The Discussion In Portland, Me.
QUESTION. The Seventh-day Sabbath observed by God’s people prior to the crucifixion of Christ, is still binding upon mankind. Affirmative, M. B. Cornell. Negative, T. M. Preble. Cornell. Opens his sixth speech by referring to the arguments on which the whole question in controversy hangs, and reminding the negative that they have not yet been answered, nor even noticed; such as the facts upon which the Sabbath’s institution is based, the reasons which enter into it, and the self-evident truth that if an institution is to be changed, the reasons on which it is based must be changed also. Denies the assertion of Eld. P. that redemption is finished. Question: Has Christ yet purified this kosmos by fire? No. And is not that a part of the work? And if the texts he quotes about our now having redemption, have their application in the present tense, are there not others who will want a like redemption in the future? So whatever view we may take of it, as applying to the world or to the people, the work is not yet complete. In reply to the question, where any other apostle but Paul held meetings on the Sabbath, he asks Eld. P. where any other apostle ever held meetings on the first day of the week; and calls upon him to find where it says that Paul met on the seventh-day Sabbath because of the Jews, as it is expressly stated in the case of the circumcision of Timothy and Titus. Refers to Eld. P.’s argument on the word hemeran, in Acts xx, “the first day, not the first night, of the week,” &c., and shows that hemeran there means a period of twenty-four hours, and not simply the interval from daylight to dark. Preble. Is somewhat surprised at a few things in the last speech of the affirmative. Thought he had answered the argument about the sanctification of the Sabbath, &c. Eld. C. leaves out the word work, which I put in when speaking of redemption accomplished. I say it is purchased. The work is done. Redemption has not come, but the work is accomplished by Jesus Christ. My opponent declares that Christ has not yet accomplished the work of redemption. I hope he won’t deny the Bible. Reads again the text before referred to in Luke, Galatians and Peter: “Hath visited and redeemed his people,” &c. Says if the entering into rest in Heb. iv, was in the future, it would be different. Thinks Bro. C. will have to try again on that. Goes on with his argument to show that all is lost if not redeemed. Gives a long and sympathetic address in regard to our lost friends, and the importance we attach to their redemption; which, however good and true it might be in itself, had nothing particular to do with the question. Proposes now to prove that the law has been changed, for which purpose he quotes 2 Cor. iii, 7, 8, as given in the Emphatic Diaglott. Argues that the old covenant must be perfected, made over. It is not annihilated any more than the world is annihilated. The old covenant is completed in the new covenant. Says he was not ashamed of the history he quoted last night. The object of this remark was to give the audience the impression that Bro. C. was not willing to state his authority for some quotations which he had made from the History of the Sabbath, by Bro. Andrews. He then launched forth into wholesale denunciations of that history, declaring it to be a garbled thing from beginning to end, wholly unreliable, and entitled to no confidence whatever. In proof of this he refers to an extract from Morer given on page 267, which he did not pretend to show was incorrectly quoted, but declared it garbled because a sentence or two was left out, as indicated in the extract itself by a succession of periods. Declares that he is going to thoroughly expose this history in this discussion. In this ingenious effort to change the issue from the question in hand, to the reliability of Bro. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath, he was completely foiled; and how well he succeeded in his attempts to bring it into discredit, will appear as we proceed. Cornell. Proposes not to be led off into side issues, but to pursue the even tenor of his way, noticing the arguments of the negative, and then advancing with the subject, although many of his affirmative arguments, some even of his first speech, and those main points on which the whole question hang, had not yet been answered nor even been touched. Repeats some of them. Says further, There has been a failure to show how the first day of the week could be a memorial of creation. Calls for proof of it. The first day was a day of labor. The day on which God rested is the only day that can be a memorial of creation. An effort was made last evening to draw us off from the Scripture argument, to an investigation of the merits of the History of the Sabbath. I am not here to investigate that question. If Eld. P. wishes to do it, he can have the privilege of doing so with the author, at any proper time, either orally or in writing. The door is fully open for him if he wishes to take hold of it, and let it be so understood by all; the condition being, if it is in writing, that the correspondence shall be published in the leading paper on his side