THE DISCUSSION—THE SABBATH.
By J. H. W.
A FRIEND writes from Lockport, N. Y., concerning the discussion held last Fall, on the Sabbath, and makes suggestions on that subject for my consideration. He says, "I have learned through the Expositor that you have lately had a debate with Eld. Stephenson on the Sabbath question, and as they tell the story you fell in the rear." I have not seen the Expositor, and therefore know not how their "story" has been told. We have long refrained from saying anything about the discussion, and it may not be out of place now to make a few remarks respecting it; though I should prefer to have them made by others. The reason why we have kept silent is, they announced their intention to publish the discussion in a pamphlet, and we have been awaiting its appearance. We thought proper, at the time, to demur against the reception of anything they might [or could] publish as a report of the discussion, for the following reasons: 1. Our opening remarks, occupying one hour, were not heard by their reporter. 2. The reporter announced to the audience that he could not give a verbatim report, as he only understood the theory of reporting, but had no practise. 3. He afterwards stated to individuals that in addition to his being a very slow writer, we were both very rapid speakers, so that he could not follow us. 4. On my urging these objections to Eld. Stephenson, he said that they were also taking notes of the discussion, and they intended to correct his report by their notes! These we consider good and sufficient reasons for rejecting their publication, or receiving it as a report. It is suggested by my correspondent that, if I made a failure in the discussion, it was doubtless because of wrong positions taken by me, and he proceeds to make suggestions for the benefit of Adventists who keep the Sabbath, as he thinks they are endeavoring to maintain the truth by means of erroneous positions. As his remarks are concerning the Sabbath as an original institution, I will first refer to that part of the discussion more intimately connected with that point. The question debated was as follows: "The Sabbath of the fourth commandment was made at creation, and the obligation to observe it extends through the present age." In defence of the first proposition in the above we affirmed that the fourth commandment had reference to but one Sabbath; that one was the Sabbath of the Lord, and was made at creation. Proved by Deut. v; Gen. ii; Ex. xx, and xxxi. In denial he stated that "of" was a possessive preposition, and assumed that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment signified the Sabbath possessed by the commandment; that the commandment could not possess a Sabbath before itself existed. But we had no proof of the existence of the commandment till long after creation; and because it did not exist at creation it could not possess the Sabbath at creation. That the Sabbath of the Lord was made at creation he admitted, but not as the Sabbath of the commandment. We contended that this was a mere evasion of a plain truth, and further argued and illustrated the truth. Thus, we stated, that the commandment pointed only to one Sabbath; that was defined to be the Sabbath of the Lord; all the facts predicated of the Sabbath of the commandment, are predicated of the Sabbath of the Lord; but these facts cannot be predicated of two different days; hence, there is a clear identity existing. We illustrated by the scripture expression, "I am the Lord God of Abraham." Then the question arose, Did the God of Abraham exist before Abraham existed? He replied, No: not as the God of Abraham. The cause of all this sophistry and fallacious reasoning lies in this, that he confounded things with their relations, as if a thing could not change its relation, or possess a new one without becoming a new thing; as if the Sabbath of the Lord, admitted to have been made at creation, could not also be the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, without losing its identity, and becoming another Sabbath; and if so, the eternally pre-existing God could not become the God of Abraham without also becoming a new God! Mr. Stephenson complained very much of my want of conformity to the rules of logic. This was not surprising, inasmuch as I have never made those rules my study. But I remember having read somewhere that "things equal to the same things are equal to each other," or words to that effect. I presume no rule or axiom can be produced that more directly bears on this point than the above, and yet, strong as it is, it does not express all the strength of our position, for the reason that the proposition affirmed partakes more of the nature of a self-evident truth; and all must admit that it is easier to express the relation of things equal to each other, than to express the relation of a thing to itself. My ignorance of rules disqualifies me for judging, but from his very frequent reference to logic it is fair to infer that he won golden honors as a logician on the occasion; and for the gratification of himself and friends I may be permitted to say in all modesty that, being somewhat free from an envious disposition, I shall suffer no personal feelings to arise on the subject. But while he plead for logic I plead for the dictionary and the definition of terms. While arguing the question of the perpetuity of the commandment he declared that the law of this dispensation was in contrast with that of the past age. I pointed out to the audience what a law would be in contrast with the ten commandments. The same may be found in the review of Fillio, pages 27, 28. He denied the conclusion, and when I sustained it by an appeal to Webster, he made the wonderful declaration that he would not be bound by any dictionary on earth, but should use terms as they are used by the best speakers! But mark the folly of such a position. They are the best speakers who nearest conform to the standard authority; and if we deny or reject the authority, we have no means left to us of judging which is best. The arguments used by us in the discussion throughout were the same, and such as were in strict conformity with those, that have heretofore been used by us in our writings and lectures. No position was taken or argument used but what was fully coincided in by all the brethren present. On the contrary, many of his positions were altogether novel, and not only subversive of the plainest and most practical doctrines of revelation, but also subversive of the main positions so long and tenaciously held by the Editor and correspondents of the Expositor. And the Editor of that paper must yield many of his main positions, and deny things that he has so often declared to be "facts plainly stated," before he can endorse the positions taken by Mr. Stephenson. We have been, and are, anxious to learn on what ground they will unite, for we have doubted whether Mr. Marsh had humility enough to step aside for this new rival, and clear a track for Mr. Stephenson to occupy in advance. I will now briefly notice the main positions of my correspondent, and we shall see whether our case in the discussion would have