Discussion at Lancaster, N. Y.
By Robert F. Cottrell
This discussion was held according to appointment in REVIEW. The interest to hear was good, the house being well filled, from beginning to end. It lasted seven days, holding two sessions in a day of two hours each; so that twenty-eight full hours were occupied in the discussion. Good order generally prevailed, and the candor and close attention of the hearers spoke much in their favor. As for the results, it is safe to say that our cause has lost nothing by the ordeal. It is evident that prejudice was removed, and the sympathies of the people were turned much more in our favor than against us. Men of mind, both professors and non-professors, admitted that we had the argument; and some are almost, if not altogether, persuaded to take a stand with us. A goodly number had lately embraced the Sabbath in the vicinity, some sixteen, under the labors of Bro. Reynolds, and those of them who attended the discussion were confirmed in the truth, and satisfied that there is no sound, scriptural argument that can be raised against it. I shall not attempt to give even a synopsis of the arguments used; but will say that on the Sabbath and the law, the positions taken by the opposition were the common ones held by those who teach, not that the Sabbath has been changed to another day, but that it has been abolished. It was strongly urged from Deut. 5:3, 15, that the Sabbath was made only for the people that had been brought out of Egypt, and given to them as a memorial of their deliverance. The covenant made at Horeb and dedicated with blood, and which Paul calls the first covenant, in allusion to the second or new covenant, was not the words of God which Moses wrote in the book of the covenant, but a covenant or agreement made with the people “CONCERNING all these words.” Ex. 24:8; Heb. 9:18–20. See also Ex. 19:3–8, where the making of the covenant is recorded, and Ex. 24:3–8, where the agreement is reaffirmed, and ratified or dedicated with blood. With a show of plausibility to the ignorant, because the ten commandments, obedience to which is the condition on which the promises are based, are sometimes called the covenant, it was claimed that the commandments themselves constituted the old or first covenant, and an argument was made which, in the form of a syllogism, would stand thus: - The ten commandments constitute the covenant which Moses declares was not made with their fathers, but with those who were present at Horeb.
- The Sabbath commandment is a part of the ten.
- Therefore the Sabbath was not binding upon the fathers of that people with whom the covenant was made at Horeb.
To prove the absurdity of this argument it was shown that, if sound, it would prove altogether too much, namely, that not one of the ten commandments could have been binding up to that time, because each one of them is a part of the whole. The opposition did not attempt to evade this conclusion, but boldly and audaciously represented that for the first twenty-five hundred years of the world’s history mankind were too ignorant to be amenable to law, and consequently that no law was given till they came to enlightenment sufficient to make them accountable to God. How wise men have become in these last days! How weak and ignorant men must have been those ancient men who lived almost to the age of a thousand years! How cruel to bring a flood to destroy those innocent men that had not come to years of discretion, and for this reason had no law against which they could sin! But, laying irony aside, what a fearful responsibility rests upon those who, to justify themselves in sin, which is the transgression of the law, will thus traduce the God of the Bible. On the other hand, it was shown that the Sabbath was sanctified at the creation; that it was thus reserved from secular use; and it was claimed that until its sanctification should be revoked by Him, who sanctified it, it must remain a sanctified day. Also that the fourth commandment refers us back to the creation for its origin, and the reason of its obligation; and further, that the Sabbath was in existence and was kept at least a month before the covenant was made at Horeb. Hence the following argument is valid: - The old covenant was made at Horeb.
- But the Sabbath was binding before that covenant was made. Gen. 16.
- Therefore the obligation of the Sabbath did not originate with the covenant at Horeb.
Against the claim that the Sabbath was designed only for the Jewish people, Bro. Reynolds made in substance the following argument, founded on Mark 2:27; - “The Sabbath was made for man,” i. e., all mankind.
- The Gentiles, as well as the Jews, are men.
- Therefore the Sabbath was made for the Gentiles, as well as the Jews.
In reply to this, Eld. Burns demanded the proof that the Sabbath was made for the Gentiles; told Bro. R. he did not know how to form a syllogism; he would show him how; and with “The Sabbath was made for man” for the major premise, he attempted to form a syllogism that would bring out the conclusion that the Sabbath was made exclusively for the Jews. I cannot report it; I do not believe he could. After his boasting, it looked silly enough. No one that I heard of was particularly struck with its brilliancy. The discussion on the Sabbath question lasted three days, and ended triumphantly for the truth, both because it was sustained by clear and conclusive proof and arguments, and because the Lord helped to exemplify the spirit of truth and of the divine Master in its presentation, under a tremendous pressure of provocation and personal abuse. Whatever change was effected in the minds of the hearers was in favor of the truth. Many confessed that we had the argument. Some are almost, if not altogether, persuaded to keep the Sabbath. I believe that the effort will result in good. I may speak of the discussion of the other questions hereafter.