p. 4 | The Memphis Discussion

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 24, 1866

The Memphis Discussion.

Question.—The seventh day of the week Sabbath, given upon Mount Sinai, is still binding upon all mankind. Affirmative, M. E. Cornell, S. D. Adventist. Negative, John Kelly, Methodist.

(Concluded.)

We closed the previous division of our report, leaving the disputants engaged in unequal contest around the garden of Eden. There was one effort on the part of the negative to evade the force of the record in Gen. i, which naturally comes up for notice, before we leave this part of the subject. The seventh day, he claimed, was Adam's first day. What the particular object of this claim was, it would be difficult to tell, as his position, fully stated and oft re-iterated, was, that there was no Sabbath given to Adam, and none in existence till given to Israel at the exode.

In reply, the affirmative showed that the seventh day was not Adam's first day, but his second day; the sixth day being his first day. Thus Adam was created on the sixth day. Eve was created in a subsequent part of the same day; and it must have occupied no inconsiderable space of time to cause the deep sleep to fall upon Adam, take from his side the rib, and form the woman. And all this in addition to the time occupied by Adam in giving names to all the beasts of the field and fowls of the air, previous to the formation of Eve. Then there was a wedding, when the Lord God brought the woman to the man, and the first pair of our race were united by their Creator. Then follows the instruction which God gave them in reference to the dominion they were to exercise over the earth, and the regulation of their own lives; ere it was announced that God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good, and the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Could Adam overlook all this? Would he drop his wedding day out of his calendar as a time of no account? Who ever heard of such a thing? It was thus submitted that Adam would not reckon the seventh day as his first day, but would surely bring into his account, the day on which he was created, married, and established in life.

Between Adam and Moses is a period of about 2500 years, the history of which is condensed into the fifty brief chapters of Genesis. During this period, said the negative, there was no Sabbath; for we have no record of the good men of that age keeping any; to which the affirmative replied that we have no record, in so many words, that the men of God in that age, kept any of the ten commandments. Shall we therefore conclude that they broke them? We have no record in Genesis that they knew anything of a general Judgment, the second coming of Christ, or the life to come. Shall we therefore conclude that they knew nothing about these great features of the plan of salvation? Yes, responded the negative, we must so conclude. There is no record that they knew anything about these things, and they did not know anything about them whatever. And when the affirmative afterward showed that though Genesis is silent on the subject, yet they were not ignorant of these great truths, as shown by Paul when he says that they sought a better country, even a heavenly, that they looked for a city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God, and by Jude when he says that Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied of the coming of the Lord, with ten thousand of his saints to judgment, he endeavored to stave off his signal defeat by roundly denying that he said that they knew nothing of a general judgment and future life, but only that the light they had concerning these things, was dim in comparison with that which we enjoy.

The position of the negative was that the Sabbath was never binding on all mankind; that it was given to the Jews alone, and not to them till their exode from Egypt; though he made no attempt to show any acts performed at that time by which the Sabbath was instituted. He was obliged to take the position that it was instituted at the exode, rather than at Sinai, to meet the record in Ex. xvi, that it was known to Israel thirty-two days before they came to Sinai. But this completely spoiled his argument on the "old covenant" so far as it related to the Sabbath. For in order to have the Sabbath done away, he claimed that it was a part of the "old covenant" made at Sinai, which has been done away. To disprove this, all that the affirmative had to do was to appeal to Ex. xvi, and the negative's own admission that the Sabbath existed before that covenant was made, and thus, not being dependent on it for existence, the passing away of that covenant would in no wise affect it.

