DISCUSSION IN SANTA ROSA TOWNSHIP, CALIFORNIA by John Norton Loughborough

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 25, 1869

DISCUSSION IN SANTA ROSA TOWNSHIP, CALIFORNIA.

By John Norton Loughborough

Being requested to publish in the Review the summing up of the discussion between Elder J. P. McCorkle, and myself, held in Piner settlement, Cal., March 29 and 30, 1869, I have carefully revised the same, adding to it other points made in the debate, omitted for want of time in my summing-up speech.

I will first notice the claims of my opponent.

1. He introduced Col. ii, 17–19, and claimed that it proved that the Sabbath was abolished. We replied that the days mentioned in Colossians could not include the seventh-day Sabbath, for these are said to be a shadow; but the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted in Eden before man had fallen, hence could not be a type of his redemption. It is also to be kept in the New Earth, when redemption is complete, when all shadows shall have passed away. Isaiah lxvi, 22, 23.

2. He claimed that the Sabbath could not be binding now, because the stoning penalty is not enforced. He virtually answered this himself by claiming that other of the ten commandments are now binding without that penalty being enforced. Stoning was the temporal punishment for violating any of the ten commandments in that dispensation, but that “ministration of death” has been done away.

3. He claimed from Rom. x, 4, that the whole law of the past dispensation was gone. “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” End is used here in the sense of object. By reading from verses 1 to 10 it appears that imputed righteousness is the subject under consideration. Our own obedience to a law we have broken, will not secure us pardon. This we obtain through faith in Christ.

4. He introduced 2 Cor. iii, 4–16, and claimed that the law of sin and death was on stones, and was done away; afterwards said he did not believe all the ten commandments were done away. This text we claimed only showed that there had been a change in the ministration of the law on stones. In the typical service, on the transgressions of the law that condemns all sinners, it was the duty of the minister to put all wilful transgressors to death; but in this dispensation, when the sinner is shown to be guilty, the minister points him to Christ as a source of pardon; therefore the present ministration of that law on stones, is more glorious than the typical service. The thing done away was covered by the vail. That was Moses’ face and not the tables themselves.

5. He said the Gentiles were never under the law. We showed from Isaiah lvi, that a blessing is pronounced on the sons of strangers who join themselves to the Lord, if they keep the Sabbath. We showed that this text applies just before Christ’s second coming; for it is when “salvation is near to come.” Salvation comes at Christ’s second advent. See Heb. ix, 27, 28, and 1 Pet. i, 5–7.

6. Claimed that in order to keep the Sabbath we must not go out of our houses, because the Lord said to the Jews, “Abide ye every man in his place.” They were not to go out of their places to gather manna, as appears from reading Ex. xvi.

7. Claimed that the law spoken of in Galatians, which is said to be “our school master,” and is dead, was “the ten commandments;” but he virtually denied this afterwards in claiming that none of the commandments are gone but the Sabbath. We showed that the law which points us to Christ, and was “a school master,” is the law of which circumcision formed a part. The law of types is now dead, every part of it, and we are under none of it.

8. Claimed that every one who went back to keep the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, falls from grace. He professes to observe nine of those ten commandments. Why is he not under the same condemnation as the man who keeps the fourth, if they are all gone?

9. Claimed that the law, having a shadow of good things to come, was all gone. His own reading of Heb. x, shows that the law mentioned in that book, is the law of the typical priesthood, which we admit was a shadow, and is gone. But this is not the law of the ten commandments.

10. Claimed that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, endeavoring thereby to show that grace takes the place of the law. The “grace of God brings salvation.” Titus ii, 11. Salvation is from sin. “Sin is the transgression of the law,” which shows the perpetuity of a previously-existing law, which they had transgressed.

11. Quoted Heb. iv, to prove that there was still a rest. Said he did not believe that there was any Sabbath now. Would not claim that this was positive proof of a present rest; said it might refer to the future rest of the saints. This text is a contrast between Joshua’s leading the Israelites into Canaan, and the future rest of the saints.

