No-Sabbath Investigation.
By M. Hull
Not long since, I sought an opportunity to converse with an Anti-Sabbatarian in whom I had considerable confidence. Brother, said I, have you investigated the Sabbath question? Well, yes, I have given the subject a candid investigation. I have examined the Bible upon the subject some, and have read several publications where the subject was ably handled. What are your conclusions after having weighed the subject, as you profess to have done? I think they who keep the old Jewish Sabbath are fallen from grace. Permit me then to ask you a few questions, as perhaps you have looked deeper into the subject than I have. What books have you read on that subject? I have read several, I cannot name them now. Have you read Henry Grew's pamphlet? Yes I have read that; and I have read O. R. L. Cozier, Marsh, Seymour, Reed, Stephenson, and a number of others. Well, have you read the Review? Well—no, I don't see the Review. Where is it published? I have heard of it; I guess it is rather a slanderous sheet. I have seen some things about it in the Expositor; and more than that, I am informed that the publishing committee "are a set of fiends." I am not here to defend the Review, or any man, or set of men. I want to pry into your investigations. Have you read Bro. Waggoner's work on the law? Waggoner—Waggoner—let me see, I've heard of him. No, I have not had an opportunity of reading his book. Have you read Bro. Andrew's "Review of O. R. L. Crozier?" Have you read the "The Nature and Obligation of the Sabbath," "Truth Found," or any thing on the opposite side of the question? Of course by this time I had arrived at the conclusion that he had candidly investigated the (No) Sabbath question. I then handed him a small tract, asking him if he would read it. "No, (said he,) I think I'll read my Bible. Your books are only human productions. I don't think I can take time to read them. I am perfectly satisfied with my position any how." Reader, don't think this case is one of uncommon occurrence. I would that it were. But in nine cases out of ten, where persons undertake to oppose us, they find that they had better look at the other side of the question before pitching battle. They find that their best arguments are but poor evasions—miserable subterfuges. Russiaville, Ind., Dec. 5th, 1858.