p. 159 | Review and Herald, Vol. 39, No. 20. (4/30/1872)

A Word to Ministers.

By Stephen N. Haskell

The woe that rests on the Christian minister is not simply a desire to preach, or speak before the people. Preaching is only a means by which the object of the Christian minister is obtained. God has committed to his people a most sacred trust—his truth and grace by which mankind are to be saved. “Ye are the salt of the earth:” “Ye are the light of the world.” “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.” Thus the responsibility of saving mankind rests upon God’s people. The watchmen stand at their head as their representative, as an example to the flock in enduring hardships, and going without the camp bearing the reproach. They therefore should be workmen that need not to be ashamed, but thoroughly understanding the position occupied by the people of God, that with meekness and wisdom they may instruct others, taking them by the hand and bringing them to the fold of Christ.

They should give evidence of their calling by bringing others into the truth. The apostle Paul to the Corinthians writes, “The seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” He felt that he was under obligation to his fellow-men. “I am a debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.” His hope, joy, and crown were the salvation of others. “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? For ye are our glory and joy.” Hence, if souls are not saved as the result of his ministry, he did not expect any reward, but it would finally appear that he had run in vain, and labored in vain. He exhorts the Philippians to “do all things without murmurings and disputings,” “Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice,” he says, “in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither labored in vain.”

This was what constituted the woe that Paul felt when he exclaimed, “Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.” So deeply did he feel the responsibility of saving others that he deprived himself of many temporal blessings which he might have enjoyed. He “coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel,” but his own hands ministered to his necessities and to them that were with him. Yet God had so ordained “that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” “He made himself servant unto all, that he might gain the more.” “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.” “And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.”

It is expected that the Christian minister will see the approach of danger and warn the sinner. If he fail in this, the blood of the sinner will be required at his hand. Read the following from Ezekiel:

“Son of Man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. When I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. Again, when a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. Nevertheless, if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.” Eze. 3:17–21.

Therefore the responsibilities of the minister are very great. He is not only responsible for the salvation of men and women around him to a very great extent, but is answerable to God for all the influence his exalted calling gives him; and his reward will be according to his success, which depends upon his faithfulness. “Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor;” “for we are laborers together with God. Ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s building.”

The Judgment is to decide the amount and the nature of the reward the servant of God will receive. “Every man’s work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.”

No New-Testament writer, perhaps, is better prepared to speak on this matter than Paul; for he laid the foundation of many churches in Asia, he being especially called of God to the Gentiles. He warns others to take heed how they build upon the foundation already laid. Ministers do not all possess the same gift, and therefore all cannot fill the same position, and perform the same work; but they should all feel the same burden of building up the cause of God. The burden is not to preach merely, but they will feel the responsibility of the work that God requires at their hands—the success of his cause.

Those who labor among the churches should be men of judgment. They should show themselves thus by the fruit of their lives in their families. 1. “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?” 2. “He must have a good report of them which are without, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” He “must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.” 3. His life will manifest a more than willingness to bear burdens, and suffer in other’s stead for Christ’s sake. This is the spirit of Christ, and there is no Christianity without it. “For even hereunto are ye called; because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example that ye should follow his steps; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously.”

The minister should be an example in this respect, especially to his flock. Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an example unto you to follow us. “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

Let any who may feel that they have an especial duty to labor among the people of God examine with care the above scriptures. There are many branches to this work. We have no taxes to impose upon our people, yet God has ordained a system by which the gospel is to be supported, namely, the liberalities of his people, and there is not an S. D. Adventist church in the land, neither do I believe there is a single individual who has any of the Spirit of God in his heart, with any practical knowledge of present truth, who will not, if this matter is properly set before him, be more than willing to donate free-will offerings to the support of the cause of God. It therefore becomes the duty of the minister that labors with the churches to give proper instruction in this respect, and then, by a noble example, lead off in the matter, and when God has laid the woe upon him and he feels the burden of it, it will be the case.