12. Claimed again that the Sabbath law required every man to stay in his house during the Sabbath; yet in the same speech, said they had a Sabbath-day’s journey, which was a mile and a quarter. We showed that this Sabbath-day’s journey was only one of their traditions, and not a part of the original Sabbath law.

13. Quoted from Col. ii, again, and claimed that the sabbaths there spoken of are against us, and taken out of the way. We showed that the sabbaths mentioned in Col. ii, could not include the seventh-day Sabbath, as Christ says, Mark ii, 27: “The Sabbath was made for man.” These sabbaths of Colossians, are those enforced in the typical law. Seven of them are mentioned in Lev. xxiii. In verse 38, they are spoken of with their meat offerings, and drink offerings, “besides the Sabbath of the Lord.” The holy day of Colossians, is heorté—festival, referring to the passover, which was also commanded by that same typical law.

14. He read from Ex. xxxi, 15: “Whosoever doeth any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” If the Sabbath is now binding, these men ought to be stoned to death, for they went out of their houses to meeting, last Sabbath, more than a Sabbath-day’s journey—by way of joking, said he believed he would call on the boys to stone us a little, anyhow. We showed that the priests on the Sabbath, were required to offer more sacrifices than on other days—“Profaned the Sabbath and are blameless.” Matt. xii, 5. All this is explained by the fourth commandment itself. “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work.” Secular business is strictly forbidden by this commandment. The day is to be spent in God’s service, but Christ himself shows that acts of mercy, such as relieving the afflictions of man and beast, are not forbidden by the Sabbath law. See Luke xiii, 15.

15. Claimed that as Paul did not mention the Sabbath, in Romans x, 9, 10, it was not binding. We learn here, that Paul was telling them what to do to be saved. Salvation is from sin. Sin is the violation of the law, which proves that the law still existed.

16. Claimed that the law of sin and death, was on the tables of stone, and that 2 Cor. iii, proved that that law was done away. By referring to Rom. vii, 23, we learn that the law of sin, was in Paul’s members, and that this law of sin, held him in that wretched condition that he could not keep the law of God, one command of which is, “Thou shalt not covet.” By reference to Rom. viii, 34, we learn that through faith in Christ, we obtain strength to obey that very law, which Paul found to be unto death, because he had transgressed it. That which is called “the ministration of death,” in 2 Cor. iii, 7, is in verse 9 called “the ministration of condemnation.” The death was on stones, in the sense of that being on the stones that caused death to the sinner. The same as the sons of the prophets said to Elisha, 2 Kings, iv, 40, “There is death in the pot.” There was in the pot that which would produce death. But, as before shown, 2 Cor. iii, refers to the change of administrations of that law on stone.

17. Quotes Gal. iii, 21, “If there had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” Claimed that as there was no law up to Christ’s time, that could give life, the previously-existing laws were not good, and passed away. The 22nd verse says: “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” Sin is the transgression of the law—the law of right and wrong; the ten-commandment law. The wages of sin is death. What the sinner wants is

a means of pardon for sin, a remedy to give him life instead of the death penalty. The law of Galatians, which would not give life, is the law of types, the “added” law, the “school master” that pointed to Christ. If that law could have brought pardon and life to the sinner, who had violated the ten-commandment law, what need would there have been that Christ should die? As “the blood of beasts” offered by that law, “could not take away sins,” Christ’s blood is shed, that through faith in him we may find forgiveness of sin.

18. Claimed that the law required every seventh year to be kept, and if we were still to keep the Sabbath, why not keep every seventh year? This seventh-year sabbath was enforced by the typical law, and is included among the handwriting of ordinances, which are blotted out; so of course is not now to be observed.

