EAGLE HARBOR DISCUSSION.
By J. M. Aldrich
To. J. M. ALDRICH—Dear Sir: In your notice of the discussion at Eagle Harbor, in the N. Y. tent, on Sunday the 4th inst., you state in full the five points made by Bro. Hull in his opening address; and then you add, "Bro. H. drove his pins on the foregoing points so tight that Eld S. very wisely concluded to let them remain. Instead, therefore, of attempting to reply to the solid arguments of Bro. H., he led off in the discussion with nine propositions as the foundation and superstructure of his position on the question under debate." Did I not attempt to reply? Let me try to refresh your memory. Did not Bro. Hull in his opening address say he would present but a few of his points at that time, in order to give me a chance to reply, and have time besides to offer arguments in support of my side of the question? And did I not attempt to reply to his first point (which was that the Sabbath was made for man) by saying that if it was for the Jews only, it would be made for man; for a Jew is a man? Did I not attempt to reply? His second point was, The Sabbath was given to the children of Israel as a sign. Did I not attempt to reply by admitting it was given to them, but not to Christians? His third point was, The observance of the Sabbath was for a perpetual covenant. Did I not attempt to reply by saying you might take your Concordance and find the word perpetual, and you would find it was applied to things that have an end, as the word forever does sometimes? Therefore it did not follow that the Sabbath would always continue. His fourth point was, God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it. Did I not attempt to reply to it, by admitting it, and that it was to be binding as long as the old covenant lasted? His fifth point was, The covenant containing the Sabbath is a covenant of ten commandments. Did I not attempt to reply by saying that he saved me the trouble of proving that old covenant was the ten commandments, and that I admitted it, and did not Bro. H. refer to my admitting so much, when he came to reply? Now, if on reflection you should recollect that what I have called to your mind is correct, will you please make the acknowledgment through the same paper in which you attempted to give a notice of the debate? I would call your attention to the omission you made in not giving all the texts of scripture I supported my seventh and eighth propositions with. The following I gave with the seventh, in addition to what you gave. John v, 22; Mark ix, 7; Rom. vii, 22; viii, 1–21; John ii, 4. Also the following with the eighth: Rom. vii, 14; Rom. vii, 6,—very important supports to be left out of a pyramid that was so weak that "it fell to the ground by its own uncomely proportions." If it is true, as you say about it, why not give me the benefit of the quotations, while you gave Bro. Hull so full and explicit a report of his opening? But, by the by, will you tell us when it was that the "well-directed artillery of Bro. H. scattered that pyramid to the four winds?" Was it before it fell? If so, there could not have been anything to fall. But if the great slaughter was performed after it fell, I should think he would have saved his ammunition for another occasion. If that was so, I do not wonder that you say it was a "very interesting discussion." Perhaps you draw upon your imagination somewhat, as some think you did, when you stated that "hundreds had to stand outside the tent." I will close this by expressing the hope that while you are striving to keep the fourth commandment, you will have some respect for the sixth. Ex. xx, 16. Rochester, N. Y., Aug. 27, 1861. ELD. P. A. SMITH—Dear Sir: Through the courtesy of the Review I am here permitted to reply to the foregoing communication, wherein you complain so bitterly of my report of the discussion between yourself and Bro. Hull. Now, really, Eld. S. I deeply sympathize with you; and you will allow me to express the wish that I might do something to help your condition. Indeed, if the adage be true respecting the "wounded bird," also the proverb that "a drowning man will catch at straws," your case must be truly perilous; for the way you have "fluttered" since the discussion, and the desperate effort you now make to "catch at straws," shows that you were not only seriously "wounded," but that you are now in the very last stage of "drowning!" What shall be done? But hold! There is hope! That "old covenant of ten commandments"—that "old law"—forsooth, is doing its work! It slew Paul; possibly it may drown Smith! and he consequently be led to exclaim, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good!" Hoping that your seemingly perilous case may turn out thus favorably, I will pass to notice some of your principal items of complaint. You complain most bitterly of my saying that you did not attempt to reply to the arguments of Bro. Hull. I confess I am surprised that you should bring such a complaint. I did not suppose that you would claim that you did attempt to reply to the points he made in his opening address. I thought I was very modest in making the report in this respect as I did; for had I chosen other language I should have said that you did not only not attempt to reply to his points, but admitted nearly or quite all of them. But you try to refresh my memory by stating certain points which you say you did make in attempting to reply to the five points made by Bro. H. And I submit that your own version of the matter does not materially strengthen your case, unless you claim that your several admissions were "attempts" to reply. Let us notice the points in order. 