Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · May 6, 1852
THE SABBATH.
By John Nevins Andrews
LETTERS TO O. R. L. CROZIER.—NO. I.
DEAR SIR:—As you have done me the favor to reply to my recent review of your article on the Sabbath, justice to the cause of truth demands that I should notice your effort. I am glad that an investigation of this important subject is likely to be thus promoted. Your reply, however, is calculated to give me an idea very different from any that I have ever entertained on the subject heretofore of what constitutes a proper review. I had supposed that it was necessary either to quote the words of an opponent, or to state his leading arguments with fairness and candor. From a careful perusal of your articles, I am constrained to conclude that I had formed a very erroneous idea of the thing, or that you have sadly departed from the course that justice would require you to pursue. In noticing your report of the "Bible class," I stated nearly all your important arguments in your own words. In replying to me you repeatedly assure your readers that my arguments are nothing but "assertions," but you carefully suppress them, or present them entirely distorted. I have too much charity to believe that you adopt this mode of answering me from choice; I am sure that nothing but necessity could possibly cause you to write thus. That man who has truth on his side can afford to be fair.
Having reviewed your entire argument once, the duty that now devolves on me, is to contrast my argument with your reply, and thus to strip from you the flimsy covering under which you seek to hide yourself. Had you seen fit to state my arguments and thus have let your readers understand what it was that you were attempting to answer, I had altogether held my peace, and thus submitted the question.
Your attention is respectfully called to the following comparison: On Gen. ii, 1—3, I wrote as follows:
"It is very true that this text only tells us what God did on the seventh day, and to the seventh day. But that is the very thing we wish to learn. What did he do on the seventh day? 'And he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.' Verse 2. This is the reason why the Bible calls the seventh day, 'the Sabbath (Rest-day) of the Lord.' This fact inseparably connects the Sabbath of the Lord with the first seventh day of time. What did he do to the seventh day? 'And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.' Verse 3. This is the reason why the seventh day is claimed by Jehovah in the Scriptures as his HOLY SABBATH. If the word sanctify be used in its most obvious sense, then we may affirm that God blessed and hallowed the seventh day at Creation.—If it be used in the sense of setting apart for sacred purposes, then no one can deny that God hallowed and set apart the seventh day in the beginning. The sense is the same either way. How, and when, then, did Jehovah make the Sabbath? Ans. By resting from his work of creation upon the seventh day, and sanctifying and hallowing it. Those who are able to show ANY OTHER ACT OF MAKING THE SABBATH are requested to do it."
You offer the following reply to this point: "On Gen. ii, 1—3, the Review proves nothing different from what the report stated. Moses some 2,500 years afterward, recorded that God rested on the seventh day and sanctified it, and in the history of the long period that intervened the Sabbath is not even once mentioned!"
As you have not seen fit to explain the important facts to which I called your attention, let me bring them again to your consideration. Gen. ii, tells us that "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work."—Ex. xx, tells us that the Lord made heaven and earth in six days and rested on the seventh; "wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it." To sanctify, says Noah Webster, is to "make holy; to set apart to a holy use." To hallow is "to consecrate." Then what did God do to the seventh day? He "made it holy," "consecrated it," "set it apart to a holy use." When did he do this? He did it at Creation. What was it that was thus consecrated and set apart? The Rest-day of the Creator. What does Ex. xx, 11, call it at the time that it was thus "set apart to a holy use?" THE SABBATH-DAY. What is meant by the Sabbath of the Lord? His Rest-day. What is the "holy Sabbath unto the Lord?" The sanctified Rest-day of Jehovah. How long has such a day been in existence? Since the close of the first week of time. Has any thing been added to or taken from its sanctity since that time? Nothing. THE ACT BY WHICH JEHOVAH MADE THE SABBATH OUT OF THE SEVENTH DAY, IS AS DISTINCT AS THAT ACT BY WHICH HE MADE MAN OUT OF THE DUST OF THE EARTH.2
The institution of the holy Sabbath at Creation, is not affected by the fact that there is no direct testimony respecting its observance recorded in the book of Genesis. Nor is it very strange when we consider that the history of nearly 2500 years is summed up in its 50 chapters, and that the life of him who was deemed worthy of translation is stated in the sentence:—"Enoch walked with God, and was not for God took him." No direct mention is made in the book of Genesis of future punishment, the resurrection of the body, the revelation of the Lord in flaming fire, or of the judgment of the great day. Yet it is presumed that no one but a Universalist or a Sadducee would argue from this that these great doctrines were not believed by the patriarchs. Your next remark is as follows:
"Yet so blind to reason is the Review, that it insists that the Sabbath, not only existed, but was actually kept all that time!—As well might it claim that the whole universe sprang by chance from a soap bubble, because not a word is any where said on that subject! The one would be just as logical and as scriptural as the other. True, seven days are mentioned in Gen. viii, 10, 12, and a week of years in Gen. xxix, 27, 28; but there is no allusion to a Sabbath. The Seventh day not being a Sabbath would not prevent seven days from being a week."