Men that will easily get tired, and seek to get rid of a burden by withdrawing from a church, or neglecting the meetings where the object is to draw nigh to God and obtain strength to overcome the wicked one, or who can labor year after year without the church getting the spirit of enterprise in every department of this work, show that example of precept, or both, have not been properly set before them; and a minister who cannot see and feel the importance of these things should either get converted, or give the position he occupies to those who have the necessity laid upon them, and go into entirely new fields and give proof of his ministry by raising up churches and instructing them upon every branch of the work of God.

This is a liberal, sacrificing people; and, one thing among others, under the blessing of God, that has made them so, is a worthy example set in this respect by those who, in the providence of God, have occupied a leading position from its commencement. They have given evidence that the burden of the cause rested upon them. Commencing in the vigor of life, with a scanty purse, they have sacrificed their health and strength; and when the same sacrificing spirit rests upon all its ministers, and they feel that it is God’s cause and that he is holding them responsible for its success, then will the people feel, and the work will move forward.

May God hasten the time when ministers will not stand in the way of the people of God, but by setting an example worthy to be followed, or by stepping aside, will leave those who have the cause at heart free to move forward.

S. N. HASKELL.

Did He ever Command It?

By Edwin R. Jones

CHRIST, in his final charge to his disciples to preach his gospel, told them not only to teach all nations, but what to teach them. “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Matt. 28:19, 20.

Christ's ministers were to teach those who believed the gospel and were baptized to observe all things that he had commanded them. Now if Christ never commanded his disciples to observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath, then they were not to teach it; and the teaching of those who do teach that the first day of the week is the Sabbath, is no part of the gospel of Christ. EDWIN R. JONES.

California.

In closing my last report, I made mention of a discussion which was arranged to be held in San Francisco, between Bro. Cornell and Eld. Grant, on the Sabbath question. The discussion opened the evening of Feb. 26, at the church on Harrison St., Bro. Cornell affirming that “the Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the decalogue is now binding on mankind.”

After the second evening, through the intercession of the moderator, who was himself a member of the First Baptist church, the First-day Adventists consented to open their house of worship on Mission St., to the discussion, although at first they had utterly refused to allow the discussion in their church. The discussion continued in their house six evenings, making, in all, eight evenings of the debate. It was well attended by candid listeners.

Bro. Cornell enjoyed good liberty in defending the truth, and conviction seemed to fasten on the minds of many, that the truth of the matter was in the perpetuity of God’s law and Sabbath.

The arguments of Bro. Cornell were, in the main, those usually advanced for the origin, nature, and perpetuity, of the Sabbath, except that they were made to shine out more forcibly and clear by being brought into direct contrast with error.

The main fort of Eld. Grant was in a peculiar position on the covenant question, the argument for which, he repeated one or more times about every evening of the discussion. To more fully elucidate this covenant question, he had prepared a large chart. Bro. Cornell indorsed all his chart but one point, and Eld. Grant accepted his correction. His chart consisted in a contrast between the old and new covenants, as follows:

Old Covenant. New Covenant. 1. Parties. God and the Hebrews. 1. Parties. Christ and the saints. 2. Mediator. Moses. 2. Mediator. Christ. 3. Lawgiver. God through Moses. 3. Lawgiver. God through Christ. 4. Laws. From Mt. Sinai to the Hebrews. (Bro. C. corrected this by saying, “From Heaven to the Hebrews.”) 4. Laws. From Heaven to the whole world. 5. High Priest. Aaron and his successors. 5. High Priest. Christ. 6. Tabernacle of service. Worldly sanctuary. 6. Tabernacle of service. Heavenly sanctuary. 7. Seal. Circumcision in the flesh. 7. Seal. Circumcision of the heart. 8. Ratified, by the blood of beasts. 8. Ratified, by the blood of Christ. 9. Inheritance. Land of Canaan with the city of Old Jerusalem. 9. Inheritance. New Heaven and New Earth with the city of New Jerusalem.

