Discussion in Orwell, Ohio.
By J. H. W.
While in Orwell last fall in the tent I was informed by a man who attended the Yearly Meeting of the Disciples, that a Mr. Higgins, Disciple preacher of Youngstown, Mahoning Co., would like to discuss the Sabbath question with me. This not being very tangible, little was said about it. On coming back to this State I was informed that the desire had again been expressed; and on the 29th of January a letter was handed to me through his friends, proposing to meet me on the subject, also proposing a question for me to affirm, which I accepted: it embraced the present obligation of the fourth commandment. Though I have never been forward to debate, there are circumstances which justify it and render it necessary. Such I judged these to be; and our correspondence resulted in a discussion on the 1st, 2d, and 3d days of March, two sessions a day, of two hours each, in the Methodist house in Orwell. As he had characterized our views as being subversive of the authority of Christ, I introduced the subject by affirming the harmony of the scriptures and the unity of the Father and Son: that the authority of the Son was delegated, and must be exercised in strict accordance with the Father's will; that in giving "all power" to the Son, the Father did not vacate the throne of power, but called the Son to the joint occupancy of it, that the Son could not therefore do anything subversive of the will of the Father. And that the Sabbath was not a New Testament institution; that, though the Sabbath or Lord's day, is clearly taught in the New Testament, it is by recognition, and not by commandment, that the apostles always regarded "the scriptures" as their authority, and to these we must appeal for the institution and relations of the Sabbath. Mr. Higgins early turned his argument, as I expected, to the abolition of the law, and without attempting to overthrow my main positions, repeated and re-repeated the usual round of "not under the law," "Hagar," "ministration of death done away," "no written law from Adam to Moses," &c., which have so often been shown to harmonize and not conflict with "the scriptures." Of all the debates which I have heard or read, I never knew one in which the negative so completely failed to come up to the argument. He attempted to build up a negative merely, and asserted that the law died "by cessation of the government, by limitation, and by appeal." I do not propose to give any extended account of the debate, but merely to notice some points on either side, and on the affirmative mostly such as were not contested at all. 1. At creation the Sabbath was made, "set apart" for man. On this he merely affirmed that there was "no written law," but would not notice the argument or its conclusion. 2. It was God's sign or memorial of creative power, reveals his title, and perpetuates his knowledge. Not noticed. 3. The duty to keep it co-extensive or co-existent with the generations of Israel, which have not yet ceased. This I could not get noticed. 4. The commandment grows out of our relation to the Creator, and of his rights of property as Creator. Certainly as moral as any law growing out of mere human rights. Denied its morality, but would not assail the argument. 5. The ten Commandments were, by the Lord himself, called "a law" (Ex. xxiv) and this is the only law God ever spoke to his people, or wrote with his own hand. Denied that God spoke it to the people; but gave it to Moses to speak to them. 6. God declared they would be "holy" if they kept it. Many scriptures point it out as "righteousness;" that it is the only rule of righteousness or holiness that ever was given—the only complete moral code in all the Bible; of which it is said, it "shall not be abolished." This proposition I advanced with full confidence that it could be sustained, but I expected to have to contest the ground covered by it inch by inch. But to my surprise he would not even deny it, or make any reference to it, though I frequently called attention to it. 7. It was given as a condition of life,—it is perfect,—embracing the whole duty of man. Not denied; though his argument made Christ abolish man's whole duty. 8. It is God's holy covenant commanded to a thousand generations, to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel. He said the covenant commanded to a thousand generations, the law to Israel, was the promise of the land of Canaan. 9. Isaiah said the Gentiles should keep it when the Lord's house was a house of prayer for all people. He asserted in reply that the "strangers" and "all people" of Isa. lvi, only referred to the Jews. 10. It is shown in Ex. xxiv, Jer. vi, vii, &c., to be God's law in plain distinction from all other laws. Did not notice it. 11. Promise of the New Covenant embraces the same law in the heart. He argued that the difference of the covenant was in their laws; the fallacy of this I exposed, but he would not notice my argument on the two covenants, though in duty bound to bring on the negative. 12. Kept by Christ as our example. Merely denied that Christ was our example in keeping the law, being under another government. 13. The Lord's day, the Sabbath is recognized by the writers of the New Testament as something known and existing. Not noticed. 14. As it was first given by God himself, before the ceremonial law was given to Moses, that could be abolished without affecting this. Not noticed. 15. That it was the expressed condition of the kingdom, and Christ taught that the kingdom should be taken from the Jews who did not keep it, and given to a nation who would keep it. Matt. xxi, et al. Not even denied or noticed in any way. 16. That all moral obligation to God and man is embraced in it. Acknowledged that "all the law" hung on these, but only nine tenths belonged there as growing out of natural relations. 17. The Saviour endorsed the Father's will, which is his law, (Rom. ii, 17-20.) as the test of his doctrines. Not noticed. 