of the question, as fully as in the Review. But I have not gone to the History of the Sabbath for proof of my position, and am not called upon to defend it here. If it could be shown to be two-thirds false, it would not affect at all the validity of the Scripture argument. I apprehend my friend does not succeed very well with his Bible argument, and thinks he could do better attacking a man who has not the privilege of answering for himself. I have only introduced a quotation from Morer and Coleman to meet his quotations from the same authors. All that the negative had a right to do was to follow me in my arguments; and the chairman might justly have called him to order. His charges against the History of the Sabbath I pronounce to be false. It is but just however that I say a word in relation to his attempt against it. Bro. C. here showed the point the author of the History had in view, as the reader may also see by reading page 267 and its context. A number of testimonies are introduced showing that as late as the time of Chrysostom, A. D. 360, the pursuit of their usual worldly business on the first day of the week was not considered sinful in the church. Then comes the extract from Morer, which was the subject of Eld. P.’s attack, introduced with this remark, “Morer justifies this Sunday labor in the following terms:” And how does he justify it? He says that they did not work till after worship, and that then they might “with innocency enough resume” their labor, “because the length of time or the number of hours assigned for piety, was not then so well explained, as in after ages.” In the part of the extract omitted, as indicated, he assigns an additional reason; namely, that the state of the church was different from what it is now, and that many of the Christians serving heathen masters, were compelled to work, &c. But this in no wise affects the validity of the declaration just before, that the Christians might innocently enough resume their labor. Nor does it affect the declarations of the rest of the quotation, namely that the “sanctification of the Lord’s day proceeded but slowly,” and that it was “the work of time to bring it to perfection,” through the constitutions of the church, and the “decrees of emperors and other princes,” whereby the day at last “got a considerable figure in the world.” These were the points the author wished to bring before the reader, and omitted the other which in no wise affects them, because in a small work of 340 pages, the many quotations from different authors must be rigidly cut down for the want of space, to the very point it is desired to present. But it does not look much like garbling or dishonesty in an author to cite the reader to the volume from which he quotes, giving paragraph and section, and then indicating every omission which he has occasion to make. So much for this attack on the History. It was a bare-faced attempt at misrepresentation, but did not succeed. Eld. C. refers again to Heb. iv, 10, and reminds the negative that in Bible use, the past and present tenses are frequently put for the future. See Ps. lxxx, 12–16; Isa. lxiv, 10, 11; ix, 6; Heb. xii, 22. &c. Argues that the entering into rest cannot refer to Christ, for he has not ceased from his work. His work as prophet, he accomplished while on earth. When he ascended he entered upon his work as priest, and is now carrying it forward; and he is hereafter to work as King. Preble. Says he has never claimed that the institution has been changed. It cannot be changed, but the day can be. He accuses me of not answering his arguments. When he brings in such perversions, I do not intend to answer them. Refers to Heb. iv, 10, and says, Paul was a believer, but he had not entered into rest. Let us labor to enter in, &c. This makes folly of it. I am prepared to show up the History of the Sabbath, with its author, and the whole host of them. All the publications that emanate from Battle Creek, are based in perversion of Bible and ecclesiastical history. Attempts an answer of Eld. C.’s questions. To the question, Should we not keep the crucifixion day, if any, to commemorate redemption? says, Was it the real blood split upon the cross, that redeems men? Suppose Christ had continued in the tomb, would his death do any good? What is his question good for? Of course he had to shed his blood to counteract death; but when he rose he took the gates of death and the grave. To the next question, Do not the Mahometans, keeping Friday, keep, according to the seventh-part of time theory, the full extent of God’s requirements? Says, I should not have thought the brother would have asked such a question. I believe I shall not answer it. To the question, What law is violated by Sunday labor? the reply was made, that if the institution has now fallen upon the first day of the week, the Sabbath law is violated by not observing it. Here followed a repetition of remarks about the first commandment in the law, and the penalty of the law. Says that Eld. C. denied last evening that the law was ever written on the heart. Refers to Heb. viii, 10; x, 16, and claims a flat contradiction between Eld. C. and the apostle Paul.