Bro. Cornell also had a chart, a painting executed by Bro. M. G. Kellogg, consisting of the tree of love in the center, with six branches to the right and four to the left, branching out of two main divisions of the tree. On the two main branches were two scrolls, on which were the ten commandments, in brief. Beneath the tree, at the right, was Christ upon the cross, the shadow of the cross extending to the left of the tree, and in that shadow was a figure of sacrifices and the Jewish priests offering blood. The explanation of this chart made a powerful impression on the people. It was claimed that the great tree of love bore its ten kinds of fruit, and that the ten commandments hang upon the great law of love, as elucidated in the two great commandments; and that the moral law of ten commandments was not affected by the changes of dispensations. The offerings and sacrifices of the past, have given place to the blood of Christ and appropriate memorials of this dispensation, but still the moral law of ten commandments exists.

A request was sent in by the moderator, to have the explanation of the law-tree, and the argument from it, repeated. Eld. G. met the explanation of the law-tree chart by saying, “I perceive my brother has commandments hanging upon commandments.” This was admitted, and also proved, by Matt. 22:34–40.

Eld. Grant’s peculiar position upon the covenant question, was this: That the “old covenant,” or “first covenant,” mentioned in Galatians and Hebrews, was the ten commandments, no more, and no less: that the ten commandments as existing on the tables of stone were never called a law; that the law was all outside of the decalogue, and that some of the ten commandments were found in the law, but when on the tables of stone they were not the law. His attention was called several times to Ex. 24: 12, and Deut. 33: 2, which he met by saying that the tables of stone was one thing, the law another, “and commandments” another. “The Lord,” he said, “wrote more than the ten commandments.” This was met with the scripture statement: “He added no more,” Deut. 5: 22, and, that Eld. Grant could not produce a single text to prove that God ever did write more than the ten commandments. He produced none.

The reader will now readily see the peculiarity of Eld. Grant’s position on the law and covenant question: When the ten commandments are on the tables of stone, they are the first covenant. When nine of them are found outside in the law they are moral precepts and never can be abolished, and were always binding, even before the Lord spoke to Israel from Sinai. The fourth commandment simply enforces the observance of a feast day. When the old covenant was done away, the ten commandments were done away, but nine of them still remained in force because they were moral and existed elsewhere than on the tables of stone. This position forcibly reminded me of Lorenzo Dow’s swivel in his “Chain of Reason,” and looked more like a dodge, or a position taken to evade the force of argument, than one taken in sober earnest. A lady, a stranger, and a member of the Presbyterian church in a neighboring city, heard the argument one evening when this position was elaborated, and stated at the close that she thought that man (Eld. Grant) must certainly be deranged to take such contradictory positions.

But, unfortunately for Eld. Grant’s effort to kill the Sabbath by having the ten commandments abolished, and nine of them left alive at the same time, it was shown that the Sabbath existed outside of the decalogue, and before the decalogue was written, and was enforced, too, by law. Ex. 16: 28, 29: “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath.” Here the Sabbath not only existed, but was enforced by law, before Israel ever saw Mt. Sinai. So it was claimed by Bro. Cornell, that, if Eld. Grant proved the ten commandments to be the first covenant, and that they were done away (which he could not do) even then the Sabbath would exist the same as before the law was spoken from Mt. Sinai.

Because the ten commandments were called the “words of the covenant,” and the tables of stone called “the tables of the covenant,” &c., Eld. Grant would contend that the ten commandments were the old covenant. Bro. Cornell often repeated to him Ex. 24: 8: “The covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” It was shown that the ten commandments were that concerning which a covenant was made between the Lord and the people, the Lord promising them great blessings if they obeyed “HIS VOICE” (his voice spoke the ten commandments, and added no more, Deut. 4:10, 12, 13), while they, on their part, pledged obedience. Eld. Grant admitted, at first, that the first covenant was a mutual agreement between the Lord and the people, but afterward remodeled it, and claimed that a covenant was mutual commandments, and that it was the ten commandments. He failed to tell us, however, what the people commanded the Lord to do.