18. When the Saviour presented himself as a sacrifice on the cross, he said the law of his God was in his heart, (Heb. x, Psa. xl.) and to say that, at that time, with that profession on his tongue, he abolished that same law, is to make him guilty of deception. 19. He did not abolish the law in his death, for he came and died to put away sin, or transgression of law, and not the law. Neither of the above were contested. 20. That if abolished at the cross, or "the government ceased," as he said, then there was no government for a time, and all moral obligation was suspended. Though I frequently pressed this, he would not reply to it. How could he? On each of the following points I put forth a proposition, to neither of which was there a reply. Paul endorses it, on the authority of "the scriptures" as inculcating "all good works;" that the transgressor, Jew, and Gentile, must be redeemed from its curse to inherit the blessing of Abraham; that it is the rule of justification, the Gospel harmonizing with it as the means; that it is not made void through faith; that he endorses it by quoting the Old Testament to prove Jews and Gentiles sinners; that it was spiritual, ordained to life; that it will be the rule of judgment, and as such constitutes the oracles of God, or "living oracles" which Stephen said Moses received "to give unto us;" that God is dishonored in its violation; that the carnal mind is opposed to it; that the precept or righteousness is fulfilled in the followers of Christ; (See Rom. viii 4; Whiting's Trans.; Greenfield's Lexicon;) that the same law that now convinces of sin, will not justify, and therefore is not the law of Christ, and is not made void through faith; that repentance is taught toward God, the "one law-giver," and faith toward Jesus Christ, the "Mediator between God and man." He replied to this last however by saying that it was never taught to any but the Jews. Acts xx, 21. On 1 Cor. iii, he asserted that the "ministration of death" was written on stones, and the law written on stones was abolished; and said in advance that if I said it was the ministration and not the law, he was "prepared for me," for he would show that a law without a ministration is a nullity. But I did take that position by showing the figurative use of the term "death;" that the "service" was not on the stones; that Moses' face was vailed, not the law; and that his face and its glory represented that dispensation, or ministration. In his reply he argued that Moses did not represent that ministration, for his ministration did not commence for some time after the law on the tables of stone was given to him; thus making the distinction between the law on the stone, and the ministration, as marked as I could have asked, and he asserted that his ministration had not yet commenced when the man was stoned for violating the law, thus proving, (if there was any proof in his position) that the law was not a nullity without the ministration. In our correspondence I invited him to affirm concerning the first day of the week; but he refused.141Toward the close of the discussion he wished to turn it on that question, which I would allow only on condition that he would extend the time. This he would not do. But when the discussion ended I proposed a remedy for this difficulty, viz., that we debate the same question at some future date, taking longer time for it; for I offered from the beginning to let the largest latitude be given to the question, only so that time be taken to canvass thoroughly. This offer he refused. I then proposed that he affirm on the first day question, and we debate that two days. This he also refused. But he announced that the house was tendered to him to preach in that evening, and he would, by request, preach on the first day of the week. I then stated that I should apply for the house to review his discourse the next evening. I attended his meeting and took notes; but the house was refused for a reply. Thus I was excluded from two synagogues in one week. However I assured them that the truth did not rest on majorities, and appointed to review him on Sunday evening in the Town House. These events are suggestive. Presbyterians and Methodists, whose church standards and standard authors teach the perpetuity of the Law of God in the strongest terms, manifest their eager hope that it is abolished; and those who have made their boast of the Bible as the rule, turn the key upon him who adopts the motto of the Bible and the Bible alone. The conflict approaches; wrath is already manifested against such as "keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." And they vainly seek to bind the truth by majority votes. But God is above majorities, and his counsel will stand. Had this principle prevailed Noah might easily have been voted out of the ark; and the "little flock" be deprived of the kingdom. I was well aware that the prejudices and feelings of the majority were against me; but with confidence in the God of truth I was able to rejoice in the truth of God, and I enjoyed the discussion as much as any three days' meeting that I ever attended. And I was not alone. I trust the result will be known in "many days." Sunday the 6th I went to Bloomfield and baptized four; returned to Orwell and had a good hearing, quite beyond my expectations, for the roads were in a far worse state than they have been this winter before. Mr. H.'s Sunday argument amounted to this. Jesus told his apostles to teach what he had commanded: Paul said they were to do all in the name of Christ; therefore whatever they said or did was by Christ's authority, and so is binding on us. Paul met with the disciples at Troas on the first day of the week to break bread. He concluded that Christ had commanded them to do so; for if he had not, they shared in doing it without his authority. Any casual reader can see the absurd conclusions which may be drawn from such premises. My argument on the Lord's day in the New Testament I have been requested to furnish for publication.