Elder Preble's Challenge for a Discussion Through the World's Crisis.
By John Nevins Andrews
BRN. SMITH, AMADON AND ALDRICH: The Review for Feb. 27, containing the challenge of Eld. T. M. Preble in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question through the columns of that paper, came duly to hand. In the remarks which you appended to this extract from the Crisis, I found that you had designated me as the person to conduct this discussion on the part of the Seventh-day Adventists. In obedience to this instruction, I addressed the following note of acceptance to the editor of the Crisis: Brother Grant: I accept the proposition of Eld. T. M. Preble, in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question through the columns of the Crisis, and of the Advent Review. He proposes to discuss "the merits of J. N. Andrews' History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath." In accordance with this offer, I name two points for discussion: 1. The biblical argument for the observance of the seventh day. 2. The historical argument relating to the seventh and first days of the week, and involving "the merits of J. N. Andrews' History of the Sabbath." Upon the publication of this acceptance in the Crisis, I will open the discussion of the first point.
J. N. ANDREWS. Norridgewock, Maine, March 5, 1866. As the conductors of the Crisis had endorsed Eld. P.'s challenge for a discussion of this subject through its columns, by publishing that challenge to the world, they could not without injustice refuse to insert my note of acceptance in that paper, even though they decided not to allow the discussion to take place. Instead of this, however, the whole matter was disposed of by the following letter from the editor of the Crisis, which came to hand March 19th: Boston, Mass., March 14th, 1866. Brother Andrews: Your note of the 5th inst. was put into my hands to-day.
Our regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis. I have sent your proposition to Bro. Preble.
*Your brother in Christ,
Miles Grant.* To this letter, I returned the following reply: Norridgewock, Maine, March 19th, 1866. Brother Grant: Yours of the 15th inst. has just come to hand. I learn with surprise and regret, that your "regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis." Your regulations did allow the publication of a challenge in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question "through the columns" of that paper. The proposition was clothed in very defiant language, and being admitted into the Crisis by its editor, it did necessarily open that paper to the discussion of this subject. In accepting Elder P.'s proposition thus endorsed by yourself, I did not act upon my own responsibility. I was duly designated by those who have charge of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, to conduct this discussion on behalf of the observers of the seventh day. In shutting the columns of the Crisis without one word of explanation, you certainly do us great injustice. I think it would have been no more than just that you should have inserted my brief letter of acceptance, accompanied by such remarks as you deemed proper. My regret would have been no less that the discussion could not be had, but I should have felt that you had not been guilty of injustice. We stand before the world "dared" to risk an encounter through the columns of the Crisis, and yet not allowed even to accept such challenge through its columns. You say that you have sent my letter to Elder P. With Eld. P. privately I have nothing to do. An oral discussion is of very little consequence. I have other, and more important duties to perform. But a written discussion that should bring the subject before the whole body of Adventists, I would deem really important. In good faith I accepted the proposition for such a discussion. If this cannot take place, the fault is certainly not on the side of Seventh-day Adventists. Will you not do us the justice to make a fair statement of the fact that we did accept the proposition of Elder P. for a discussion through the columns of the Crisis, and of the Advent Review?
*Yours in Christ,
J. N. Andrews.* This letter was mailed March 20th, and probably reached Boston that night. Having waited till the present date, April 12th, I judge that there is no reason to hope that any attention will be paid to the appeal therein addressed to the editor of the Crisis. I know not on what grounds he refuses to allow the fact to appear that Elder Preble's challenge was promptly accepted. The readers of the Crisis are left to believe, 1. That that paper is open to a fair discussion of the Sabbath question. 2. That the observers of the Bible Sabbath dare not meet the subject in a fair, open encounter, through the columns of the Crisis, and the Review. As neither of these conclusions is according to truth, it is not easy to assign a just reason for the refusal of the editor of the Crisis to allow of their correction. With regret that this discussion ends in such a manner, I herewith submit my report, and resign my trust.
J. N. ANDREWS. Norridgewock, Maine, April 12th, 1866.