To meet the argument of Bro. Cornell, that the Sabbath existed from creation, because it was sanctified at the close of creation week, Eld. G. said that God sanctified the day for his own use, and wished to know where he commanded man to use it before the Wilderness of Sin. Bro. C. showed him that God did not sanctify it for himself, but because he had used it. Gen. 2:3; also that to sanctify was “to proclaim to be holy,” “to set apart to a holy, sacred, or religious, use,” and that in the recorded fact of God’s sanctifying the Sabbath, we had evidence that the day was commanded to man, for there was no other way it could be set apart for his use, only by telling him how to use it.

Eld. Grant first claimed that the ten commandments were “abolished,” and that nine of them were “re-enacted.” For his re-enacted commandments he gave us the following list: (1), Matt. 22: 37, 38. (2), “Flee from idolatry,” 1 Cor. 10: 14. (3), “Swear not at all,” Matt. 5: 34. (5), Eph. 6: 2. (6), (7), and (8), Rom. 13: 9. (9), “Speak evil of no man.” Titus 3: 2. (10), Rom. 13: 9. When Eld. G. was shown that he had kept on with his numbering of the ten commandments, after omitting the 4th, the same as though he had a fourth, he said, “For the fourth commandment, I will quote, ‘Love one another.’”

When it was shown that these scriptures did not give a revised code, but were quotations from the law, and the enforcing of precepts on the authority of the law, Eld. G. changed his position, and claimed that nine of the commandments never were abolished, but were incorporated into the new covenant, just as a State would annul its old constitution by making a new one, incorporating into it some parts of the old.

Bro. C. showed that the new covenant was concerning the same thing as the old, and that in it the Lord promised to put his “law” in their hearts, Jer. 31, Heb 7, and, that Christ, in teaching the new covenant which was ratified by his blood, taught the moral law, every jot and tittle of it. Matt. 5:17–19; Luke 16:16, 17. These latter texts were met by Eld. G., claiming that the expression, “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, &c.,” referred to the sayings of Christ, using the words of Matt. 7:24–26, to illustrate his position.

Bro. C. introduced the second chapter of Romans to show that the same law which was written on the hearts of the Gentiles, was the law the Jews had. Eld. G. replied that the ancient nations did not have the seventh-day Sabbath written on their hearts, but “some of them did keep the first day.” Although he did not directly take his position here, yet, if his words prove anything, they proved that when the ancient heathen nations dedicated the first day of the week to the worship of the sun, it was a manifestation of the law of God written on their hearts. He said seventh-day keeping was not written on the hearts of the nations, but the great law of love was written there; for, go where you would, you would find this feeling among men, “Don’t you kill me,” “Don’t touch my property.” Who recognizes anything but selfishness in that? If he had said the feeling prevailed, “I wont kill you,” “I wont touch your property,” he would have come nearer to it. He was informed by Bro. C. that God did not propose to write his law on the minds of the people in the sense of the new covenant, until they submitted to his law in giving their hearts to God.

According to Eld. Grant’s position, the Gentiles in the past dispensation had the advantage of the Jews. He said “the new covenant antedates the old, was under it, and all around it, the Gentiles had it on their hearts,” but of the Jews, of whom the Lord said if they kept his law (ten commandments), they should be a peculiar treasure above all the nations of the earth, &c. Eld. G. said they could “keep all of those commandments and be lost. There was no love in the commandments, no grace, no mercy, nothing against selfishness.” According to his position, the Gentiles had the law of love. The Lord undertook to elevate the Jews, but actually gave them a code that depressed them lower than they were before.

Eld. G. introduced the round world argument, claiming that a definite day could not be kept; but he himself finally went to contending for the first day to commemorate Christ’s resurrection. He admitted there was no law for it, but said those who loved Christ the most would

keep the first day. “It was not a command, but a voluntary offering on the part of Christians.” Then he said the same day could be kept around the world, but all the earth’s inhabitants could not keep the same minutes. He was told the commandment said, Keep “the day,” and said nothing about minutes. Here again was manifested Eld. Grant’s peculiar strait: He would not keep the seventh day unless the Lord commands it over again; but he will keep a new institution without any command for it, or even a Scripture hint that it is a holy day. How strange it seemed to hear a man of Eld. Grant’s ability, leaving the plain word of the Lord, and trying to sustain his Sunday institution by Barnabas Ignatius, &c., claiming that the love of Christ was manifested in making “voluntary offerings” he never commanded, while the Scriptures state “This is the love of God that we keep his commandments.”

