Editorial Correspondence.
By Uriah Smith
In these days of expeditions, campaigns, and war, we hear a great deal about "the situation." Correspondents writing from the field of strife, deem it their first duty to set forth the relative situation of the contending forces, their comparative strength, the causes which have led to the development of the strife, the plans and purposes of the campaign, &c. There are other kinds of strife besides that carried on by carnal weapons, to the proper understanding of which, a previous description of "the situation" is also necessary. We are here for the purpose of thus writing concerning a fierce theological war now raging in this place. Nearly one year since, as the readers of the Review will remember, Bro. and sister White held a number of meetings with the church here. In one of his discourses on the Sabbath question, Bro. W. expressed in general terms, as our ministers not unfrequently do, a challenge to the "whole Christian world," to prove the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. This any person would understand to be not a personal challenge for debate, but simply a strong call upon the Christian world for the proof of their Sunday institution. It was no sooner spoken, however, than a Mr. Kelly, minister of the Methodists, broke in, and demanded whether that remark was to be taken as a personal challenge. As the interrupter seemed anxious so to construe it, Bro. W. signified that he might do so if he pleased. He thereupon demanded that the time and place for discussion be immediately designated. Bro. W.'s engagements and home business matters, made it at the time imperatively necessary that he should return home the first of the week. He therefore proposed to meet Mr. K. and compare views as far as possible on Sunday evening. Mr. K. claimed that he could not attend to it then, and so the matter was left for some future arrangement. Almost immediately on his return home, Bro. W. fell under that stroke of disease, which unfortunately has proved to be of such long duration, rendering him from that time to this, unable to labor publicly in his calling as a minister of the gospel. Of this circumstance Mr. K. has not been slow to take advantage, and to make it the occasion of no small degree of boasting, representing himself as the challenged party, that Bro. W. did not come to time, that the Adventists did not dare to meet him, &c., &c. This man has been apparently considered by his denomination peculiarly adapted to the work of opposing Adventism, as he has been kept here three successive years for the purpose of overthrowing, destroying, and utterly rooting it out of this place. How well he has succeeded may be seen in the fact that not a single member of the S. D. A. church has been turned away by him, although he has indulged freely in such amiable expressions as these, that he has got away from Sabbath-keepers all that he wants; that there are no more he cares to get; that they are welcome to all they have, &c., &c. That some who were once our friends, who believed we had the truth, and who even kept the Sabbath, though they never belonged to the church, have been imbued with his bitter spirit, and now cherish anything but Christian feelings toward S. D. Adventists, we do not deny. But since the organization of the church here, the sum total of losses of members through removals, deaths, and expulsions, has been nine, all told; and there have been nine accessions during the past year, making a present membership of sixty-nine. But not one member has ever left the S. D. A. church, and joined the Methodist or any other church in this place. Such an assertion is an unqualified misrepresentation. The circumstances as above set forth, especially the large talk based on small grounds, awakened an intense interest in the minds of this community to hear upon the Sabbath question. Bro. White not being able to come, it was thought best that Bro. Cornell should visit this place, who accordingly made his appearance upon the ground, June 28th ult. A discussion for the Sabbath question was called for; and although Eld. Cornell gave the same challenge that had been thrown out by Eld. White, the aforesaid Kelly seemed disposed to hold back, because Eld. W. was not on the ground, although he well understood that he had not yet sufficiently recovered from his paralytic shock to attend to any such matter. Outside pressure, however, soon compelled him to enter the arena, and arrangements were made for a discussion. After something like a two hours' parley, the following question was agreed upon: "Resolved, That the seventh day of the week Sabbath given on mount Sinai, is still binding upon all mankind." Two moderators were chosen on each side, the four thus selected, choosing a fifth to act as chairman. The following regulations were agreed upon by the disputants: "It shall be the duty of the board of moderators, to maintain order; to stop any departure by either speaker from the question; to stop any abusive personal or irrelevant language. Should either of the speakers refuse to be thus restrained, the moderators shall thereupon declare the debate closed, and the refractory disputant defeated. "The speakers shall alternate in twenty-minute speeches each. "The moderators shall determine when the debate shall close, after having consulted the disputants. "The only proof and text book shall be the common version of the Old and New Testaments. "At the close of the discussion, the moderators may, if they see proper, call a vote of the audience, as to which side of the question has been defeated." It was also agreed, verbally, that, according to parliamentary usage, the affirmative (Eld. Cornell) should have opportunity (fifteen minutes was all he claimed) to sum up his arguments, and answer any new arguments, if any should be introduced in the negative's last speech. To this argument, the negative (Kelly) subsequently demurred, in a manner that seriously threatened an entire suspension of all proceedings. He was however prevailed upon to compromise the matter by granting parliamentary usage to the affirmative to the extent of ten minutes; and the arrangements went on. Three deputy marshals were appointed to preserve order in the congregation. All manifestation of censure or applause upon either side were strictly forbidden, and every precaution taken to insure order and quiet throughout the discussion. The preliminaries being thus arranged, the discussion commenced on Monday evening, the 9th inst., at the S. D. A. house of worship. Long before the hour of commencement, the interest of the people in the occasion was evinced by their pouring in from every direction. Every available space in the house, upon the floor and in the gallery, was supplied with temporary seats which were soon filled. It is estimated that there were 600 persons in the house, and more than that number outside, unable to gain admittance. The time of meeting was, after the first evening, changed to 2 o'clock P. M., and a large temporary shelter of boughs erected contiguous to the house on the north