California | AdventAI

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 30, 1872

California.

In closing my last report, I made mention of a discussion which was arranged to be held in San Francisco, between Bro. Cornell and Eld. Grant, on the Sabbath question. The discussion opened the evening of Feb. 26, at the church on Harrison St., Bro. Cornell affirming that “the Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the decalogue is now binding on mankind.”

After the second evening, through the intercession of the moderator, who was himself a member of the First Baptist church, the First-day Adventists consented to open their house of worship on Mission St., to the discussion, although at first they had utterly refused to allow the discussion in their church. The discussion continued in their house six evenings, making, in all, eight evenings of the debate. It was well attended by candid listeners.

Bro. Cornell enjoyed good liberty in defending the truth, and conviction seemed to fasten on the minds of many, that the truth of the matter was in the perpetuity of God’s law and Sabbath.

The arguments of Bro. Cornell were, in the main, those usually advanced for the origin, nature, and perpetuity, of the Sabbath, except that they were made to shine out more forcibly and clear by being brought into direct contrast with error.

The main fort of Eld. Grant was in a peculiar position on the covenant question, the argument for which, he repeated one or more times about every evening of the discussion. To more fully elucidate this covenant question, he had prepared a large chart. Bro. Cornell indorsed all his chart but one point, and Eld. Grant accepted his correction. His chart consisted in a contrast between the old and new covenants, as follows:

Old Covenant. New Covenant. 1. Parties. God and the Hebrews. 1. Parties. Christ and the saints. 2. Mediator. Moses. 2. Mediator. Christ. 3. Lawgiver. God through Moses. 3. Lawgiver. God through Christ. 4. Laws. From Mt. Sinai to the Hebrews. (Bro. C. corrected this by saying, “From Heaven to the Hebrews.”) 4. Laws. From Heaven to the whole world. 5. High Priest. Aaron and his successors. 5. High Priest. Christ. 6. Tabernacle of service. Worldly sanctuary. 6. Tabernacle of service. Heavenly sanctuary. 7. Seal. Circumcision in the flesh. 7. Seal. Circumcision of the heart. 8. Ratified, by the blood of beasts. 8. Ratified, by the blood of Christ. 9. Inheritance. Land of Canaan with the city of Old Jerusalem. 9. Inheritance. New Heaven and New Earth with the city of New Jerusalem.

Bro. Cornell also had a chart, a painting executed by Bro. M. G. Kellogg, consisting of the tree of love in the center, with six branches to the right and four to the left, branching out of two main divisions of the tree. On the two main branches were two scrolls, on which were the ten commandments, in brief. Beneath the tree, at the right, was Christ upon the cross, the shadow of the cross extending to the left of the tree, and in that shadow was a figure of sacrifices and the Jewish priests offering blood. The explanation of this chart made a powerful impression on the people. It was claimed that the great tree of love bore its ten kinds of fruit, and that the ten commandments hang upon the great law of love, as elucidated in the two great commandments; and that the moral law of ten commandments was not affected by the changes of dispensations. The offerings and sacrifices of the past, have given place to the blood of Christ and appropriate memorials of this dispensation, but still the moral law of ten commandments exists.

A request was sent in by the moderator, to have the explanation of the law-tree, and the argument from it, repeated. Eld. G. met the explanation of the law-tree chart by saying, “I perceive my brother has commandments hanging upon commandments.” This was admitted, and also proved, by Matt. 22:34–40.

Eld. Grant’s peculiar position upon the covenant question, was this: That the “old covenant,” or “first covenant,” mentioned in Galatians and Hebrews, was the ten commandments, no more, and no less: that the ten commandments as existing on the tables of stone were never called a law; that the law was all outside of the decalogue, and that some of the ten commandments were found in the law, but when on the tables of stone they were not the law. His attention was called several times to Ex. 24: 12, and Deut. 33: 2, which he met by saying that the tables of stone was one thing, the law another, “and commandments” another. “The Lord,” he said, “wrote more than the ten commandments.” This was met with the scripture statement: “He added no more,” Deut. 5: 22, and, that Eld. Grant could not produce a single text to prove that God ever did write more than the ten commandments. He produced none.

The reader will now readily see the peculiarity of Eld. Grant’s position on the law and covenant question: When the ten commandments are on the tables of stone, they are the first covenant. When nine of them are found outside in the law they are moral precepts and never can be abolished, and were always binding, even before the Lord spoke to Israel from Sinai. The fourth commandment simply enforces the observance of a feast day. When the old covenant was done away, the ten commandments were done away, but nine of them still remained in force because they were moral and existed elsewhere than on the tables of stone. This position forcibly reminded me of Lorenzo Dow’s swivel in his “Chain of Reason,” and looked more like a dodge, or a position taken to evade the force of argument, than one taken in sober earnest. A lady, a stranger, and a member of the Presbyterian church in a neighboring city, heard the argument one evening when this position was elaborated, and stated at the close that she thought that man (Eld. Grant) must certainly be deranged to take such contradictory positions.

But, unfortunately for Eld. Grant’s effort to kill the Sabbath by having the ten commandments abolished, and nine of them left alive at the same time, it was shown that the Sabbath existed outside of the decalogue, and before the decalogue was written, and was enforced, too, by law. Ex. 16: 28, 29: “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath.” Here the Sabbath not only existed, but was enforced by law, before Israel ever saw Mt. Sinai. So it was claimed by Bro. Cornell, that, if Eld. Grant proved the ten commandments to be the first covenant, and that they were done away (which he could not do) even then the Sabbath would exist the same as before the law was spoken from Mt. Sinai.

