had signally failed, the effort on every possible occasion, to traduce, vilify and throw contempt upon that work. And this feeling is not confined to Eld. P. It is common to all classes of the opposition, especially in the East. The query arises why this work is made the object of so much bitterness. Answer. It is because it is making more Sabbath-keepers than almost any other agency at work. Hence there is an intense feeling all through the no-law, Sunday, pope and pagan combination, that it must by some means be broken down. Where there is great fluttering, it is certain that somebody is hit. This opposition must be especially gratifying to the author of that History, as it truly is to us. The door is now open for them to test this matter, if they dare step in and risk their cause in fair and open encounter. A review of this History is announced. A thousand pages were prepared. It is cut down to three hundred and fifty. It will probably be cut down two hundred more, says the reviewer. We shall then, out of the thousand pages, have one hundred and fifty left, in review of a work of three hundred and forty! We often hear the expression, "Coming out of the little end of the horn." It would perhaps be too cruel to say that there is anything that looks like that here. The points made against the History during the discussion, may be summed up as follows: 1. A few sentences omitted from a quotation from Morer, indicated by dots, and not essential to the idea the author had in hand. 2. The declaration that Neander had renounced his views concerning Sunday, and wished the work containing it burned. In making which assertion it is shown that Eld. P. had in view entirely another work than that from which the author of the History quoted; and even in that work nothing is said about any change of sentiment on the part of Neander. 3. Testimony concerning Dionysius of Soter's time A. D. 170, which Eld. P. erroneously supposed was Dionysius the Areopagite of Paul's time. 4. A construction given to some testimony from Heylyn which was entirely demolished by counter testimony from the same author. 5. An instance where the punctuation in an extract was changed from a colon to a semicolon. 6. A few expressions of contempt, unworthy a high-minded opponent, and which we will not do him the injury to repeat.