ECHOES FROM THE "BAPTIST MINISTERS' MEETING" IN NEW YORK CITY.
THE various and contradictory reasons adduced in favor of Sunday observance, by those who attempted to discuss Dr. Hiscox's paper on the anti-New Testament character of Sunday observance, were truly "Zebraic." The majority of the speakers discussed nearly everything but the paper. Not one of them attempted to refute Dr. Hiscox's exegesis of the passages which he so carefully analyzed, or the pretended arguments which he pulverized so completely. Rev. E. T. Tomlinson, of Elizabeth, N. J., opened the discussion. He recalled his Seventh-day Baptist parentage with pleasure, and gave full meed of praise to a people so conscientious, although he differed from them in toto on the Sabbath question. He proposed to determine the status of Sunday by tracing its history backward, and not by beginning with the New Testament, as Mr. Hiscox had done. His argument is fairly summed up as follows: The Church Fathers speak of a certain regard for Sunday; the apostles made some distinction between days; Paul taught that men were not to be "judged" because they esteemed days differently. Every man should be fully persuaded in his own mind. What he said was the essence of easy-going no-Sabbathism. It was much more fully stated by Justin Martyr, a semi-pagan Father, about 150 A.D.; and it is the fountain of the "Continental Sunday evils" about which we hear so much. It was evidently a fair statement of Mr. Tomlinson's views, but not an answer to Dr. Hiscox's paper. Prof. Norman Fox, of New York, agreed with Dr. Hiscox that there is no evidence of transfer of the Sabbath, nor any biblical authority for keeping Sunday. He took the ground that the Sabbath was wholly Jewish, and that "there was nothing left to transfer;" also that the Gentiles were never commanded to keep either Sabbath or Sunday. His theory was a compound of no-Sabbathism and pan-Sabbathism. Mr. Fox is too good a historian to accept the popular false theories. The chairman, Dr. Luther, of Jersey City, referred to the fact that at his ordination he was so heterodox as to deny any biblical ground for Sunday observance; but age and experience had shown him that Adam's first day of existence was Sunday, and hence that Sunday was kept until the time of the law at Mt. Sinai, etc. This was so nearly reductio ad absurdum that it seemed a pleasantry, or a subterfuge, one could scarcely tell which. Rev. Walter Rauschenbusch, New York, stated the various theories very clearly and definitely, and took the ground that all "enacted law" in the Old Testament had ceased, and that only general principles remain, to be applied as experience and wisdom dictate. He agreed with Dr. Hiscox as to the lack of biblical authority for any transfer. Other speakers followed, with various phases of all the various theories and notions. The efforts to quote or to refer to history showed a lamentable ignorance of real facts and great ability in making unfounded assertions. Some proposed the childish proposition of sending the Seventh-day Baptists on a voyage around the world so that they "would keep Saturday on Sunday," and be all right. It was a great surprise to hear Dr. Lemuel Moss, of Minnesota, present this as his only argument. Dr. Moss also reported that at one time he had a Seventh-day Baptist pupil who sought explanations and help on the Sabbath question, and he frankly told him that he had no wisdom to impart and no arguments to make to dissuade him from being a Seventh-day Baptist. Professor Schmidt, of Hamilton, agreed with Hiscox as far as the Bible is concerned, and with Rauschenbusch as to the propriety and value of observing Sunday under the law of love and freedom. His statements touching history were much more accurate and intelligent than those of the majority of the speakers. Toward the close of the meeting Dr. Yerkes, of Plainfield, and others, attempted to induce Dr. Hiscox to say what should be done. "Should we all observe Saturday?" "Why did he observe Sunday?" etc. The Doctor was wary; he kept Sunday first "from association;" he did not say that it was wrong thus to do; he would keep the Sabbath readily if all others would. He was not ready to say, and had not attempted to say in his paper, what should be done; but he added with great force, "I have proven that the usual arguments for Sunday observance, based on the New Testament, are valueless, and if you do not believe this, so much the worse for you." The whole discussion revealed the utter want of unity among the defenders of Sunday. No one made any honest effort to prove Dr. Hiscox wrong. The strongest and most intelligent speakers acknowledged the essential, if not the absolute, accuracy of his position. A few wordy and superficial men attempted the cowardly tactics of talking Dr. Hiscox down by denunciation and lofty assertion. The younger men were mainly silent, and many were troubled and thoughtful. Several of the speakers seemed more anxious to be rid of the whole thing than they did to candidly discuss the paper. It was a strange discussion to occur in such a gathering, among men who so frequently assert that Baptist history and Baptist doctrine show that "the Bible alone is the Baptist standard of faith and practice." It is useless for conservatives to sit on the safety-valve lever of the Sabbath question in its relation to the Baptists. Rupture in their ranks, or a general return to the Bible Sabbath, is sure to come. The no-Sabbath tendency now seems to be in the ascendancy; but it is also certain that many of the more thoughtful men are deeply anxious about the situation. It is too late to give the Sabbath question settlement by lofty indifference or by silence. Something will be said, and Baptists, of all others, must face the fact that "something must be done."—Evangel and Sabbath Outlook.