Your ShelfYour Projects

THE REVIEW AND HERALD

6%

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Dec 23, 1852

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 3, No. 16.

Read the full edition

THE REVIEW AND HERALD.

By Editor

ROCHESTER, THURSDAY, DEC. 23, 1852.

‘A PALPABLE FALSEHOOD.’

Bro. Huntington has called our attention to the two following texts of Scripture, as they stand quoted on the first page of the Advent Review for Nov. 25, which, as he very justly remarked, are made to tell “a palpable falsehood.”
‘And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God graven upon the tables.’ Ex. xxxii, 15, 16. ‘And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.’ Ex. xxxiv, 28, 29.
By giving a portion of this last verse in this connection, the pronoun ‘he’ in it is made to relate to God in the previous quotation. And this is evidently the design, as appears from remarks made in that article. But this pronoun ‘he’ relates to Moses, as will be seen, by the text which is as follows:
‘And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights: he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.’ Ex. xxxiv, 27, 28.
This is an example of the way in which those writers use the Scriptures to prove ‘two laws,’ the christian Sabbath, &c.
C.
REMARKS.—Some weeks since we noticed that a writer in the Advent Watchman, stated that Moses wrote the commandments on the second tables of stone. It then occurred to us, that as “a drowning man will catch at a straw,” we should now see the no-Sabbath men repeating this error presented in the Watchman. We, therefore, wrote a short article, headed, “Who wrote on the second tables of stone,” published in the REVIEW AND HERALD of Dec. 9th, in which we proved that God wrote on the second tables of stone. No one who read the testimony we then presented, will dare say that Moses wrote on the second tables.
As we expected that others, whose vain reasonings and unfairness in opposing the Sabbath of the fourth commandment have been exposed, would catch at this straw, we deemed it duty to correct the error in season. And we were not disappointed; for the Harbinger of Dec. 11th, came out with the above article. As we have once pointed out the error referred to, we shall not do it again; but will state a few facts:
1. Our object in the article upon The Two Laws, in quoting the two texts mentioned by C., with others, on “the first page of the Advent Review for Nov. 25th” was, as stated in the article, to show that “the law of God, or ten commandments, was written with the finger of God, on two tables of stone, which were called the tables of the covenant.” And for giving the two texts referred to, in connection, with no other motive than to bring out God’s truth, we are charged with handling the word of God deceitfully. It is stated by C. that by placing the two texts in connection, as we did, they are made to tell “a palpable falsehood;” for it makes the word “he,” in Ex. xxxiv, 28, refer to God instead of Moses. Now, any one who will read Ex. xxxiv, 1, 10—27, 28; Deut. x, 1—4, will see that the word “he” refers to God, and, that instead of our making the word of God tell “a palpable falsehood,” C., and “Bro. Huntington” have, in their haste, made an egregious blunder.
2. But, admitting that we designed all that we are charged with by C., why did he not correct the error in a Christian spirit, instead of coming out with this bitter article, headed “A Palpable Falsehood”? Is this speaking the truth in love? See the motto of the Harbinger.
3. Admitting that we were in error on this point, and that the word “he” refers to Moses, and that we had honestly erred in placing the two texts together, how manly, how Christian like it would have been in C. to correct the error in words of Christian kindness, instead of charging us with making God’s word lie. Should not those who talk much of the unchristian spirit of Sabbath-keepers act a better example?
4. But it is a fact that we have been correct in this matter. And for taking a position which all, after investigating it, will say is correct, we have been treated in an abusive manner by C. The honest, conscientious reader of the Harbinger will not long sustain that paper in pursuing such a wicked course.
Once we highly esteemed O. R. L. Crozier, and loved him as a brother in Christ. When he observed and taught the Sabbath, the spirit he manifested was kind, and his teachings were in tenderness and love. Alas! What a change. His effort against the Sabbath having been met and exposed, he now resorts to the meanest work of Satan, to abuse and raise prejudice against us, and harden those who are bound by the no-Sabbath heresy. Will he now confess his abuse, or shall we see more of the same from his pen in the Harbinger?—Having shown that C’s. charge is false, until he confesses his wrong, the charge of “Palpable Falsehood” rests on himself.