Discussion at Woodhull, N. Y.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
This discussion, between Eld. W. Marlatt, a nominal Adventist, and sister S. A. H. Lindsey, was held in a grove in the town of Woodhull, Steuben Co., on first-day, June 9, 1872. The challenge was given by Eld. M., and so urgently pressed that sister L. could not well avoid acceptance. The day was fair, the attendance and attention good, and all passed off in the most quiet and orderly manner. And I have never been present at a public discussion where so little personality was brought in by the speakers. In only one instance Eld. M. threw out a suggestion, questioning the veracity of his opponent, to which she made no reply whatever. We may well forgive him this, when we consider that it is so rare a thing that those who take the ground that the ten commandments have been abolished, can take part in a discussion, without evincing a large share of that enmity which always exists in the carnal mind against that law. Have we not some reason to hope for his conversion to each requirement of that entire law which David, by the Spirit, said was “perfect, converting the soul”? The proposition which Eld. M. affirmed was in substance this: That the ten commandments, given by the voice of God at Sinai, were abolished at the crucifixion of Christ. His main argument was that the ten commandments, because they are called God’s covenant, were the old, or first, covenant, which was to give place to the new, or second, covenant. This was denied; and it was clearly shown that the first covenant, which Paul says was dedicated with blood, Heb. 9:18, 20, was the mutual agreement between God and Israel “concerning all these words,” that is, “all the words of the Lord,” which Moses had written. Ex. 24:3–8. The violation of this contract on the part of the people rendered null and void their claim to the promises of God, given on condition of their obedience to his law; but how could man’s violation of the law of his Maker abolish that law? But while claiming that God’s law was the old covenant, he asserted that if “one party breaks a covenant, it is dead,” and hence, since the Israelites broke the law, “It was abolished,” to use his own words, “long before it was abolished at the crucifixion.” Indeed! if so, it was abolished long before the time stated in the proposition. If it could be abolished so easily, why was it necessary that Christ should die in order to nail it to his cross? He denied that Christ died for man’s violations of the ten commandments. Was it then the chief object of his death to abolish that law which the Israelites abolished by worshiping the golden calf, before Moses returned from the mount with the15tables of the law? They did truly break the covenant which they had made to keep those commandments, by this act, and rendered null their claim to God’s promises, made on condition of their obedience; but did this render null and void God’s claim to their obedience? Preposterous! Then the ten commandments, and the covenant made concerning them, are distinctly two things; and the covenant could be dissolved by a failure on the part of man to fulfill the conditions, and God’s claim to man’s obedience of his law remain good. If man had fulfilled on his part the contract, and God had not, then he would have broken the covenant himself, instead of the people who he accuses of breaking it. In that case they might have claimed exemption from future obedience to the law they had agreed to keep. But God says, “My covenant will I not break,” and, besides this, he adds, “nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.” Ps. 89:34. This was the tenor of the discussion. I do not attempt to reiterate the arguments precisely as they were given. But Eld. M. still persisted in the claim that “the ten commandments were called the first covenant,” and not only so, he persisted in saying that this was admitted on our part. If he did not know better, not being able to understand our position, plainly stated, we can forgive him. To make it appear that there was “no distinction” between the ten commandments and the laws and regulations which follow in the same, and subsequent chapters, he said that the Lord ceased to speak at the end of the ten, because the people could no longer bear to hear his voice. In reply, it was demanded why, when he wrote his law on tables of stone, he ceased writing right where he ceased speaking. Deut. 5:22. To this he did not attempt to reply. Thus he had the ten commandments abolished at the cross, and long before, and nine of them enacted by Christ in his new law, in the beginning of his ministry, in the sermon on the mount, before they were abolished at the cross. So the nine, if they were abolished, were abolished after they were incorporated into the law of Christ. He claimed that the ten commandments were obligatory upon the Jews alone; and yet he said that “The principles of nine of those commandments are as old as creation,” and that “every one of them are binding on us.” But when sister L. began to show that the Sabbath dated back there, and that the fourth commandment is the only one of the ten that refers back to the creation for its origin, he objected to her proceeding, as not being relevant to the question. He said that the law “was ordained unto death.” Said he, “Paul supposed it to be unto life, but found it to be unto death.” See Rom. 7:10. His explanation of Rom. 3:31 was, “We establish the law we are under, the law of faith.” The text read to suit this view, would stand, Do we then make void the law of faith through faith? A silly question; and equally silly the answer. The distinction which he made between the nine commandments as given on Sinai, and as given by Christ, was, that as given from Sinai, they only pertained to outward acts; but as given by Christ, they reach the motives of the heart. And he represented that God would not judge the ancients for projected crimes, if by some circumstance they were thwarted in their intention, and prevented from carrying it out in the act. Of those who planned murder or adultery, but failed in the execution, he emphatically asked, “Would God in judgment punish them?!” implying the strongest negative. And of those who were put to death for crime under the Jewish law, he asked, “Will they be punished twice for it?” But what was most remarkable, was that, unexpectedly to us, he closed up the discussion rather suddenly, not having once referred to 2 Cor. 3:7—a text upon which we supposed he would base one of his strongest arguments. What was the reason? Was it for the same reason that Abimelech at Thebez, when mortally wounded by a piece of a millstone cast from the hand of a woman, called hastily to his armor-bearer so slay him with the sword, lest men should say, A woman slew him? The truth has lost nothing by the discussion. I trust that fruit will be seen as the result. The truth is gaining ground with the candid inquirers. Some will see and embrace it. Would that Eld. Marlatt might see it, and have humility sufficient to come out, and, as far as possible, counteract the evil influence he has exerted in breaking the commandments of God and teaching men so. He acknowledges that if he is wrong, his position is dangerous. May he abandon it, before it be too late.
R. F. Cottrell.