THE SABBATH CONTROVERSY.
By John Nevins Andrews
In the Harbinger, December 1851, appeared "the report of a Bible class on the Sabbath question," written by O. R. L. Crozier. The Editor of the Harbinger pronounced this an argument that would set those right who were "troubled" about the Sabbath. As it seemed proper to notice this production, I prepared an article in reply, which was published in the Review and Herald, Vol. II, Nos. 11 and 12. In that reply, every argument in "the Bible class report" was stated, and nearly every thing of importance was presented in the writers own words. Hence, all could see and judge for themselves, whether those who were teaching the perpetuity of the commandments, or those who were teaching their abolition, were the ones who spoke according to "the oracles of God." To counteract the effect of this review of the report, the author of the report put forth a series of eight Articles in reply. In his first article, he thanked "the writer in the Review" for making so many important quotations from the Bible class report, but, instead of taking a similar course in reply, he for the most part quoted but a fragment of a sentence, or else suppressed the argument of the Review entirely, gravely informing his readers that they were nothing but inferences and assertions. I deemed it duty to expose the character of this series of Articles, that those who boast themselves of "unanswerable" arguments against the commandments of God, might be found even as other men. To do this, in the series of "Letters" the Articles of C. have been examined in the light of additional Bible testimony, also they have been held up in connection with the words of the Review against which they were directed. His course of inferences and perversion has thus been made manifest to all. In the Harbinger for May 29, 1852, a reply to Letter 1 appeared. As I trusted that he would reply to each Letter, I thought it not best to notice his effort until the series of Letters were complete. His reply to Letter II has not yet appeared, and I know not how long we shall be obliged to wait. As Letter 1 convicted him of a course of unfairness, not usually found in a political paper, the reader may be interested to read his defense which we present entire, merely appending a few remarks in brackets. O. R. L. Crozier's reply to Letter 1. "We find in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, for May 6, 'No 1' of 'Letters to O. R. L. Crozier,' on the subject of the Sabbath. We had not intended to say any thing more on this subject, for the present, at least, for it was at first set forth in a plain manner in our Report of the Bible class at Loma, and then in reviewing the Report the Advent Review said all it could say on the other side, and we answered its review. It seems to us that this is enough. Still, it may be duty to answer this forthcoming series of letters. We shall not engage in a random squabble of idle words; our time can be better employed. Every main position the Review has taken has been disproved by the plain testimony of the Bible. If this is disregarded, we have nothing more to do. Those who love darkness rather than light, will be sure to remain in their coveted element: but those who wish for light and seek after it, will be sure to find it.—We do not attribute a want of moral principle to all who adhere to the Seventh-day Sabbath; we think they are mostly honest in that error: and it may be that the few of whom we feel compelled to think otherwise, can be excused and share our charity, on the same ground. Paul 'verily thought' he was right when contending for the law with a zeal but a little more obstinate and blind than that of the Review. We regret to see its frivolous evasions of many of the plainest passages of the New Testament. We regret it on its conductors' account and on account of those whom they are leading on in the same error. They ought to see, and we still hope they will, that the Old Testament must not be exalted above the New, but the New must be allowed to explain the Old. We must regard the voice from heaven with regard to God's Son:—'HEAR YE HIM'?" [What there is to all the above but words and assertions, we are unable to tell. We have ever been willing to "hear Him," of "whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write." We love his testimony relative to the commandments and the Sabbath, but C. is obliged to explain it away. Matt. v, 19; xix, 16, 17; Mark ii, 27.—He continues as follows:] "We see nothing in the letter before us that requires an answer. It consists mainly in reflections upon our sincerity, stout assertions, repetitions and re-quotations. Its complaint of unfairness is entirely groundless: we stated its views and then disproved them.—If it still has any more evidence to offer on the subject, we would be glad to see it. It is useless in any discussion to make a great ado about matters that have no bearing on the subject. Such a course may prevent or stifle conviction of the truth on the part of those who do it, and blind others: but it does not help to a correct understanding of the subject. For instance, Ex. xvi. contains the first reference to the Sabbath in the Bible, and tells when it was required68to be kept. This is a plain fact that, any body can read right out of that chapter. If we try to cover up this fact, and keep it out of sight, as the Review does, we do it to our own injury. Deut. v. tells why the Sabbath was commanded to be kept. This too is plain. If we try to break down that part of God's word by other parts, we only do it to our own and others hurt." [After refuting every inference presented from Ex. xvi, and Deut. v. to prove that the Sabbath was made for the Hebrews in the wilderness of Sin, I might have expected something better than assertions in reply. If the testimony presented to show that the Sabbath was made at Creation, for the human family could have been invalidated, doubtless it would have been done. I present a few points which sustain the position of the Review. The truth or falsity of them can be seen at a glance. (1.) The Sabbath of the Lord means simply the Rest-day of the Lord. (2.) The seventh day has been the Rest-day of the Lord ever since he rested upon it in Eden. (3.) God then sanctified and hallowed it; that is he consecrated it, made it holy, set it apart to a holy use. (4.) Ex. xx, 11, calls the seventh day the Sabbath at the time when it was thus set apart to a holy use. (5.) The voluntary act of the people in the wilderness of Sin, [Ex. xvi,] in gathering twice the usual amount of manna on the sixth day, is no proof that they were ignorant of the Sabbath. (6.) Moses' statement on the sixth day, that the morrow was the Sabbath of the Lord, is slender proof that God made the seventh day his Rest-day in the wilderness of Sin; yet it is with this statement that O. attempts to break down Gen. ii, 1-3; Ex. xx, 8-11. (7.) It is a fact that Deut. v. does not give the great primary reason for the institution of the Sabbath. It may be read, however, in Ex. xx, 11. For a further notice of these points, the reader is referred to Letters i and ii.] J. N. A.