The Cause Wounded by Editor

Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Aug 19, 1851

The Cause Wounded

By Editor

The above from the pen of J. B. Cook will be read with deep interest by the friends of the Sabbath. In the main, his views were correct; yet the idea presented by him that the Sabbath is a type, we think is based on mere inference. All types must, sooner or later, be lost in their antitypes. But as the Sabbath was instituted before the fall, consequently primarily designed for a state of holiness and perfection as long as holy beings and God should exist; and as God by the Prophet Isaiah has shown that the Sabbath is to be observed as long as the "New Heavens and the New Earth," and the immortal "seed" remain, it certainly cannot be a type. If it is not a shadow, but a body of itself, instituted in Eden, and stretching on through all time, and in the New Earth observed to all eternity, then the Sabbath institution remains as firm as heaven.

But if it can be shown that the seventh-day Sabbath is a type of the seventh millennium, then as J. B. Cook has said so say we: "As I want the antitype, I’ll follow out the type till we reach it. As I would share the substance, I’ll trace the shadow up to it. Amen! Lord help us."

The remark of C. that Jesus "seems not to legislate, as if giving a new law" is to the point. Jesus says, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law." He also says, "Verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do." John v, 19. "For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." Chap. xii, 49.

Jehovah is the Great Law-giver. He alone could change or abolish his own law, and he has said I am the Lord I change not. Jesus did not intimate the least change in the Sabbath law, but said, "I have kept my Father’s commandments." With these facts before us, we see that it is absurd to teach that Jesus relaxed the Sabbath law.

But it may be said, "Bro. Cook has seen his error, and given up the Sabbath." True, he has given up the Sabbath, and has labored to tear down what he once built up; but God’s revealed truth remains the same, and the clear facts stated in his articles of ’46, are facts in ’51. God’s truth will stand forever, and those who build on this "rock" will stand firm when the rain descends, the storm beats, and the winds blow. But the shifting views and opinions of men are but sliding sand.—[Ed.

The Cause Wounded.

We see by the last "Harbinger," also by a letter from Bro. Rhodes, that O. R. L. Crozier and Peck have recently disturbed the Sabbath meeting of the brethren at Oswego; and that Bro. Lillis, by moving injudiciously, gave "place to the devil," [Eph. iv, 27,] so that the precious cause is wounded.

It seems that the meeting was at the house of Bro. Lillis, and that C., while attempting to speak to the brethren, was requested by Bro. Lillis not to speak; and was told that the brethren did not wish to hear him. At the request of C. a vote was taken to see who wished to hear him, and all were agreed that he should not speak. We should think that any minister of the gospel, or any gentleman, after being requested by the man of the house, and the vote of the entire congregation, to desist from speaking, would take his seat, or quietly retire from the meeting. But it seems that C. still claimed a right to speak in his own defence. And as Bro. Lillis is of a hasty turn, and very nervous, and not being on his watch, he was overcome by the devil, being tempted by the ungentlemanly course of C. in trying to speak after he found out that none wished to hear him, and told C. if he did not go out of his house he would put him out.

We have not one word to say in justification of the course of Bro. Lillis. It was wrong, certainly, very wrong. And we venture to say that every Sabbath-keeper who is interested in the present truth will say the same. And we are glad that he is frank to confess his wrong, not only to the brethren, but to C.; notwithstanding C. seems willing to abuse all those who observe the Sabbath.

But C. states that he has been told that Bro. Lillis struck an old gentleman on his head a number of blows while he was praying, then adds: "That is the spirit that rules in the meetings of those who are keeping the seventh-day Sabbath, and who are governed by the visions of one Mrs. James White." One who might have to take the testimony of C. alone, not knowing the facts in the case, would conclude that Advent Sabbath-keepers were a strange class of beings, and that Mrs. James White was a very wicked woman. We say, however, that this statement is utterly false. We do not charge C. of telling a wilful falsehood, but if he has charged a body of Christians with having a spirit that would lead them to beat an old gentleman over the head while praying; because he has been told that Bro. Lillis has done so and so, he ought to feel, if feel he can, that he has done very wickedly.

It is true that Bro. Lillis is of a rash turn; and no person could warn another more faithfully of any error, than Bro. Lillis has been warned of his rashness by Mrs. White. And the warning has not been wholly in vain, though in an evil moment he has been overcome to our great sorrow. But we have not the least idea that Bro. Lillis has ever dealt off blows upon a praying man. We know that the brethren in Oswego would at once disfellowship any such course. But admitting that Bro. Lillis is as bad as he is represented, how cruel, how unchristian for C. to say, "That is the spirit that rules the meetings of those who are keeping the seventh-day Sabbath," and thus brand a body of Christians with the error of one man.

This is the very course pursued by our wickedest opponents in 1843 and 1844, in opposing the coming of the Lord. Some few then were rash and fanatical, but that did not make us all so. A Sabbath-keeper may act injudiciously, but how unlike a Christian to seize upon the fact, and pour scandal upon all who "call the Sabbath a delight," and "honorable." This strikingly reminds us of the stories of "ascension-robes," and other reports so common in 1843.

We would inform C. that there is not one Advent Sabbath-keeper, to our knowledge, that would for a moment countenance such a spirit as he speaks of. If he will produce the testimony of one, that is in union with the body, who does, we will publish it in the "Review and Herald." We have no doubt that C. will regret that he has thus slandered a portion of the Advent people. But at this time of perfect war and hatred between the supporters of the "Herald" and "Harbinger," we may not expect to escape. Some seem to be out of their natural element, unless they are in a quarrel somewhere with those who choose to differ with them on some points. And strange to tell, this is the very people that say the commandments are to be fulfilled in love, while the precept of the law of God is abolished!!

The Brethren in Oswego have had much to bear with. Not long since their Sabbath-meeting was disturbed by M. H. Barton and a Mormon preacher, who claimed a right to speak, because, "where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty;" the same reason given by C. But being requested to leave the room they complied without disturbance. As we may take up this matter again, we will close with a few lines from Bro. Rhodes’ letter, written Aug. 8th. Speaking of the brethren in Oswego, he says:

"Last Sabbath Peck and Crozier came among them, and the brethren being weak, did not all act discreetly, and brought a wound upon the cause by using threats to put them out of the house. But Bro. Lillis has made a confession."