But as it was not my intention to make such a lengthy report, but simply to notice some points of the debate, I will bring this to a close, by inserting, by request, Bro. Cornell’s summing up speech, the notes of which he furnished me.

The Cause in Iowa.

By GEO. L. BUTLER

As my special labors for the Iowa Conference have now terminated for the present, and as I enter upon the more general duties to which my brethren have called me, I feel it would be a privilege to say a few words in reference to the cause in this State. I feel more anxious to do this because some of the friends there may experience a feeling of discouragement as they think of being left with but little ministerial labor during the coming year, because of the absence of Eld. Canright and myself in other fields. I wish, if possible, to help the minds of such.

I feel that we, as a Conference, have great reason for gratitude to God and the brethren of other States for the benefits we have received within the past seven years. During this time, I have held the office of president of the Conference, and can, therefore, speak understandingly upon this point. Through the watchcare of the General Conference, we have been supplied with excellent gifts from other fields ever since the defection of those who withdrew from the body seven years ago, and, in fact, ever since the truth has been preached in this State. Probably there is no other Conference that has received nearly the amount of labor from other States that Iowa has; and how signally God has blessed that labor during the last four years! But while we have been cared for, other fields have suffered for this very labor thus called away to help us. The progress of the cause in our State has been truly encouraging during this time. The number of our churches has increased from twelve to twenty-four, with five more waiting to come in at the next Conference. Our numbers have doubled; and our Systematic Benevolence more than doubled, amounting to $3200.00, as reported to the last General Conference; and we hope may amount to $4000, or upward, by our next Conference. It would amount to far more than that if our brethren would come up to the plan recommended by our people. Five years ago, we had not a single minister or licentiate belonging to the State. Now, we have two who belong to it by long residence, and eight who are licensed. These are very gratifying marks of progress, and we owe it, under God, mainly to the interest our brethren have felt for us in providing suitable labor in our time of need.

Under these circumstances, if our General Conference thinks the good of the cause in other fields demands that two of the ministers in our Conference be withdrawn to labor elsewhere, we think the friends in Iowa are the last persons who ought to feel aggrieved or discouraged by it. We should be willing to show our gratitude by doing for others as they have done to us. Anything short of this would be base ingratitude on our part. These are my feelings personally, and while it is unpleasant, to say the least, to break up all associations which have been agreeable, I desire to go out and manifest an interest in different parts of the field, and form other associations which, I trust, may be equally agreeable, and so labor as to feel an equal interest in all parts of the great work; for it is one. Souls are equally precious everywhere.

And I can say, not only that this action is no cause for discouragement, but, in the end, I expect it will result in actual benefit that we are called away. There are men in Iowa who ought to feel the burden of this work resting upon them. In my judgment, there are some eight or ten men in Iowa who ought to be preaching this message. This may seem strong, but I think I understand what I am saying. The trouble has been, these men would stand back as long as there were ministers there to take responsibilities, and do but little. Now, I hope, as they see us go to other fields, these will feel called upon to shoulder the burden. There will be a fearful responsibility resting upon somebody, if the cause in Iowa finds no men to take hold of the work and bear these burdens, as we are called away to other fields, and this rising interest is left to die out. Never was there a more favorable time for labor in that State than at this very moment. Call after call has been made, which it was impossible to fill for lack of men. It is very different in this respect from what it was a few years ago. And more than this, some of these very men are dying spiritually for the lack of this very exercise. Men cannot be strong and do nothing. The way to gain strength is to go to work. How can men ever become good preachers only by going to preaching? I don't know of any other way. Therefore, I think it may prove rather a blessing for us to go to other fields, and cause these men to feel this burden.