side, to accommodate as many as were disposed to come. A window was removed, and the speakers took their position by the open space, that those without and within could hear with equal facility. The moderators performed their duty well in preserving order in so large an assembly in which partisan feeling was running so high; and up to the present writing, everything has passed off quietly and with decorum. The audience have seemed also, to a very commendable extent, to heed the request of the moderators to suspend their judgments, and engage in no private discussions of the subjects till the speakers have completed their arguments. So many discussions of this kind have been reported through the Review, a synopsis of the argument on both sides being given, that our readers will hardly care for a repetition of arguments and positions so often stated. It is a fact, however, that the teachings of Adventism have greatly disturbed the foundations of orthodoxy. The teachings of all evangelical denominations for years past, have laid a firm foundation for us on the law of God, as comprised in the ten commandments. In no stronger terms can we speak of its holiness, immutability and perpetuity, than they have done. But now when we call their attention to the fact that this law requires the observance of the seventh day of each week, to avoid this claim, they turn square about and endeavor with their might to tear down what they once, and all the good and pious of past ages, have labored to build up. The Sabbath is the cause of all this. Were it not to avoid the claims of the Sabbath, no such work as this would ever have been seen, or have been for a moment tolerated. There is undoubtedly more truth than poetry in the strong statement made by disinterested citizens of this place, that had the Methodist minister preached such sentiments respecting the ten commandments, before Seventh-day Adventism made its appearance here, as he now utters, his flock would, in righteous indignation, have kicked him to the bottom of the hill on which their church is built. But as before stated, the foundations of orthodoxy are suffering a great upheaval, that a way may be made around the Sabbath; and we are interested to see what path will finally be marked out and agreed upon to accomplish this object. So many novel positions have already been laid before the readers of the Review, that those only have come to be of general interest which are absolutely marvelous and astonishing. There was no lack of these on the part of the opposition in the present discussion. In maintaining the proposition that the seventh-day Sabbath commanded on mount Sinai, is still binding on all mankind, the affirmative proposed to go back to its institution in the garden of Eden, before the fall, set forth the acts performed on God's part in laying its foundation, the great facts and reasons upon which it is based, and the application of these facts and reasons alike to all people and to all time; then trace it down through subsequent ages, showing that with the other nine moral precepts with which it is now associated in the decalogue, it existed from Adam to Moses, as we have plain intimation in the book of Genesis, that it came out plainly to view in the 16th of Exodus, thirty-two days previous to the giving of the law on Mount Sinai; that when the moral law was spoken from the mount, a law binding on all rational and accountable creatures, the Sabbath was assigned a place in its very bosom on the tables of stone; that with the other moral precepts, for man's transgression of which Christ came to die, but not a jot or tittle of which he came to abolish, it passed over in all its force and binding obligation into this dispensation; that Christ, in the teaching which he gave for this age, enforced the Sabbath by vindicating it from Pharisaic abuse; that it was observed by the apostles as is shown by the numerous references to it in the book of Acts; and that it constitutes the Lord's day mentioned in A. D. 96, in Rev. i, 10.53As with others who hold that the Sabbath was first given at the exode of Israel from Egypt, or in the wilderness of Sin, or at mount Sinai, they being apparently not exactly satisfied which, so in the present discussion, it soon became apparent that the negative had a great aversion to going so far back as Eden in the consideration of this question. The points which were particularly fatal to the theory of the negative, as brought out by the affirmative in his Edenic argument, were these: That as the Sabbath was instituted in Eden, according to the plain record in Gen. i and ii, it was made before the fall, and consequently had nothing typical in its nature; that it was made 2500 years before a Jew existed, and could not therefore be a Jewish institution, as is claimed by the negative; that it was there made for man, as the Saviour declared, Mark ii, 27, or, as the language might be translated, "for the man," pointing out distinctly the man Adam, and showing that, as it was made for him in his unfallen state, it was, per consequence, made for all his posterity, for whom he there stood as a representative before God; that the reasons upon which the institution is based, God's resting on the seventh day, after his six days of work, and his blessing and hallowing the day because that in it he had rested, are not Jewish reasons, but apply alike to all mankind; and as long as the reasons upon which the institution is based, exist, so long must the institution based upon them exist; and finally, that a command was given to Adam to keep the Sabbath; for the record states that God sanctified it; and as sanctify means to set apart to a holy or religious use, directions, or a command, must have been given to Adam how to use it; to sanctify a day without such a command would be an impossibility, according to the definition of the term. All these points were argued at length by the affirmative. The importance attached to them on the side of the affirmation, was plainly set forth, and the whole question suspended upon the issue. But no amount of effort served to draw from the negative more than a passing notice of this part of the subject, and not even this for the main points contained in this argument. And when repeatedly urged to meet the issue here, and disprove if he could this array of evidence behind which the affirmative had entrenched itself, he only reiterated his stentorian denial of a single particle of evidence for any Sabbath prior to the exode from Egypt, ingenuously confessed that he did not like to go back to the garden of Eden, and wondered how long the affirmative would keep hanging around that place. And here we are obliged to close the first division of our report, leaving the affirmative still clinging tenaciously to the garden, where God pronounced everything very good, and all the sons of God shouted for joy, and the negative shrinking from its holy atmosphere, and struggling to get away from that time when as yet sin had not entered the world, and error had found no votary in our then unfallen race. Memphis, Mich., July 12, 1866.