A THEOLOGICAL BATTLE AT EAGLE HARBOR, N. Y.
By Charles B. Reynolds
At the commencement of the lectures here, we held three meetings on first-day mornings at Oak Orchard, about seven miles from this place. This induced Eld. Langelle (Baptist) to deliver a discourse on the “Sunday Sabbath.” He had done this some time ago—after Eld. Cottrell had held meetings and gone off—with considerable eclat, having no one to refute him. We did not learn of his intention till Sunday morning, too late to take up our appointment. Bro. and sister Gaskill attended and took notes, and Bro. G. announced that we would review Eld. L. Tuesday evening. His main dependence was on the Epistle of Barnabas, and what he termed the internal evidence, viz., since all the Christian world kept the first day, it must be right to do so. At the time of the review, there was a very large gathering, and Eld. L. was present. In his discourse he repudiated Neander. On asking him if he would accept the testimony of Mosheim, Heylyn, Morer, Bampfield, Domville, and others, he declared he would only accept them if they indorsed the Epistle of Barnabas, Ignatius to the Magnesians, Pliny, and Justyn Martyr; for these were the authorities to which all church historians had to go for facts. We proved the absurdity of this position, and quoted the standard authorities declaring the Epistle of Barnabas a forgery, quoted from the epistle itself to show its lack of sense, decency, or inspiration. Eld. L. announced a reply. Excitement in regard to the matter was very great. Long before the hour of meeting, the house was thronged. The Elder came with a mammoth clothes-basket of books which he proceeded to pile on his desk, making a most formidable and imposing display. He declared they were every one by Sunday-keepers and advocates of Sunday observance, and of unquestioned authority. He next admitted he was wrong in regard to the Epistle of Barnabas, that it was not written by the companion of Paul; but he proved he had good company and excuse for his error,—the majority of the authors of his books. These great church historians held the view he had first taken. He read from them and proved this, oblivious of the fact that he was impugning his own witnesses. We had proved from them, that, while opposed to God’s Sabbath, they contained admissions that sustained our position. He had taken down book, chapter, section, and page of every quotation we gave. Instead of reading from those pages, he read extracts to prove they advocated first-day observance. He might, with equal propriety and fairness, have brought a file of the Examiner and Chronicle to prove that close-communion Baptists believe in immersion. If Bible texts furnish sufficient evidence, what need of his books and alleged teachings of the fathers? If there is no Bible testimony for first-day observance, of what avail are the traditions of men? He said Paul tarried seven days at Troas, and did so expressly to teach the sacredness of the first day, and spend the sacred and holy Sunday with them. He admitted that the meeting mentioned in Acts 20:7–10 was a Saturday evening meeting, quoted Hacket, and declared that Paul, in starting off on a journey at daybreak on Sunday morning, did right; for he was not doing his own work, but going to preach the gospel. He dwelt on this, failing to explain how it was that Paul staid over expressly and only to spend Sunday with them, and then at break of day left them, thus teaching them to observe only the night, and not the day. The Elder admitted that the Saviour taught the young man (Matt. 19) to keep the ten commandments; but said it was because the time had not yet come to preach the gospel. He admitted that Matthew, Mark, and Luke, years after the resurrection, called the seventh day the Sabbath; but asserted that the reason was they were reciting history, and not facts. Paul said he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God; yet had said nothing about Sunday, just so Wesley, Calvin, and all ministers, say they declare the whole counsel of God, yet say nothing in regard to the seventh-day Sabbath. The Elder appeared to think the writers of the New Testament as unreliable as his boasted “standard authorities.” He said astronomers could compute eclipses; but he’d sooner believe the moon was made of green cheese than that they could tell which was the seventh day in the time of Christ. He “kept Sunday in its spiritual application to the moral commandment,” and it did not matter, if he kept it exact, whether it was the first day or not, since he kept the nearest to it he could. All Sabbaths were abolished at the cross: to prove this he quoted Col. 2:16. He refused us opportunity to reply, and then refused us the use of the house for that purpose. He had also obtained from the trustee a promise to refuse us the use of the school-house, and some of his members had used their influence with the trustee of the adjoining district to refuse us the use of that house. The Good Templars offered us their Lodge room; but the owner of the building, under the dictation of his wife, one of Eld. L.’s members, forbade the use of the hall. This convinced all of the weakness of his position, since he took such extraordinary pains to prevent being reviewed. We announced we would review his discourse at his own home in Knowlsville, in the public hall, on Monday, and at Eagle Harbor on Tuesday. Bro. Gaskill and myself walked to Knowlsville, and secured the hall that night, or rather it was one o’clock in the morning. Early in the morning, we are told, an application was made to secure the hall, just too late. We had a very large and attentive congregation, and many are deeply interested at that place. The Eagle Harbor friends turned out in force, and all were greatly encouraged. At Eagle Harbor we reviewed the discourse again before a very large congregation. The result is very encouraging. Some who doubted have been fully convinced; very many have thus had their attention called to the truth, and are reading on the subject.