Like all those who endeavor to prove the Sabbath a merely Jewish institution, Mr. K. passed right over the original commandment in Ex. xx, which sets forth the acts by which the Sabbath was instituted, and the great facts upon which it is based, to the rehearsal by Moses forty years afterward, as found in Deut. v, in which none of these things are mentioned, but where Moses exhorts them to keep the Sabbath in view of their great deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Here, argued the negative, is the reason assigned for keeping the Sabbath. It is a Jewish reason showing that no other people were required to keep it. To this it was replied that other duties, confessed on all hands to be moral, were required of the Jews for the same reason. Now if the language used in reference to the Sabbath proves that none but the Jews were required to keep it, it proves the same in reference to the other things; which is proving too much. See Deut. xxiv, 17, 18.

But that the Sabbath was not made for the Jew exclusively, the affirmative argued from the broad declaration of the Saviour, "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark ii, 27. Those who claim here that man means only the Jew man, should take the same ground on 1 Cor. xi, 9, which declares that the woman was made for the man, and then carry out their teaching by abandoning all the women to the Jews.

The affirmative further argued that the Sabbath was not limited to the Jews, from the fact that it did not belong to the ceremonies and regulations which were exclusively theirs. It has its position with moral laws, and equally with any other of that class of laws, is binding on all mankind. The distinction between the two laws, moral and ceremonial, was shown by comparing the following scriptures: Rom. vii, 14, with Heb. vii, 16; Matt. v, 18, with Heb. vii, 12; Psa. xix, 7, with Heb. x, 1; Isa. xxiv, 21, with Col. ii, 14. Rom. viii, 12, with Eze. xx, 25, &c. This argument for distinction in laws, was not answered by the negative. He simply asserted that he knew not where any one could find any distinction; he knew nothing about any such thing.

To the argument that the Jews themselves held the ten commandments to be paramount to all other laws, the negative replied by referring to the fact that circumcision was performed on the Sabbath, and claiming that they consequently held the law of circumcision to be superior to the law of the Sabbath, as the latter had to give place to the former. Here he came nearer to making a point than on any other part of his argument. But the affirmative was not long in making a final disposition of it, by showing that circumcision was a religious rite, and all that the commandment prohibits is our own labor, not labor which we may perform in the service of God.

In attempting to prove the abolition of the entire code of ten commandments, there was a labored effort on the part of the negative, to show that it was an imperfect code, ill adapted to the advanced condition of Christianity. To this end, he first asserted that the Jews were sunk in gross ignorance and idolatry, that they had no knowledge of the true God, and were no better than the Egyptians, and that the ten commandments were just adapted to their idolatrous and ignorant condition. This was disproved by the affirmative, by a reference to Ex. i, 17; ii, 23–25, in which it is stated that the Hebrew midwives feared God, and the people cried unto him, and he had respect unto them. New-Testament writers also dwell largely on the high position occupied by Israel in being made the depositaries of God's truth, when all other people had apostatized from him; and Stephen plainly tells us that they received the lively oracles (the ten commandments, the things spoken) not as an imperfect rule adapted to the low condition of an idolatrous people, but to "deliver unto us (Christians)," Acts vii, 38. This text, which so plainly shows the ten commandments brought over and delivered to Christians, the negative made no attempt whatever to answer.

Shall we be Jews? be a Jew? be contemptuously asked, when referring to some of the wicked deeds of those who, though they were "of Israel, were not Israel." And this was all the reply vouchsafed to a conclusive argument by the affirmative, showing that we must be Israel in the Christian sense, "Jews inwardly," "Israelites indeed," grafted in to the original and native stock; for "to them pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants [plural, the old and new], and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;" and if we are not Israel in this New-Testament sense, we are cut off entirely from all these blessings. Rom. ii, 28, 29; John viii, 39; Rom. ix, 4, 6, 7.

"The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath;" Mark ii, 28; to abolish it if he pleased, said the negative. No, replied the affirmative; no more than a man has a right to abolish his wife, because he is declared to be the lord of the woman.