19. Quoted the gospel commission, Mark xvi, 15, 16, and said it did not say keep the Sabbath, but “believe and be saved.” Believers are passed from death unto life. If my friend’s text proves that the Sabbath is not binding because it is not mentioned in the gospel commission then it would prove that none of the commandments are binding; for none of them are mentioned directly in it. But that gospel is to open the way for the salvation of sinners. Sin is the transgression of the law. So this commission shows that there is a law that underlies this whole matter, which gives rise to the necessity of a gospel by which we may pass from death unto life.

20. Read 1 Cor. xv, 1–5, and claimed that as Paul did not mention the Sabbath here it is not binding. Of this case like the others, we learn that in believing the gospel, men are saved, saved from transgressions of the law.

21. Said the penalty for violating the Sabbath was stoning to death. As I had claimed that was done away, he wished to know what the penalty now was, or if the law was now existing without a penalty. He replied that the penalty for violating all of God’s law is death, the second death. But if Eld. McCorkle’s position was correct, the only penalty for violating the Sabbath was to stone them to death. That was the temporal penalty for violating any of the commandments. Those who had that penalty executed upon them, and are raised in the resurrection, having met the penalty of the law, of course must be saved.

22. Referred to what I had quoted from Ps. xix, “The law of the Lord is perfect;” and said, “yes, the law of the Lord is perfect, but what law is that?” Referred to Heb. x, 1, that the law “would not make the comers thereunto perfect,” claimed that the law of the past could not be the perfect law. Quoted James i, 25, “Perfect law of liberty,” and said, obey this perfect law and ye shall get freedom from sin. He connected with this Rom. vi, 17, 18: “Obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine.” “Being then made free from sin.” His own texts show that there were two laws in the past: one perfect, the other, the typical system, which though it would not make the comers thereunto perfect, would point them to a better hope in Christ. While we admit that that which is to be obeyed to get freedom from sin, is repentance, faith, and baptism, we do not admit that this is James’s law. By looking at James ii, 8–12, we learn that this perfect law is the ten commandments, and is that by which we are to be judged in the last day.

23. Quoted Mosheim’s testimony, written in the last century, to show that the disciples and early Christians kept the first day of the week. This I met by reading from Neander, a learned historian of the present century, who had opportunity to avail himself of all Mosheim’s authorities, and also the historical researches of the present century, who says, “The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance. . . . It was far from the intention of the early apostolic church to transfer the laws of Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place, for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.” Instead of all the early church being unanimous in observing Sunday, we learned from Socrates, who wrote in the middle of the fifth century, that, “although almost all the churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, refuse to do this. The Egyptians in the neighborhood of Alexandria, and the inhabitants of Thebais, hold their religious meetings on the Sabbath, but do not participate of the mysteries in the manner usual among Christians in general.”

24. On the word “fulfil,” in Matt. v, 17–19, said that it meant to accomplish. Thus claiming it meant that the law was accomplished, and therefore had ceased. Webster’s fourth definition of the word fulfil is, “To perform what is required; to answer a law by obedience.” So, instead of the text showing that the law had ceased to be of force, it is still to be obeyed, as is plainly stated in verse 19.

25. Quoted Luke xvi, 16: “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it;” and said that the law only extends to John’s time. But he failed to notice the testimony of verse 17: “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”

26. Quoted Col. ii again, and claimed that it referred to the ten-commandment law as well as the types. Said that the things taken away were shadows. We inquired if God was a shadow. None of the ten commandments, or the duties enforced by them, are shadows. The typical system with its annual sabbaths and festivals—holy days—was a shadow, and is gone; but that does not take away the fourth commandment, nor the law of which it is a part.

27. He claimed that the commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” was brought over by Christ, because he quoted it; but he claimed that Christ had not brought over the Sabbath. We showed that Christ had brought over none of the commandments on a new score, but quoted them on the authority of the original law. This fact is as true of the Sabbath as of the other nine commandments. See Matt. xii, 1–13, especially verses 7, 10, 12; xix, 16–22; xxii, 34–40.

