DISCUSSION IN MELBOURNE.
By A. S. Hutchins
THE discussion between Bro. D. T. Evans and Eld. Miles Grant, of the question, “Is the Seventh-day Sabbath binding upon the Christian church?” I spoke of in my report of our meetings in Canada. But Eld. G.’s account of it in the Crisis having fallen into my hands it seems proper that it should be noticed again, and some of his statements in the Crisis corrected. From Eld. G.’s report of this discussion, I judge he considers himself most successfully triumphant, while Bro. E. met with a flat failure. We take another view of the matter, as also did the citizens of Melbourne, so far as we learned. Not one, to my knowledge, who keeps the Bible Sabbath, or who was favorably inclined to our position, was in the least moved away from the truth by it. But contrariwise, it was believed that the prejudice of some minds was by it broken, and they were favorably disposed towards the truth. Bro. E. showed the origin of the Sabbath, God’s Rest-day, to be at the creation week. That the day on which God rested he blessed and sanctified; gave the definition of the word sanctify, as given by Webster, i. e., “to separate, set apart, or appoint to a holy, sacred or religious use.” Read Mark ii, 27. “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Argued that man, here, is used without restriction, consequently the Sabbath was made for the whole human family. Bro. E. here introduced the reading of the text in it’s original. “The Sabbath was made for THE man, and not THE man for the Sabbath.” This language points us directly to the man Adam. And as Adam was the only man when the Sabbath was made, and the head of the human family, consequently the Sabbath was made for every being bearing the name, man. Job xiv, 1; Ps. civ, 23; Eccl. xii, 13, were then read as illustrative of the use of man in the above texts, agreeably to the following grammatical rule: “A noun without an adjective is invariably taken in its broadest extension, as, Man is accountable.” In reply, the negative did not unsettle nor disprove these points, but contended the Sabbath could not here be binding because no command had been given for its observance. Still he was shown the Sabbath to be obligatory upon Israel in the wilderness of Sin, some thirty days previous to the proclamation of the law upon Sinai. Says Moses [see Ex. xvi, 23], “This is that which the Lord hath said (not is going to say) To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Why the Sabbath thus familiarly spoken of if not binding previously? for nothing is here said of its institution. Neither at Sinai is it spoken of as a new institution, nor as there sanctified. But “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy;” that is, forget it not. Eld. G. read Deut. v, as containing the reason why Israel should observe the Sabbath. In his report, after quoting the 15th verse, he says, “When the Lord chose the memorial day by which Israel was to commemorate their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, he selected the one on which he rested at the close of creation week; but the reason for instituting the Sabbath for Israel was not because he rested himself, but because of their great deliverance just accomplished.” Not a word is said in this chapter of the Sabbath as a “memorial day,” of the deliverance of Israel from bondage, nor about the “reason for instituting the Sabbath for Israel.” Appropriate memorials commemorative of this great and mighty event are found in Ex. xii. Says Moses, speaking of the deliverance, “It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt.” Ex. xii, 42. Hence these assertions are unsustained by the word of God, and this reasoning fallacious. A great and wonderful deliverance had just been wrought for God’s chosen people, they were now delivered from the iron heel of oppression, and the galling yoke of continued servitude, imposed upon them by cruel task-masters, were brought out where if they would, they might “observe his statutes, and keep his laws” [Ps. cv, 45]; “Therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day.” Deut. v, 15. If this last quoted scripture proves the Sabbath a “memorial-day,” or to have been instituted for Israel, then by the same process of reasoning Eld. G. is bound to admit that the principles of honesty and justice are memorials, instituted for the same class and for the same purpose. See Deut. xv, 15; xxiv, 17, 18. Again, that “man” is used in its most extended sense in Mark ii, 27, the negative did not deny—was not particular whether it was so construed or not, but could not see that the texts above quoted from Job206xiv, 1; Ps. civ, 23; Eccl. xii, 14, had any bearing on the point. We further claim that Bro. E.’s arguments in favor of the perpetuity of the law of God, drawn from Matt. v, 17–19; Rom. vii, and other texts, were not refuted. Had Eld. G. refuted or unsettled these points, he would have felt himself quite confined to the negative side of the question, instead of out-running his time, and getting on to the affirmative, as claimed by himself, and some of his friends. The report makes Bro. E. say, “The other nine commandments are not brought into the N. T.” Whereas he said, “they were not given in the N. T. on a new account, or as a new law: no more brought over into the N. T. than the Sabbath.” The reader will bear in mind that the Sabbath of the Lord is mentioned fifty-nine times in the N. T. Both in the discussion and report, Eld. G. makes the ten commandments exclusively the old covenant, which at some point of time (not told when) receives a deadly wound, before or after which, nine-tenths of the wound is healed, nine of the ten commandments, “omitting the fourth, are re-enacted in the New.” He continues, “The fourth is a special institution for Israel; the other nine contain moral precepts binding upon all classes.” The following scriptures contain what he calls the “nine.” 1. Matt. xxii, 36–38. 2. 1 Cor. x, 7. 3. Matt. v, 34. 5. Eph. vi, 2, 3. 6. Rom. xiii, 9. 7. Rom. xiii, 9. 8. Rom. xiii, 9. 9. Rom. xiii, 9. 10. Rom. xiii, 9. Then he says, “Jesus adds a new commandment, which supplies the place of the fourth, which is abolished.” This is the “re-enacted,” “re-modeled” law or covenant, “omitting the seventh-day Sabbath.” The core of the sore is now taken out, the root of the fault in the first covenant is extracted, the troublesome, burdensome, tiresome fourth commandment can no more afflict. But here are objections, the mark is overshot somewhere. Eld. G.’s first commandment of the nine, is the first of the ten great commands, and contains the sum of our duty to God, hence the Sabbath is there. Again, when was the re-modeling of this covenant completed? If not till Paul wrote his epistles, there must have been an elapse of a number of years, before the last five of the nine could have been binding. Again, Eld. G. believes the first day is the Sabbath, and says, “He who keeps the seventh day, virtually unites with the Jews in denying the resurrection of Christ.” Where is the place for the first-day Sabbath in his covenant? Where is the “thus saith the Lord” for keeping it? Says David, “The law of the Lord is perfect.” What would he say could he see the one in question? “Shall man attempt, with blind and bungling move,
What is already perfect, to improve?
Better ’would be, ye fighters of the law,
If your own weakness, verily, ye saw;
If ye would hear the teachings of God’s word,
And live obedient to all ye heard.
Better ’twould be t’ obey God’s holy will,
And own the Sabbath precept binding still,
Before ye make, in all ye do and say,
Such wretched work to have it done away.”