Your ShelfYour Projects

Crozier’s Sabbath Arguments Reviewed

1%
Earlier text: Crozier’s Sabbath Arguments Reviewed
4. “Akin to the above is the assertions of the same persons, that observing the first day of the week as a Sabbath, is having the Mark of the Beast and exposes to the wrath of God” denounced by the third angel in Rev. xiv, 9—11.—“It is not a thing impossible that the Mark of the Beast may have some connection with the very institution for which C. puts forth all the plea that he is able. It is well remarked by J. B. Cook that “Every enactment relative to the religious observance of the first day, originated with the Pope and Potentates of Rome, and those who in this matter sympathize with them.”—It is true that the Papal power was to “think to CHANGE times and laws.” Dan. vii, 25. It is true that the Mark of the Beast stands in opposition to, or in contrast with, the commandments of God. Rev. xiv, 9—12. It is also true that when the commandments of God are now presented, this Papal institution, now universally observed in the place of the fourth commandment, is arrayed against them with all the energy that can be imparted to it. It is evident also from Rev. xii, 17, that the Dragon shall yet make war on those who shall be found keeping the commandments of God. It is further evident that the Two-horned Beast is yet to require on pain of death, that men worship the Image of the first Beast, and also that they receive his Mark. But let the mark of the Beast refer to what it may, what has C. to say against keeping “the commandments of God,” brought to view in the verse next to that which speaks of the Mark of the Beast? Rev. xiv, 9—12. And on which side would he stand, should the Dragon now make war on the commandment keepers?—This subject may be noticed at length hereafter. For a refutation of the view that the “Three Angels of” Rev. xiv, 1—13 refer to the future age, See “Review and Herald,” Vol. II. No. 8.
5. C. next informs his readers that there is no evidence that man needs a day of rest. “Jesus did indeed say, The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, but Sabbatarians reverse this principle, by asserting that man was made expressly for the Sabbath—originally constituted for keeping it.”—The Editor of the “Harbinger,” who recommends C.’s article as “plain Bible testimony,” directly contradicts the view of C. Hear him: “He [poor fellow man] has needed rest from his hard labors and God in his good pleasure, in giving his law, the law of Moses to his chosen people, provided a day of rest for them, and through them to all mankind who would submit to law.”—Harbinger for Nov. 1, 1851.—In this obscure corner C. finds a space to use up the testimony of our Lord, relative to God’s design in making the Sabbath. Why did he not present this divine answer, when he discussed the question “For whom was the Sabbath instituted?” And why should he misrepresent us, who believe that the Sabbath was designed for, and adapted to man’s temporal and Eternal well being, by saying that we believe “that man was made expressly for the Sabbath?” Nay, why does he impeach the Highest Wisdom, by saying that He made something for man, that he did not need!
In order to present to the reader the commentary of C. we quote Matt. xxiv, 20, “But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter neither on the Sabbath-day.” Hear him expound it:
“6. The reference to the Sabbath in Matt. xxiv, 20, only shows that the Jews who rejected Christ, would be keeping the Sabbath at the destruction of Jerusalem, and would, in consequence, add to the dangers of the disciples flight, by punishing them (perhaps with death) for fleeing on that day.”
We are indebted to him, for a suitable commentary on his own remarks. Mark now appropriate it is:
“But how does he know this: there is nothing of the kind said. This is a bare inference, without a shadow of foundation in positive testimony: hence it is on his part an arrogant assumption!”
7. C. next asserts that the duty of keeping the fourth commandment is only inferred from the New Testament.—We have presented the direct testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, also that of the apostles Paul, James and John, relative to the perpetuity and immutability of the law of God, and though he has nowhere attempted to refute these testimonies, they amount in his estimation to nothing but an inference. But his inference for Sunday which will not stand the test of a single moment’s investigation, he brings forward with which to establish a kind of first-day institution out of apostolic preference!
“O reason, thou art fled to brutish beasts!”
8. God’s act of resting upon the seventh day and blessing and sanctifying it is an ‘inference which is not sufficient to establish a truth or a religious duty,’ but an inference drawn from two instances in which the first day is mentioned, (both of which contain evidence the reverse of that desired,) is sufficient to establish apostolic preference for the first day instead of Jehovah’s Sabbath!—“The days of visitation are come; the days of recompense are come; Israel shall know it: the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred.” Hos. ix, 7.
It is with feelings of deep sorrow, and painful regret, that we have witnessed this last attempt to make void the law of God, Ps. cxix, 126, 136; Rom. iii, 31. We weep, not merely that THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN AND THE WEAPONS OF WAR HAVE PERISHED, (2 Sam. i, 27,) but rather that they have joined the Philistines, the enemies of the ark of God. Would to God that C., instead of counting “the great things” of God’s law “a strange thing,” had prayed “open thou mine eyes that I may see wondrous things out of thy law,” then might he have been able to say with evangelical David, “O how love I thy law:” or with the great Apostle to the Gentiles, “I delight in the law of God.” Alas that that other law of sin that is in the members, should lead C. to war in this desperate manner against the law of God. The report of that Bible Class evinces, as indeed every thing connected with the article plainly shows, that instead of canvassing the evidences on which Jehovah’s law and Sabbath rest, every thing was said against them that could well be brought to bear. “Be not deceived, God is not mocked.”