I should be terribly disappointed if the present tent did not run as usual this summer; and I have seriously thought whether it would not be wise for our coming Conference to buy a fifty-foot tent, and so run two. The Conference can of course decide that when they find how many men there are who are willing to work. The northern part of the State, I think, is a splendid field for labor, and one which has been too much neglected; so is the western part, while there are plenty of good openings in the southern part. And Bro. Nicola and Mitchell ought to spend their whole time in laboring in the churches, especially the new ones.

I see no cause for discouragement at all, if the brethren will take right hold of the work, and do their duty. And why not? It would certainly encourage those of us who have labored among you in the past. It would encourage the whole Conference. And those who labored to help the work forward would enjoy the blessing of God, and precious souls would be saved. Put in practice the principles of truth you have been taught, friends, and new light will dawn upon the mind. There is no lack of men in Iowa, who might do good, if their hearts were right with God. And, while I speak thus, I mean men in whom the whole Conference has confidence. I do not think there is much danger of any one's venturing too much as to his duty, if the Conference of our people consent to give him their sanction.

As the Conference is soon to be held, the subject of Systematic Benevolence should be considered at once. This is a most important matter, and the elder, or leader, of every church should take a personal interest that all sums due be paid up before the Conference. The treasurers would do well to make personal inquiries, as far as possible, of those whose pledges are unpaid, and see if they cannot square up everything previous to your delegate's going to the Conference. Each church should feel an earnest interest that their record may be fair. We hope all our churches will see to this, that the Conference be not left without funds to settle up all its accounts honorably. In regard to signing the S. B. for the coming year, I suggest that each church which has not done this since the last Conference appoint Sunday, May 19, as a time for giving in their pledges, unless some other time would be preferable for special reasons; and that every leader, or elder, shall make special efforts to have the figures what they should be, so far as is consistent with the principles of voluntary action. And, if some could not attend the meeting, inquire of them personally if they wish to sign anew for the ensuing year. God will bless the cheerful giver.

I feel an earnest hope that the cause in Iowa may move forward. I believe it to be a good field of labor. What is needed is earnest, God-fearing, devoted men who will feel willing to sacrifice for it. May the Lord move out such to come up to the work, and not receive the reward of one anciently—a curse for not coming up to the “help of the Lord.”

GEO. L. BUTLER.

Battle Creek, Mich., April 22, 1872.

A WORD OF KINDNESS.

By Sel.

How softly on the bruised heart A word of kindness falls, And to the dry and parched soul The moist’ning tear-drop calls; Oh, if they knew who walked the earth, ’Mid sorrow, grief, and pain, The power a word of kindness hath, ’T were paradise again.

The weakest and the poorest may The simple pittance give, And bid delight to withered hearts Return again and live; Oh, what is life if love be lost, If man’s unkind to man? Or, what the Heaven that waits beyond This brief and mortal span?

As stars upon the tranquil sea In mimic glory shine, So words of kindness in the heart Reflect some divine; Oh, then be kind, whoe’er thou art, That breathest mortal breath, And it shall brighten all thy life, And sweeten even death.

—Sel.

SUMMING UP OF DISCUSSION WITH GRANT.

By John Norton Loughborough

AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS.

1. The weekly Sabbath distinguished from feasts was put in moral code.

2. The reason from creation—facts and reasons still remain.

3. Fourth commandment linked in its destiny with the other nine moral precepts. If one goes, they all go.

4. Christ enforced the whole law—every jot and tittle of it.

5. It was obligatory on the Gentiles. Rom. 2.

6. Decalogue commanded to a thousand generations.

7. Prophecy fastens it in this dispensation. Isa. 56.

8. Christ recognized the Sabbath as late as A. D. 70.

9. The reason of the fourth precept applies to Gentiles and beasts of burden.

10. The Sabbath brought over plainly, and taught by Christ and apostles.

11. All hangs on love to God and neighbor.

12. The Sabbath, with the other nine, before old covenant.

13. Atonement of Christ relates to the ten precepts.

14. Written on hearts of Gentiles under new covenant.

15. More proof that the Sabbath existed and was obligatory before the old covenant was made than there is for the precept “Love God with all the heart,” &c.