28. Read from Heb. viii, to show that Christ had taken the place of the law. The whole drift of argument in the book of Hebrews shows that the law there introduced is the law of types which regulated the Levitical priesthood. That priesthood was a shadow, and has met its object in Christ. But why do we need a priest? It is to obtain pardon for the transgressions of a law that existed before the typical priesthood, and which will exist after the antitypical priesthood is closed.

29. Claimed that Christ established a better covenant, and that the new covenant does not say anything about the Sabbath. In the new covenant the Lord promises to put his law into our hearts. The contrast is not in the law written, but in the place where it is written. We have the same law of right and wrong here as in the past dispensation, while the first covenant regulating the service of the priesthood has given place to the new covenant, or new way of approaching God for forgiveness through faith in Christ.

30. Claimed that the middle wall of partition was broken down at the house of Cornelius. The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles was the regulations of the typical system. Christ took away that middle wall of partition, at the cross, by abolishing “in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” Eph. ii, 14, 15. For all this, Paul tells us that he had proved, both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.” Rom. iii, 9. Sin is the transgression of the law, which proves again a plain distinction between the law of right and wrong, and the law of types.

31. Christ told the young man: Matt. xix, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Did not mention the Sabbath. Therefore claimed it was not binding. Christ referred to commands which the young man said he had kept from his youth. As Luke records, “Thou knowest the commandments.” Christ, in enjoining upon the young man the distribution of his goods to the poor, developed in him the fact that he loved his worldly goods more than he loved his neighbors. He was covetous. That command of the ten, Christ did not quote. This does not prove that it was not binding. Let the words of Christ have force. If the young man kept the commandments, he could have eternal life. Not by keeping a part, but all of them. The very question of the young man, “Which?” brought out the branch of the law on which he was deficient; namely, in his duty to his neighbor. Surely no one would claim from this that he could have other gods, profane God’s name, and get eternal life. By what authority do any claim that he could violate the Sabbath? The commandments are here brought over as a whole.

32. He quoted Rom. xiv, 1–6, and claimed that Paul taught that all days were alike, that there was no holy time, and that in reference to keeping a day every one should be fully persuaded in his own mind. He told us in a former speech that any one who kept the Sabbath would fall from grace. Does Paul make it a matter of indifference whether we fall from grace or not? By turning to Galatians we see that the falling from grace is spoken of those who were circumcised, and went back to the law of types, when a way had been opened for pardon through the blood of Christ. The day of which Paul is speaking he connects with eating, and also with the eating of herbs. The only day the eating of herbs was connected with in the past dispensation was the passover. See Ex. xii, 8; Num. xix, 11. The expression “every day” here does not include the Sabbath, any more than it did when God gave the manna, Ex. xvi, 4. The Lord in this dispensation has one day which is his; Rev. i, 10; so in Rom. xiv, the expression “every day,” is in reference to the same as we mean when we use the expression every day, as “our every-day clothing,” &c. So far as observing a day in which to make a distinction of meats, and eating—the subject Paul has introduced—the laws making such distinctions are past, and of course he would tell them to be fully persuaded in their own minds whether they would keep the passover or not.

33. Said that I talked as though there were two laws—a moral law, and a ceremonial law, and asked, Where are they? asserting that God never gave a law without moral precepts connected with it. Said he never heard of these two laws in existence at the same time, but he had read of the law of Moses on the tables of stone, but that was done away. This statement was made by elder McCorkle in his last speech the first day of the debate, but in his first speech of the second day, as we shall presently show, he tried to argue the distinction between the two kinds of laws. To show that the continuation of the moral law while the typical law was abolished was no new idea, we read the words of Alexander Campbell: “It is a poor apology for this expurgation of the decalogue, that it is not so done in the Douay Bible. What myriads, then, through this fraud, must have lived and died in the belief that the second commandment was no part of God’s law. “It is clearly proved that the pastors of the church have struck out one of God’s ten words; which not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality.”—Debate with Purcell. p. 214. This was met by reading other testimonies from Campbell to show that he taught the law and Sabbath were abolished. This only showed that he either changed his position in the debate with Purcell, or else advocated in the debate what he did not believe; namely, the continuance, in this dispensation, of the ten commandments.