Our Saviour, said the negative, was ever accused of the Jews as being a Sabbath-breaker. He never denied the charge; and according to the law he was a Sabbath-breaker. To which the affirmative replied, that, taking whatever view of the law we may, it was certainly binding to the time of the crucifixion, and if Christ broke it during his ministry, he was a sinner. But Christ ever defended himself against the charge of the Pharisees, showing that what he did was lawful, or according to the Sabbath law. If the negative wished to take his position with those wicked Pharisees, and call the Lord a Sabbath-breaker, he could do so; but the affirmative would indignantly decline any such position. Being thus again brought into a close place, the negative again had recourse to denial to extricate himself therefrom. He denied that he ever said the Lord was a Sabbath-breaker, but only that the Jews regarded him as such.

Col. ii, 16, was then appealed to by the negative, as a stronghold for his position: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect to a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days." Here, said he, no man is to judge us in respect of the Sabbath; for the word days is no part of our version, it was supplied by the translators; Sabbath is the correct reading." To which the affirmative replied, or commenced to reply, by showing that the word sabbath in that text was in the original as the plural, whereupon Mr. Kelly sprung to his feet and called him to order, as violating the rules of the debate which made the common version of the Old and New Testaments, the only proof and text book, whereas he was appealing to the original. Eld. Cornell replied by showing that Mr. K. had done the same thing by throwing out the word days, as no part of the original, but a word supplied by the translators. But I have adhered to the common version, vehemently claimed Mr. K., and I know that the word days is no part of the version. How do you know? exclaimed Eld. C. This very pertinent question brought him to a dead halt; but the moderators hereupon came to his relief by quashing all further parley between the speakers.

The congregation however heard enough to understand that the original word was plural, and that if not translated sabbath days, it should be sabbaths, not the Sabbath.

A strong argument for the perpetuity of the law was built by the affirmative on the words of the Saviour in Matt. v, 17–20, that he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill, and that till heaven and earth passed, not a jot or tittle should pass from the law.

But, urged the negative, the penalty, death, has been done away, which shows that the law has passed. To which it was replied that this would prove the passing away of every command in the decalogue as well as the Sabbath; for they each had the death penalty attached to them in the former dispensation. But it was shown that the penalty was no part of the law itself, as engraven upon the tables of stone, but only a ministration peculiar to that dispensation. But further, a penalty can be changed a thousand times and not affect the law a particle, just as the penalty for murder in Michigan has been changed from death to imprisonment for life; but there never has been a moment in this State when the law against murder was not in full force.

But Christ came to fulfill the law, said the negative, and he did fulfill it, and that is the end of it. It was replied that fulfilled, as applied to law, means to observe and keep; but if it means to do away, then all law is done away; for the early Christians were exhorted to bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ. Gal. vi, 2. Did they do it? They did. Then, asked the affirmative, if the law of God has been fulfilled and done away, and the law of Christ has been fulfilled and done away, in the name of reason, what law is there left? The argument on this point was evidently coming to a crisis. The negative finished it, by saying that the claim that all law is done away, if the ten commandments are gone—is too silly to be noticed!

We can barely allude to the argument by the affirmative on Rom. iii, 19, 31, to show that the law is still in force, from the fact that Paul in his day proved all the world guilty by it, and solemnly asserted that it was not made void by faith; also an attempt by the negative to prove the ten commandments done away by the passing away of the glory of the former ministration, 1 Cor. iii, and from the casting out of Hagar, which he claimed represented the ten commandments. Gal. iv, 21, 31.

It was admitted by the negative, when pressed to show what there was remaining in this dispensation, that the spirit of all the ten commandments was still in force. This was shown by the affirmative to be a surrender of the whole question, as the spirit of a command cannot be kept and the letter violated. The spirit may be transgressed and the letter kept; but the spirit cannot be kept and the letter broken. Such a thing is an impossibility.