16. The Sabbath was made for man—for all men.

17. It was a sign of creation, forever.

18. It still exists in paradise restored. Isa. 66.

CONTRADICTIONS! GRANT VS. THE BIBLE.

1. Makes the Sabbath a day memorial of coming out of Egypt. In Ex. 12, “Night to be observed,” &c.

2. God’s rest, no reason why we should rest. But God himself gives that very reason.

3. No uncircumcised person could keep the Sabbath. But the women, and nearly all Israel for forty years kept it without circumcision.

4. Christ taught men to break the Sabbath. But he declares what they did was “lawful”!

5. Christ himself broke the Sabbath. “I have kept my Father’s commandments.”

6. None could get possession of the land without circumcision. The two and a half tribes did get inheritance without circumcision.

7. Nothing in the decalogue takes hold of the heart. “Thou shalt not covet,” “Love me,” “Hate me,” &c.

8. New covenant with saints, but old only with Jews. New covenant with Israel and Judah.

9. God wrote more than the ten commandments. “He added no more.”

10. The decalogue is never called, “a law.” “Tables,” and “a law,” “which I have written.” Ex. 24.

11. Ten commandments are old covenant. Old covenant answered only to Jerusalem, was faulty, waxed old, decayed, &c.

12. None but Israel ever required to keep Sabbath. Isa. 56 proves the Gentiles were required to keep it.

13. No grace or mercy in the decalogue. “Showing mercy unto thousands,” &c.

14. They could not keep the commandment, Love God and neighbor under old covenant. Then God required impossibilities!!

15. Nothing, not a hint, about selfishness in the decalogue. See, “Thou shalt not covet.”

16. Not a hint about pardon in the decalogue. “Showing mercy, &c.”

17. Paul’s Sabbath preaching always in the Jewish synagogue. Preached to Gentiles, whole city, and out by river side.

18. He that loves the Lord will love to keep the first day, after admitting that there is no commandment for it. But, “This is love of God that we keep his commandments.”

19. They could not go out of their houses on the Sabbath. God required them to go to the temple to worship.

20. Sabbath, a sign of deliverance from Egypt. Sign of God’s rest from all his work. Ex. 31.

21. The covenant never called “a law.” Ten commandments are called “a law” (Ex. 24), hence not old covenant.

GRANT VS. GRANT.

1. The law was that they should not go out of houses on the Sabbath. Do not mean that there was such a standing law.

2. First evening, said it was wrong to marry a sister. Sixth evening, said Abraham married his sister, and no wrong about it.

3. They could not keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath can be kept, but is not in California.

4. No uncircumcised person could keep it. Admits Israel were not circumcised during the forty years.

5. Christ abolished the decalogue and re-enacted nine commandments. The nine commandments never re-enacted—were always in force.

6. Denies that there were two laws. The moral law was not abolished.

7. Nothing in decalogue against selfishness. Admitted tenth commandment against it.

8. Decalogue, covenant of works and bondage—rigid, &c. Law in new covenant more rigid than before.

9. The decalogue, as a whole, abolished. Moral precepts cannot be abolished.

10. Sabbath not binding because not given over. No commandment for first-day. It is binding on all.

11. The Sabbath of the decalogue corresponds to our Saturday. We cannot be sure that we now have the identical day.

12. The Sabbath a type of final rest of one thousand years. Of course then it must continue to antitype!

13. Reads Rom. 7, about law being dead, &c. Then said it did not apply to the decalogue.

14. The old covenant was agreement of parties. The old covenant was mutual commandments!

15. The decalogue, never called “a law.” Then quoted law texts to prove it abolished!

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Santa Rosa, April 10, 1872.

Continue reading: Vermont