With a few suggestions, we submit the whole subject:
  1. The blood of Jesus was shed for our transgressions of the moral law. Is it not very remarkable, then, that he himself was its transgressor? 1 John iii, 4, 5; Isa. liii, 5, 6, 11; Heb. ix, 28; 1 Pet. ii, 22—24.
  2. The doctrine of the atonement establishes the moral law. The law of shadows that only, typified the death of the Lamb of God, came to its end—the substance at his death. Col. ii, 14—17. The royal law from the King Eternal, which condemned the whole world and showed them to be guilty before God, was thus magnified and made honorable by the death of God’s only Son. Through his blood pardon is offered to fallen guilty man. But when mercy shall have given place to justice, the claims of the holy law will be vindicated. Would it not be very remarkable, should it then be found that the blood of Christ had blotted out the moral law. Rom. iii.
  3. The doctrine of the destruction of the wicked, rests upon the perpetuity of the law of God. The wages of sin is death. Rom. vi. Sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John iii; Rom. iv, 15. But the law is abolished! How unreasonable is this last idea, when we consider that the men who hold to it, talk much of the “penalty of the law” that will surely overtake the wicked. For a thorough elucidation of the last two points, viz: the fact that the doctrine of the atonement ESTABLISHES the moral law, and the fact that the doctrine of the destruction of the wicked RESTS UPON the perpetuity of the law, the reader is cited to Mr. Dobney’s great work on “Future Punishment” Part 1. We only echo the voice of the “Harbinger” respecting it, when we say it is unanswerable.”
  4. If the death of Christ destroys the moral law then the human family are delivered from its fearful sentence, whether they repent or not. This makes the atonement unconditional; hence it is the real foundation of Universalism, 1 Cor. xv, 3; Matt. xx, 28; John iii, 16.
  5. The doctrine that temporal [instead of the second] death is the ultimate penalty of God’s law, is the real foundation of the non-resurrection of the wicked. For after the penalty of the law has been inflicted, those who have suffered it, cannot be raised to suffer something else.
  6. Is it not very remarkable that while the “Harbinger” is breaking the fourth commandment and teaching men so, it should be continually repeating the sentence “Death is the penalty of the law.”—Would it not be better to unite with those who are trying to do and teach the commandments, and to talk of entering into life?
  7. The Lord preserveth all them that love him; (this is the love of God that we keep his commandments;) but all the wicked (sin is the transgression of the law) will be destroyed. Ps. cxlv, 20. And it is a fact of thrilling importance, that, when the commandment keepers enter into life, the wicked shall be left without to be consumed of the second death. Rev. xxii, 14, 15; xx, 11—15.
  8. The plain testimony of the New Testament, relative to the perpetuity of God’s law was not noticed by C., neither is it often noticed by its opponents. They “find it very difficult to make any use” of it.
  9. Many have noticed the fulfillment of the first sign recorded by Peter, in his second epistle, chap. iii. But is there not one occurrence recorded in the concluding part of the chapter, that furnishes a striking sign of the times in which we live? I refer to the effort now made by many to WREST THE WORDS OF PAUL “to their own destruction.”
Instead of saying to those “who are troubled” respecting their disobedience to the fourth commandment, “continue in sin (sin is the transgression of the law”) that grace may abound,” we do say “to you who are troubled rest with us” upon God’s Holy Sabbath, and you will find how “blessed” a thing it is to obey God. Amen.
“Momentous day! its first observer He, The high and lofty One, whose fearful name Gleams as a signet on its holy brow. Alone ordained and sanctified by Him, And with his blessing blest forever more. When from the sacred mount, Whose cloudy top and trembling base proclaimed The awful grandeur of its Guest sublime, In thunder tones went forth the “Royal law,” God’s will to man, made known in ten commands; On that dread morn, while to its centre shook The steadfast earth, and Israel in dismay Turned from the fearful sight, nor could endure The voice of Him that spake; the great decree Unchangeable was passed on all below. “Six days may work be done, but on the seventh, Which is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, Thou and all thine shall rest; for in six days The Lord made heaven and earth and all therein, And rested on the seventh and hallowed it.” ‘Based on this grand foundation, stands secure The Sabbath of the LORD. And who art thou, That rashly dream’st to pluck this fabric down; And on its ruins to erect thine own, Thy blest, thy sanctified! short sighted man! Canst thou command unnumbered worlds from naught? Or canst thou thunder with a voice like Him? Then mayest thou think to change the law divine. Thy weakness know, and know that God is strong, And jealous of his glory; and who dares With impious hand to touch his high renown, Shall His displeasure prove, and taste his ire. Blest all-immortal day! Ah it shall stand; Unmoved amid the strife of mortal tongues— Unmoved amid the ruins of the world; And while Eternity his mighty years Shall roll unnumbered o’er the earth made new, Effulgent shine in glory’s noontide ray, By nations who are saved, observed for aye.”
Jackson, (Mich.), Jan. 1st, 1852.