34. Said, Christ is the Christian’s law-giver; is a king on his mediatorial throne. We are now to hear Christ. He said “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.” James tells us there is one Law-giver. James iv, 12. If this law-giver is Christ, who is our advocate? The Pope claims to be an advocate between Christ and man, but we do not accept of him as our advocate. We read in 1 John ii, 1, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The Father’s law is violated, and Christ pleads for offending man. As to Christ’s being “Lord of the Sabbath,” a man is said to be lord of his wife. He is to cherish and protect her. Christ is “Lord also of the Sabbath,” because it was “made for man,” made for the whole race of mankind. It still continues, and he is Lord of it.

35. Said there were two kinds of precepts, moral and positive. The moral are those that relate to the inner man, and take cognizance of the operations of the mind, while the positive precepts relate to the outward actions. The positive, or ceremonial precepts of each dispensation pass away, while the moral are brought over into the next dispensation. All the moral precepts of the past dispensation are brought over into this, but as the Sabbath relates only to outward acts it is a positive precept, and is not therefore brought over. Here we found the Elder advocating what he never had heard of the day before—two laws at the same time, and attempting to divide the ten commandments. By the same rule that Catholics attempt to dispense with the second commandment, the Elder attempts to dispense with the fourth. But if we look at the fourth commandment, the first words of it take cognizance of the mind, “Remember the Sabbath day.” Remembering is an act of the mind, so by his own rule this is one of the moral commandments, and still exists.

36. Said, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” If I break the law of the land, I sin in doing it. It is duty to keep the law of the land. I replied that the cases of Daniel and the three Hebrew children showed that, when the laws of men conflict with the law of God, we are not under obligation to leave God’s law, to keep man’s law. In those cases, God signally honored those men in their refusal to bow to human laws.

37. In reply to the position I took that the Lord still had a day, Rev. i, 10, he said, first, we read that “The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.” Afterward he said he believed in a first day of the week; that Christ rose upon it. Quoted again human testimony, to show that it was the day to keep. We claimed that the Scriptures were to thoroughly furnish us to all good works. That the Bible taught us no other day as the Lord’s, but the seventh day. There is no necessity of leaving the Bible ground, and going to the Papal platform of tradition to sustain the Sabbath. The Lord has a day; that is the seventh day of the week.

38. Referred to the case of gathering sticks on the Sabbath, and the bearing of burdens in Jeremiah’s time, and claimed that the penalties for these transgressions must still be enforced if a man did any work upon the Sabbath. Christ gives us a rule for Sabbath keeping which shows that acts of mercy and necessity are not prohibited by that commandment. The case of picking up of sticks in the wilderness, was an act for which there was no necessity. They were in a warm climate, where they needed no fire, save to cook their manna, or wash their clothing. This they could do on the other days of the week. The case of bearing burdens, in Jeremiah, was burdens of merchandise, and an open violation of God’s law.

39. Claimed that the commandment in which it was taught that the iniquities of the father shall be visited upon the children, is gone, because Christ said the son shall not die for the iniquity of the father. We replied that in that very time when our friend claimed that the commandment required the son to die for the father’s sin, it was said, “The son shall not die for the iniquity of the fathers,” Deut. xxiv, 16, so that commandment could not mean that the son was to die for the father’s sin. We suppose it to be a physiological law, that the diseases—iniquities—of the father are visited upon their children, even to the third generation. It is also true that by leading correct lives, and observing temperate habits, with God’s blessing, these ills may be measurably stayed.