We must not omit to mention an appeal to the prejudices of the people, on the part of the negative, in which he represented that the moral reputation of Memphis would be greatly damaged by the existence of Sabbath keepers in their midst; which received a scathing rebuke from the affirmative in the remark that the report that there were a few citizens of Memphis endeavoring to conscientiously observe the seventh day, would not prove quite so damaging to the moral reputation of the place, as the report that must go out from this discussion, that the Methodist minister of the place had tried publicly to prove that the ten commandments were all abolished.

An appeal for sympathy by the negative also demands a passing notice. He referred to his sainted father, Fletcher, Wesley, Luther, &c., all trampling on the commandments of God, and coming up in the judgment and sentenced to everlasting misery because they had kept Sunday! This was set forth in a voice, and with looks and gestures, evidently designed to draw tears from the congregation, but which from his having undertaken more of the theatrical than he was able to perform, only provoked a laugh. One word from the affirmative on the point set it all right before the people. It was enough to say that we have ever believed and taught that a person's responsibility is proportioned to the light he enjoys. The good of past ages will be saved, because they lived up to the light they had. If we have more, we must follow it.

As already noticed, the affirmative was to have the privilege of summing up his arguments to close the discussion. He was of course to introduce no new matter; and if he did it would be the duty of the moderators to call him to order. But they made a different arrangement by inserting the proviso, that if the affirmative did introduce new matter in his last speech, the negative should have the privilege of reply. This we well understood to be a loophole by which the negative could claim new matter, and so after all get the last speech. We were not disappointed. No sooner was the summing up of the affirmative concluded, than the negative claimed that new matter had been introduced, and that consequently he had the privilege of reply, and proceeded to take the stand under such a degree of excitement, as eye-witnesses aver, that he forgot to take his tobacco from his mouth and lay it down upon the pulpit, as he had previously done, when rising to make his speeches. His claim to the right of a reply was disputed, but the moderators overruled in his favor, and he went on. In this speech he introduced the New-Testament subjects of feet-washing, Babylon, and the mark of the beast, points which when disconnected from the subjects to which they stand related, are well calculated to excite prejudice in the minds of the people. And when some one in the congregation, unable to submit to the outrage, called out to know what that had to do with the subject—"Oh," said the speaker, "This is all Hagar, all Hagar!"

At the close of the discussion, a vote was taken, according to the preliminary arrangements. Before the result is declared, two facts should be stated:

1. The question was unfairly put. It should have been put, if we understand it, in such a way that the people would be required to vote on the comparative merits of simply the arguments that had been introduced in this discussion. Instead of this it was stated that those were to vote for Eld. C. who believed he had fully proved from the Bible that the seventh day Sabbath is now binding on all mankind. The ground occupied by this question was far from being covered by this discussion, and, as can be readily seen, a person might not be able to take the position that Eld. C. had proved the Sabbath binding, all things considered, who yet would be free to acknowledge that he had sustained his position, so far as the arguments adduced by Mr. Kelly were concerned. The vote was thus made to cover more than the question at issue, and virtually to commit those who voted for the affirmative, to an acknowledgment of their obligation to keep the Sabbath.

2. We were credibly informed that the friends of the Sunday side of the question sent out to various settlements around, and imported no small company of persons, on the last day of the discussion, to vote on their side of the question.

Yet with all these efforts, their majority was nothing over which to boast. So far as the vote inside of the house was concerned, which came within our personal observation, it was very close. Whatever majority there was for the negative, must have been given chiefly by those outside of the house. Between two and three hundred, it is estimated, besides the S. D. A. church there, voted in favor of the Sabbath. This is far better than, under the circumstances, we could have expected. Eld. C. had good freedom throughout, and the church feel greatly encouraged. The citizens of Memphis appear like a candid, intelligent class of people who could appreciate the force of an argument.

The interest felt in this discussion outside of that village lends it additional importance. A reporter from the Detroit Free Press was present, who gave through that paper a summary of each day's proceedings. With all those who attended the meetings throughout, and those who get a correct report of them from the commencement to the close, we are willing to trust the result.