been better had we occupied his ground. After stating some points of agreement between us, that the Sabbath was made for man, he continues: "Was it given to all men? Yes, if they had obeyed God instead of obeying the devil. But when they became the devil's children by obeying him, God drove them out of the garden and placed a flaming sword to keep them away from the tree of life, and of course from rest—for God said unto Adam, Cursed is the ground. (Quotes to the end of verse 19, and adds.) Here we find no promise of a rest-day. But as the prophet says, there is no peace to the wicked, for they are like the troubled sea which cannot rest." In another part of his letter the same idea is presented thus: "—that he obeyed the devil, therefore he became the Prince of this world, and man could neither rest nor live." The following errors may be noticed in the above quotations: They assume that the Sabbath was not to be observed by Adam and his posterity because not mentioned in Gen. iii. But, the scripture quoted is not a rule of obedience, but a curse for disobedience, and therefore proves nothing on the point. They assume that the Sabbath was not enjoined on, and could not be kept by, man, after the fall, because he was driven out of the garden and denied the tree of life. But, it was so enjoined on the Jews, and he confesses that the duty rests upon us now; yet the Jews were not, and we are not, in the garden, and all are yet deprived of the tree of life. They assume that God did not command his law to the wicked inhabitants of the world, after the fall. [He agrees with us on the unity of the Decalogue.] But their wickedness was sin or disobedience to the law, which could not have been the case if they had not had it. Had that been so the wicked could not have been distinguished from the just. They assume that the rest of the Sabbath was only a privilege, and not to be observed except as the reception of a promise. But, the Sabbath was hallowed, and its observance was a duty; and it is certainly unjust to say that God withheld man from duty after the fall, which is to say that God ordained that they should remain sinners because they had sinned. After again affirming that God did not give the Sabbath to man after the fall till after the exode, he says, "Yet I have no doubt some good men kept the Sabbath even through the dark ages." But on what principle did they keep it if God had withdrawn it from them? And if good men kept the law, would not all have been good if all had kept it? The only remaining point necessary to notice is the question of the Sabbath being a type of the Best that remains for the people of God. This we consider a great error. That our friends of the Seventh-day Baptist denomination should continue to hold this view after the light has shone out so clear on it, is a matter of astonishment to us. I quote from the letter as follows: "We learn that after God had redeemed his people from the land of bondage he gave them a rest-day, and it was to be a perpetual covenant or sign between God and his people throughout their generations. Ex. xxxi. A sign of what? Answer: a sign or type of the great rest-day that is appointed and remains for the people of God of 1000 years." Why refer to Ex. xxxi, and then give an answer entirely foreign to anything hinted at in the chapter? There are two ideas presented in Ex. xxxi in connection with the Sabbath as a sign. The first is in verse 13: "For it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you." And in verse 17: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested." Parallels of verse 13 are verses 12 and 20 of Exs. xx. Here we learn both the reason and the use of the sign, and this is all that we can learn on the subject from the Scriptures. When other reasons and uses are given we must regard them as mere human inventions that tend to "pervert the right ways of the Lord." Let us consider a few scripture facts in connection with the following declarations of our correspondent. He says: "If man had obeyed his Maker he would have staid in the garden, eaten of the tree of life, worked six days, and rested on the seventh day for 6000 years and then the great Jubilee of jubilees, or antitype, or holy Sabbath would have continued eternally." When God made the world he pronounced it very good, and gave it to man for his possession and dwelling place. Had man always obeyed God he would always have possessed the earth, and it would always have been very good, for no curse would have rested on man or on the earth. And the Sabbath was made for man at the same time, therefore he would always have had the holy Sabbath in a state of perpetual holiness and happiness. These are admitted facts. And what more could man have looked or longed for? And of what could the Sabbath have been a type? Not of a period of 1000 years of sanctified time, for the Scriptures reveal no such thing; certainly not of an antitypical eternity, as the last quotation makes it. But he says if man had not sinned he would have rested on the seventh day till the great Jubilee, &c. Every seventh year to the Jews was "a year of release" for the benefit of the debtor, but the fiftieth year, or jubilee, was a release of man and the land; in it the bondmen went free, and the land returned to its original owner, evidently typifying the final redemption of God's people and their inheritance, now groaning under the curse. Eph. i, 13, 14; Rom. viii, 22, 23. But if man had continued obedient, holy, happy, and his inheritance very good,110free from all curse, and his home a garden of delights, his food the fruit of the tree of life, what would have been the nature of the jubilee? From what would there have been a release? There would have been none. If the Sabbath would have been a type under such circumstances, it would have been a perpetual type of that which man perpetually possessed from the beginning! This subject might be traced further, but we consider it unnecessary. We shall also refrain from noticing his views of the fulfillment of certain prophecies, as his conclusions grew out of the assumptions herein noticed. Of course we consider them in some respects erroneous. As a friend, and for his benefit, we would suggest that in searching the scriptures he will find it to his advantage to classify his facts, and distinguish between causes and effects, between things primary and secondary. His error in the present case is similar to that of Mr. Stephenson above stated; he has lost sight of the nature of things while tracing their relations. To correct this will be the correction of his whole theory. But while we have differed on these points, we are happy to agree with him on the main point; that is, of present duty to keep the law of God. The performance of our present duty is vastly more important than the determination of the duty of others in the past, or the precise result in the future. They are useful only as they are made auxiliary to this. And of this we may possess the joyful assurance that if we keep his commandments we shall yet have right to the tree of life and enter through the gates into the city. May we through grace keep them perfectly.