The Discussion in Portland, Me.
In the articles written by Eld. T. M. Preble, and published some time since in the World's Crisis, appeared the following challenge to all Sabbath-keepers: "I now propose to all Sabbatarians, as I have spoken once more upon the subject of the Sabbath, that if they think my present position is unscriptural, and can be shown to be such, I will just say without bigotry or vanity, that if they desire, and will present a man well qualified to defend their side of the question, I will, by the Lord's permission, meet him at any proper time and place, and we will have this matter tested." To this it was replied in Both Sides, p. 217: "Sincerely believing his present position to be unscriptural, we have endeavored to present a few reasons for so regarding it. If Eld. P. is not satisfied, men will not be found wanting at any proper time and place, to further test this matter with him." Apparently not satisfied, he reiterated his challenge, see Advent Review of May 9, and July 18, 1865, which was accepted by Eld. M. E. Cornell, and arrangements made which culminated in a discussion of the question, in Portland, Me., commencing Monday evening, Nov. 6. The question was drawn up in the following form: The Seventh-day Sabbath, observed by God's people prior to the crucifixion of Christ, is still binding upon mankind. Affirmative by M. E. Cornell, negative by T. M. Preble. The discussion was arranged to continue through eight consecutive sessions, of two hours each, each disputant to make three speeches of twenty minutes in length at each session. There were present at the discussion a goodly number of the friends of the Sabbath, including Brn. Andrews, Howard, Hanscom, Goodrich, Prescott, Sage, &c. On the other hand it was expected there would be present a still greater number of its enemies, who have set Eld. P. forward in his work of opposition, and some of whom we understood had been especially requested to be present. What was our surprise therefore to find that not an individual of them appeared at the discussion. Were they unwilling to be present and thereby endorse his position? Surely it could not be by accident that they all remained away. Their absence therefore becomes far more significant than it was unfortunate. The first-day Adventists of Portland are in sentiment not first-day sanctifiers, like Eld. P., but no-Sabbath. Thus he was left without any endorsers, worthy of mention, either present or absent—a fact greatly calculated to lessen the interest of the discussion. There was, however, more interest manifested by those without than we had expected to see, and the discussion opened with the Advent hall quite well filled, and with a good degree of interest. It is too often the case that persons who engage in discussions strive for the mastery merely, and that the friends of each party, when the strife is closed, regardless of truths presented or results accomplished, go off and claim for their respective sides an unqualified victory. Of this we shall let our readers judge for themselves, while they read a condensed statement of the positions taken and arguments advanced by each disputant. In his opening speech on the affirmative, Bro. C. led the audience back with him to look for awhile, as it was appropriate first to do, at the eternal foundations of the majestic institution of the Sabbath, which were broadly and securely laid at the creation of the world. The distinct creative acts, and the elements which enter necessarily into the Sabbath institution, were clearly set forth. He made the following points: 1. There must be a definite record of the enactment of any institution, to make it of force; and we must have such record. 2. There is a plain record of the institution and appointment of the ancient Sabbath. 3. We have all the steps clearly described, which God took to institute the Sabbath. (1.) God rested on the seventh day. (2.) He blessed and hallowed the day on which he had rested. (3.) He sanctified his hallowed rest-day. 4. To sanctify a thing, as the Sabbath-day was sanctified, signifies to set apart to a holy or religious use by divine appointment, which is, the giving of a commandment for its observance. The Sabbath was thus sanctified in the beginning. 5. Twenty-five hundred years after this we have the fourth commandment. God set down in writing, with the other principles of his moral law, a clear and definite commandment for the observance of the day which he had set apart in the beginning. 6. Sabbath means rest. The Sabbath-day is the rest-day. Sabbath of the Lord is the rest-day of the Lord. Remember the Sabbath day, are the words of the fourth commandment. The reasons are, For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, &c. An argument was here made showing conclusively the connection between the fourth commandment and the work and the record of creation. 7. To have another day take the place of the rest-day of the Lord, we must have the same steps taken in its behalf that were taken in the institution of the first. 8. It does not say that God blessed the institution, but the day. Everything done in reference to the Sabbath, had reference to the day. The institution cannot be separated from the day on which it was to be celebrated. 9. In order to have the Sabbath abolished or changed, we must abolish the reasons on which it is based. These reasons were good from creation to Christ; and the institution will be binding on mankind as long as the reasons exist. 10. I can show when, where, and how, the Sabbath was made. Now if it has been changed, we must have something more than inference for it. God saw that it was necessary to give us his example, and his blessing and sanctification for the day. To change it, we must have something just as definite. Law-makers give us just as definite a statement of the change of their laws, as they do of their original enactment. Consistency requires this. And unless we take the ground that God is not as wise as human law-makers, we must admit that he will do the same. There is no record of any such change, therefore the institution must remain. The burden of proof was shown both by the rules of logic and the circumstances of the case to rest with those who argue for a change or abolition of the day; and the proof was called for that any such change had ever been made. Eld. Preble, on the negative, after expressing his regret that he ever became bewildered into the keeping of the Sabbath, and a wish that what he has written in its favor had never had an existence, stated his position to be that there were two extremes on this question: one was to have a Sabbath clothed with all the strictness of the original organic law, and the other was to take the ground of no holy day. He considered Sunday, as holy and sanctified time, the golden mean between the two. [When, at a later period in the discussion, he was reminded of his statement in Both Sides, that if there is any holy time in this dispensation, made so by command of God, it is the seventh day, he replied that when that was written, sickness in his family required much of his care and attention, and it could not be expected that he would get everything just right under such circumstances.] To sustain him in his present position he quoted from Morer, p. 65, and Coleman, Ancient Christianity Exemplified, p. 526. To meet the Bible arguments of Bro. C. he took the position that there was a difference between the institution and the day on which it was to be celebrated. The Sabbath as an institution, he would agree, is binding through all time, and can never be changed; but he could show a change of the day. God commanded men to observe every seventh day after six of labor. Therefore the Sabbath is holy. Turns to Genesis ii, and argues, "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; not blessed the seventh days and sanctified them, as he said it should have read if God meant that the seventh day of every week in regular succession from that point was sanctified time, and was to be kept as such. [He evidently forgot the wording of the fourth commandment which reads, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, &c., which, as no one can deny, enjoined the observance of the seventh day of every week in regular succession from that time on at least till the death of Christ. The commandment speaks of the Sabbath in the singular number, as well as the record in Genesis.] He argued that it was the institution which alone was blessed, and on the commandment remarked, We find in the commandment that "God blessed the Sabbath, not the seventh day particularly." Negative closed his first speech by proposing for the consideration of the affirmative the four following questions: 1. Which is the greater work, that of creation by the Lord Jehovah, or the work of redemption by his Son, Jesus Christ? 2. Did God the Father ever sanctify any seventh day reckoning in successive order from creation, for the especial benefit of mankind? If so, where is the evidence to be found? 3. If the fourth commandment of the decalogue is one of the chief commandments, why did Christ when questioned in regard to which was the chief, or first commandment, refer to a commandment outside of the decalogue? 4. Does not a subsequent law involving a change in the penalty of such law, repeal the former law?