p. 5 | The Late Discussion by J. H. Waggoner

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 28, 1869

The Late Discussion.

By J. H. Waggoner

It was my privilege to attend the discussion on the Sabbath question between Elds. Grant and Cornell. Of this discussion, I have refrained from speaking, as we have just issued a report in pamphlet form, and I think the best way is to let the parties speak for themselves, presuming it will reach many who are competent to judge, and need not be told beforehand what to think of it. Eld. Hiram Munger has, however, thought it best to make certain comments in the Crisis, on this discussion, which it is proper for me to notice.

Friend Munger is known to be a man of rare good humor; were it not so, we should be at a loss to account for some of his expressions. His argument begins with a reference to physiology, as illustrating “the spinal cord of the body of the Scripture.” He says, “Life is only discovered in the spinal column from the feet to the head, which was Christ.” His physiology is as good as his theology; we shall find no fault, only we would like to inquire, if his “spinal column” reaches to the feet, which limb does it follow after it leaves the vertebræ? Please project your system, friend M. If it does not take in the schools it will doubtless be a decided success in the museums.

Now for his theology. He says:

“Now as Bro. Cornell repeatedly run the law back to

Adam we saw both the law and the gospel typified in his two sons: Abel, by the blood of his sacrifice, which pleased God, as it pointed to the spilling of the blood of Christ, the new law given; and Cain carried out the old law for the first time, by killing his brother.”

There, if that is not equal to running the spinal cord to the feet, than we challenge you to find a parallel. The “old law,” mark, was the ten commandments; that law said; Thou shalt not kill; and Cain first carried out that law by killing his brother! Surely. We suppose, according to Eld. Munger’s views, the men who most nearly carry out the law of Massachusetts may be found in the Penitentiary at Charlestown; while New Hampshire has no man now living who carries out her laws completely, having recently hanged the last one of that class at Concord!

And following the same strain, he says again:

“Now following these two sons, we can follow the two dispositions down to Christ. Who killed Christ? The old law-keepers.”

There it is again: the true way to keep the law is to break it, as sure as Eld. Munger’s doctrine is true. Is it necessary to quote the words of Jesus to disprove such ranting? It seems almost irreverent to place them beside such expressions as those just quoted. One verse will suffice. John 7:19. “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?” And so it appears that the “Cain family” are the law-breakers. Now, Eld. Munger, do you really think that Cain and the Jews who crucified Christ, kept that law which says, Thou shalt not kill? If you do, then, I would request that, when you issue your system of physiology, you would give us a work on theology also.

But what theology is this? What wonder that infidelity prevails, and men scoff at the Bible and Christianity, when “ministers” are found to preach, and “religious papers” publish to the world that God gave a law to man that could only be carried out by the foulest murder? Well may we exclaim with the Psalmist, “It is time for thee, Lord, to work, for they have made void thy law!”

He then goes on gravely to inform us that “the law never justifies for sins.” No; the law is holy, and just, and good;” of course it condemns sins. But why is this complaint so often uttered against the law? Are we to understand that those Adventists, who so often find fault with the law in this respect, would like the law better if it did not condemn sin? Would they approve the law if it approved of sin? So it would appear, from the tenor of their talk. For our part, we do not think it is any defect in a law that it opposes and condemns wrong. We know it is not the province of law to forgive sins. About the means of forgiveness, there is no dispute between us. But what about the need of forgiveness? Paul says, “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” Why do our opponents so dislike the law? Do they dislike to have their consciences troubled? Paul also says something about being “judged by the law.” That is surely reasonable. We shall be judged by the same instrument that proves us sinners. Jesus alone can justify; but Jesus says, “Go, sin no more,” and John says, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” And so the “Cain family” are in danger of the judgment as law-breakers.

The charge that Bro. Cornell denied any part of our teaching on the subject of the Sabbath, is simply untrue. The story is going far and wide. All right, friends; read the discussion, and see what was said on both sides.

But the closing part of his article is a clincher; hear him:

“It appears to me that most of the adherents or promulgators of the seventh-day Sabbath are of very small calibre, or they could not be so duped as to believe that silly, out-of-date, visionary, unscriptural stuff palmed off in community for prophecy. But nothing will affect a bigot, nor a mesmerized dupe.”

We do not copy this to reply—it does not admit of a reply—but to show what large “calibre” the men have who oppose the Sabbath. Their range of knowledge must be vast, and their reasoning powers great, the article before us being a specimen.

J. H. WAGGONER.