The California Discussion.
By M. E. Cornell
In the World’s Crisis of March 27, 1872, the Editor tries to comfort himself and to raise the drooping spirits of his brethren, in reference to our discussion of the Sabbath question at San Francisco, as follows: “We see and hear of special good fruits from our late discussion of the Sabbath question with Eld. M. E. Cornell. Those who were before perplexed and unsettled on the subject are now at rest, and rejoicing in the Lord more than ever. They see the beautiful harmony of the Scriptures in clearer light and greater simplicity, and read them with new delight and satisfaction. We have much reason to thank the Lord for the results of the discussion in San Francisco.” To the candid and unprejudiced who listened to the discussion, the above is really amusing. It reminds us of the boy who whistled in the dark to keep up his courage. But this is characteristic of the Editor. He is a wonderful man. He does not fear to affirm any proposition; for he knows how to fall back on the columns of the Crisis, where he can coolly claim a victory, even when he has made a total failure. It is the opinion of many that the above rejoicing would be more appropriate on the other side. Indeed, this had been the feeling expressed privately among our friends. And we had felt that the victory for the truth was glory enough, and we could well afford to keep silent. But the many efforts of Eld. G. to patch up his side of the question will be considered sufficient apology for our reference to the subject. It is a little singular that our opponent should manifest so much uneasiness over the results of the discussion in the minds of the people, if he really felt that he had gained his question. Why all these references to it, if he felt that it was all well for his side? And why are his friends so troubled? In the Crisis of May 8, Eld. G. says: “We have received the following, signed by fifty persons who attended the debate: ‘To whom it may concern—This is to certify that Eld. M. E. Cornell’s last speech in his debate with Eld. Miles Grant in this city, was a series of misrepresentations of Eld. Grant’s remarks and positions.’” When we consider that Eld. G. had the closing speech, and every chance to expose any misrepresentation, we fail to see the occasion of such a testimonial in the Crisis, published on the opposite side of the continent. Those who heard the debate and were unbiased, well know that those thirty-seven points of Grant against the Bible and Grant against himself were strictly true. And were our friends so disposed, they could easily get double that number of names certifying to the correctness of every point of our summing up speech. We know there was no mistake, for we had the photographic report taken by Eld. Loughborough, and thus were enabled to get every point exactly right. As to the results of the discussion, we certainly have felt that we had every reason to be thankful. Many who had been Eld. G.’s warm friends were astonished at his positions and arguments, and especially when he was driven to say, that Christ broke the Sabbath, and taught his disciples to break it! also, that the ten commandments were not a law! If he admitted the decalogue a law, it would spoil his covenant argument.7But it was clearly shown from Ex. 24: 12, that what God wrote was called “a law;” hence his main argument was a failure. In one of his reports Eld. G. rejoices that not one of their members had gone over to the Sabbath. Why should he think it probable that they would? We did not expect that those who were left after the truth had been so thoroughly presented there, and so many of their numbers, and the most conscientious of them had come out on the truth, would be changed by the discussion, only to become more hardened in no-law-ism. For Eld. G. himself did voluntarily admit to me, and at different times to several reliable parties, that our efforts in San Francisco had taken out the best of their people, also that wherever our preachers had been in the Eastern States, they had taken out the very cream of their churches, and the reason he gave was, because they were so “very conscientious.” But what effect did the discussion have upon our members? It confirmed every one of them. They were so “very conscientious,” that they could not give up the moral law of God. On the other hand, those who were not “very conscientious” could show a disposition to cheer a man who charged his Lord and Saviour with breaking his Father’s law! In confirmation of Eld. G.’s statement, that the most conscientious embraced the Sabbath, we may refer to the case of Bro. D., an old ’43 Adventist, who has ever been regarded as a pillar. It was at his house that Eld. John Howell died. He heard our lectures in the tent and continued his investigation about six months. His reading, together with what he heard from the opposition, rather strengthened his conviction that the Sabbath is still binding on mankind. When Eld. G. came, he was a regular attendant upon his lectures, and had frequent private interviews with him in reference to his convictions on the Sabbath question. He was more than willing, he was anxious to be convinced that the Sabbath was not now binding, and Eld. G. did his best to satisfy his mind that such was the case. But so conscientious was Bro. D. that despite all these opposing influences, he broke away from them all and came to our place, and made public his resolution to keep the Sabbath. The contradictory positions of Eld. G. had opened his eyes, and had settled the question in his mind. At the close of the discussion, he came up to where Eld. Loughborough and I were standing, and handed to each of us twenty silver half dollars. We inquired what that was for. With a full soul he replied, “That means that the debate is over, and my mind is forever settled on the Sabbath question.” From that time Bro. D. has been a constant attendant on the Sabbath and evening prayer-meetings at our place, and he appears to be one of the happiest of men. The State meeting at Santa Rosa greatly encouraged him, as it did many others. He stated that he had been connected with several reform movements, and had been all through the Advent movement from the first, but he had never before heard so many testimonies (eighty spoke in about sixty minutes) in quick succession, and all so intelligent and in such perfect harmony and humility. And he saw such harmony in all the business of two days, there not being a single dissenting voice in the whole time, as he had seldom witnessed before. Looking over the notes of the three discussions I have had with Eld. Grant, I find that he has changed his positions several times, and that each time, he has been more and more confused; and I am greatly in hopes that we may soon meet again, and have a verbatim reporter, that both sides may be published in the World’s Crisis and the ADVENT REVIEW. Then all of both parties can see for themselves who it is that makes the contradictory statements. Woodland, Cal., June 3, 1872.