1. You admitted with respect to the first point, that the Sabbath was made for man in the garden of Eden. You also admitted that the term "man" in the proof text [Mark ii, 27] represented the whole human family. Now under this point, with these admissions, what was there left for you to "attempt" to reply to? Bro. Hull claimed no more. But do not these admissions rather take the wind out of what you now say you offered as an "attempt" to reply to this point? viz., "If the Sabbath was made for the Jew only, it would be made for man; for a Jew is a man." By your admissions you conceded that the Sabbath was made for "man," the representative of the whole human family, over two thousand years before there was a Jew in existence! hence it could not have been made for Jews only. Do you see? With reference to the second point, you said you admitted the argument drawn by Bro. H. from his proof text. Ex. xxxi, 13. The argument was that the Sabbath being given as a sign to the children of Israel, to run throughout their generations, and their generations being still in existence, therefore the sabbath is yet binding on them; but the middle wall of partition being now broken down that the Gentiles may become fellow-heirs, &c., therefore the Sabbath obligation also rests upon Christians. So having admitted his argument thus made, there was nothing left under this point for you to attempt to reply to. 2. You claim that you attempted to reply to his third point by showing that the word perpetual was often applied to things that have no end, &c. My notes assure me that you did show such was the fact; but that showing did not meet the case; for Bro. H. had not put that point in issue. He showed that the Sabbath as a perpetual covenant was based on the fact that the Lord made heaven and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh day. Ex. xxxi, 16, 17. But the fact, or basis, still remains, and will ever remain; therefore150from your own reasoning, the word perpetual, when relating to, and connected with, such a fact, cannot be limited as to duration; hence from your own testimony there was nothing in issue between you and Bro. H. under this point. 4. As to the fourth point, my notes are silent as to anything said by you; and I have no recollection of your making the attempt that you claim. It is my impression that you waived this point entirely. But under this head you now claim as your "attempt," &c., that "the Sabbath was to be binding as long as the old covenant lasted." Let us bear this in mind as we proceed to examine the next point. 5. As to the fifth and last point, you admitted that the ten commandments were the covenant commanded to a thousand generations. 1 Chron. xvi, 16. No issue then here! But under this point you claim as your "attempt," &c., that "the old covenant was the ten commandments." Now put these admissions together, and see what will be the conclusion. 1. "The old covenant is the ten commandments." 2. "The ten commandments were the covenant commanded to a thousand generations." 3. "The Sabbath is to be binding as long as the old covenant lasted." I submit that you have fairly convicted yourself. If you do not keep the Sabbath now, the fault will lie at your own door. You next complain that I left out of your pyramid some very important props! This should not have been. It was not intentional. It was a very difficult thing to prop up, and I trust you will excuse me if I did my part of the work in a bungling manner. But you complain of me for not giving you the benefit of the quotations named, while I gave Bro. H. "so full and explicit a report of his opening." If you will look at the report you will notice that I gave you the benefit of eleven proof-texts, while I gave only four to Bro. H.! But about the "slaughter" of that "pyramid!" Were you not there? Have you forgotten so quick? Did you not see how it was done? Did you not witness its fate with your own eyes? Still do you ask for information? How slow of perception! Let me then again assure you that your "pyramid"(!) did fall, and must have fallen for the very reason stated, and which you have quoted. And I therefore confess that the work performed by the "artillery" was hardly necessary under the circumstances. There was in fact, as you have intimated, a needless waste of "ammunition." Though doubtless it was deemed expedient that a little powder should be burned on your account, and perhaps a very few others, who like yourself imagined there was something about that mis-named structure that was truly formidable! But as you draw your article toward a close, you wax very sarcastic. Did you count the persons "outside of the tent?" I confess that I did not; therefore in forming my judgment as to the number, perhaps I am somewhat guilty of the charge you insinuate, to wit, "drawing on my imagination." Possibly it was overdrawn. I do not claim any particular skill in the matter whereof you charge. Your closing remark, though the most cutting and wicked of all, contains a redeeming quality worthy of note. You acknowledge thereby the utility and binding force of what you term the "old covenant"—"the ten commandments." I am glad of such acknowledgment from you, though made thus indirectly. May I not therefore in response to the "hope" you expressed for me, cherish a similar hope for you: that you will yet establish yourself upon the law of God, and thenceforth strive faithfully to obey all its precepts. Sincerely desiring that your convictions may thus lead you,