Because the ten commandments were called the “words of the covenant,” and the tables of stone called “the tables of the covenant,” &c., Eld. Grant would contend that the ten commandments were the old covenant. Bro. Cornell often repeated to him Ex. 24: 8: “The covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” It was shown that the ten commandments were that concerning which a covenant was made between the Lord and the people, the Lord promising them great blessings if they obeyed “HIS VOICE” (his voice spoke the ten commandments, and added no more, Deut. 4:10, 12, 13), while they, on their part, pledged obedience. Eld. Grant admitted, at first, that the first covenant was a mutual agreement between the Lord and the people, but afterward remodeled it, and claimed that a covenant was mutual commandments, and that it was the ten commandments. He failed to tell us, however, what the people commanded the Lord to do.

To meet the argument of Bro. Cornell, that the Sabbath existed from creation, because it was sanctified at the close of creation week, Eld. G. said that God sanctified the day for his own use, and wished to know where he commanded man to use it before the Wilderness of Sin. Bro. C. showed him that God did not sanctify it for himself, but because he had used it. Gen. 2:3; also that to sanctify was “to proclaim to be holy,” “to set apart to a holy, sacred, or religious, use,” and that in the recorded fact of God’s sanctifying the Sabbath, we had evidence that the day was commanded to man, for there was no other way it could be set apart for his use, only by telling him how to use it.

Eld. Grant first claimed that the ten commandments were “abolished,” and that nine of them were “re-enacted.” For his re-enacted commandments he gave us the following list: (1), Matt. 22: 37, 38. (2), “Flee from idolatry,” 1 Cor. 10: 14. (3), “Swear not at all,” Matt. 5: 34. (5), Eph. 6: 2. (6), (7), and (8), Rom. 13: 9. (9), “Speak evil of no man.” Titus 3: 2. (10), Rom. 13: 9. When Eld. G. was shown that he had kept on with his numbering of the ten commandments, after omitting the 4th, the same as though he had a fourth, he said, “For the fourth commandment, I will quote, ‘Love one another.’”

When it was shown that these scriptures did not give a revised code, but were quotations from the law, and the enforcing of precepts on the authority of the law, Eld. G. changed his position, and claimed that nine of the commandments never were abolished, but were incorporated into the new covenant, just as a State would annul its old constitution by making a new one, incorporating into it some parts of the old.

Bro. C. showed that the new covenant was concerning the same thing as the old, and that in it the Lord promised to put his “law” in their hearts, Jer. 31, Heb 7, and, that Christ, in teaching the new covenant which was ratified by his blood, taught the moral law, every jot and tittle of it. Matt. 5:17–19; Luke 16:16, 17. These latter texts were met by Eld. G., claiming that the expression, “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, &c.,” referred to the sayings of Christ, using the words of Matt. 7:24–26, to illustrate his position.

Bro. C. introduced the second chapter of Romans to show that the same law which was written on the hearts of the Gentiles, was the law the Jews had. Eld. G. replied that the ancient nations did not have the seventh-day Sabbath written on their hearts, but “some of them did keep the first day.” Although he did not directly take his position here, yet, if his words prove anything, they proved that when the ancient heathen nations dedicated the first day of the week to the worship of the sun, it was a manifestation of the law of God written on their hearts. He said seventh-day keeping was not written on the hearts of the nations, but the great law of love was written there; for, go where you would, you would find this feeling among men, “Don’t you kill me,” “Don’t touch my property.” Who recognizes anything but selfishness in that? If he had said the feeling prevailed, “I wont kill you,” “I wont touch your property,” he would have come nearer to it. He was informed by Bro. C. that God did not propose to write his law on the minds of the people in the sense of the new covenant, until they submitted to his law in giving their hearts to God.

According to Eld. Grant’s position, the Gentiles in the past dispensation had the advantage of the Jews. He said “the new covenant antedates the old, was under it, and all around it, the Gentiles had it on their hearts,” but of the Jews, of whom the Lord said if they kept his law (ten commandments), they should be a peculiar treasure above all the nations of the earth, &c. Eld. G. said they could “keep all of those commandments and be lost. There was no love in the commandments, no grace, no mercy, nothing against selfishness.” According to his position, the Gentiles had the law of love. The Lord undertook to elevate the Jews, but actually gave them a code that depressed them lower than they were before.

Eld. G. introduced the round world argument, claiming that a definite day could not be kept; but he himself finally went to contending for the first day to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. He admitted there was no law for it, but said those who loved Christ the most would

keep the first day. “It was not a command, but a voluntary offering on the part of Christians.” Then he said the same day could be kept around the world, but all the earth’s inhabitants could not keep the same minutes. He was told the commandment said, Keep “the day,” and said nothing about minutes. Here again was manifested Eld. Grant’s peculiar strait: He would not keep the seventh day unless the Lord commands it over again; but he will keep a new institution without any command for it, or even a Scripture hint that it is a holy day. How strange it seemed to hear a man of Eld. Grant’s ability, leaving the plain word of the Lord, and trying to sustain his Sunday institution by Barnabas Ignatius, &c., claiming that the love of Christ was manifested in making “voluntary offerings” he never commanded, while the Scriptures state “This is the love of God that we keep his commandments.”

But as it was not my intention to make such a lengthy report, but simply to notice some points of the debate, I will bring this to a close, by inserting, by request, Bro. Cornell’s summing up speech, the notes of which he furnished me.