40. Referred to the testimony of the gospels and epistles, and said we were not commanded in these to keep the Sabbath, and therefore it was not binding. Our answer was, that these testimonies he referred to had reference to the course we were to take to get freedom from sin. Sin is the violation of the law. This shows that the law was still considered by these writers to be in force as a whole.

41. Claimed that the book of Revelation, which was written to the seven churches in Asia, did not command us to keep the Sabbath. I showed that in chap. i, 10, we learned that there was one day that belonged to the Lord. We learn, too, that the law or commandments of God, in contrast with the faith of Jesus, chap. xiv, 9–12, is still to be kept. The faith of Jesus is the doctrines peculiar to Christ, by which we obtain a pardon for sin. The commandments of God are the standard of right and wrong. This law being transgressed, Paul taught repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.

42. Referred to Acts xv, where there was a council at Jerusalem, to know how much of the law of Moses was binding. As the Sabbath was not mentioned here, he claimed it was not binding. We replied that the law under consideration was the typical law, of which circumcision formed a part. There it was decided that all of that law that was in force was to abstain from meats offered to idols, and from things strangled, and from fornication. If this is all of any of the laws of the past dispensation that is binding, then men may kill, steal, bear false witness, covet, blaspheme God, and gain Heaven, if they only “abstain from meats offered to idols,” do not commit fornication, and do not eat things strangled. Does he believe all this?

ADMISSIONS OF ELD. M’CORKLE.

“Admissions in favor of truth from the ranks of its opponents, constitute the highest kind of evidence.”—Pres. Mahan.

1. Admitted that the Sabbath existed before Mount Sinai; reads Ex. xvi, to prove it. If it existed before the written command for its observance was given on Mt. Sinai, it does not depend for its existence on that written law. Ex. xvi, states, “This is that the Lord hath said, to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Then we see by his text from Ex. xvi, that the Lord had designated the seventh day as his before the time the manna was withheld. “This is that the Lord hath said.”

2. Admitted that Christ kept the Sabbath. To be Christians is to follow Christ; if we are to follow him, we shall keep the Sabbath too.

3. In noticing Luke xxiii, 55, 56, which gives an account of the women resting “on the Sabbath, according to the commandment,” this side of the cross, he admitted the fact, but said the new dispensation had not yet been brought in.

4. In meeting my position on Matt. xxiv, by which I showed that “the Nazarenes,” 40 years this side of Christ’s death, who heeded the instruction of Christ, all went out of Jerusalem Sabbath-keepers, he said, Of course they kept the Sabbath; but that was the law of the land, and it was their duty to keep the law of the land.

5. Admits, after contending against it the first day of discussion, that there is a difference between the law by which we learn that we are sinners, and the system of types that points us to a source of pardon. One he claimed to be moral, and the other arbitrary, consisting of positive precepts relating to outward ceremonies.

6. Admits that the law which required the people to be stoned to death is taken away. So all his pleading that men must now be stoned to death if they violated the Sabbath, was of no avail. After contending on Rom. xiv, that all days are alike, admitted on Rev. i, 10, that the Lord has a day; but without proof, intimated that that might be the first day of the week. It proves, and he admits it, that one day is the Lord’s. Then when Paul is talking about “every day,” he does not include the Lord’s day among his “every days.”

7. Admitted that the Lord sanctified the seventh day at creation, but said the Lord set apart his apostles. Did not know as the sanctifying of the day proved anything, and wanted proof that some one kept it from creation. We showed, as will be seen, that all the way the day could be sanctified was by telling Adam how to use it.

8. In reply to our position that the Sabbath was kept this side of the cross, he admitted it, but said circumcision was also practiced. They are not parallel cases. Let us see. “Rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment,” but of circumcision we see by Acts xv, that it is “a yoke,” Gal. v, 1, 5, a “yoke of bondage” that we are not to be entangled with. Quite a difference in the two institutions this side the cross. J. N. Loughborough. (Concluded next week.)