That the reader may see how much disposition you had to state my position with fairness, I quote the paragraph that you attempt to review.
"In the absence of direct testimony either way, it is by no means certain that 'holy men of old' did not regard the Sabbath. We read of their reckoning time by weeks and by sevens of days. Gen. xxix, 27, 28; viii, 10, 12. The reckoning of time by weeks is not derived from any thing in nature, and can be traced to but one source, viz: the six days work of creation, and the rest of the Sabbath. It is not very likely that the week of Creation should be remembered and commemorated, and the rest and sanctification of the holy Sabbath should be forgotten."
How well your statement respecting my remarks, agree with the remarks themselves, the reader will determine. In your estimation I might as well teach that the universe sprang from a soap bubble, as to believe that the Sabbath originated as I have stated. I would smile at your argument, were it not that I pity from my heart the man who has no better means of defense. I fully believe, in the Creation of the universe as recorded by Moses in Gen. i. And that at the close of this work of Creation, Jehovah rested on the seventh day and sanctified it, as recorded in Gen. ii. And that this was the origin of the "Sabbath (or Rest-day) of the Lord." Ex. xx, 11. Do you believe that in this I am very far from the truth?
Your idea that the week mentioned in Gen. xxix, 27, 28, was a week of years (that is a prophetic week) stands quite opposed to the facts in the case. That the period of one week was allotted to marriage feasts may be learned from Judges xiv, 12, 15—18. Jacob fulfilled the week of the wedding when Rachel also was given to him. He then served for her seven years. Will you please to look at Gen. xxix, 22—30 again? The origin of the week can be found alone in Gen. i, and ii; and the last day of the week is the sanctified Rest-day of the Creator. That the reckoning of the week was rightly kept, appears evident from the fact that in Ex. xvi, Moses on the sixth day declares that "to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord."
You next attempt to take advantage of a part of a sentence in my review of your remarks on the Decalogue. Had you dared to quote two or three sentences so that your readers could have learned what my idea was, no necessity would exist that I should mention the point. You remark: "In another place the Review says the Sabbath 'OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN OBSERVED' from Creation to the Exodus!!! Strange wisdom: 'whence could it have come?'"
You will now please to look at the paragraph which you have attempted to wrest. In "the report of the Bible class" you remarked:
"Because God commanded the Hebrews to rest on the seventh day, 'for' he had rested on that day in creation, does not prove that men began immediately after that to rest on that day, any more than the text in the New Testament which says, We love God because he first loved us, proves that we began to love God just as soon as he loved us."
To this I replied: "We thank C. for his New Testament illustration. We could not have found so good a one in a long search. It is to the point. 'We love him because he first loved us.' 1 John iv, 19.—Our love to him is BECAUSE he first loved us. This does not prove that we have loved God ever since he loved us; but it does prove that we ought to have so done. The fourth commandment requires the observance of the Sabbath BECAUSE of what God did at Creation: this does not prove that the Sabbath has been observed ever since that time: IT ONLY PROVES THAT IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN SO OBSERVED."
Your own illustration having been turned against yourself, you are compelled thus to reply. I leave you to your own reflections.
Your additional remarks that "God's revelation is very defective here" and "needs to be enlarged to suit such interpreters," &c., need no reply whatever. They show that you "wanted to say something and was at a loss to know what." No one will be deceived by them, save such as wish to be deceived. See Jer. v, 30, 31.
Your attempt to explain God's design in sanctifying and hallowing the seventh day, by introducing Heb. iv, 1—9, which does not speak of any such act, was reviewed at length in my notice of your first article. As you have only deigned to pronounce the review "entirely unsuccessful," and a "flat denial of the plain statement of that passage," and have proceeded to repeat what you said at the first, it is not necessary that I should give your argument an extended review. The question between us respecting Heb. iv, may be stated in a few words. 1. The fourth chapter of Hebrews makes no allusion to God's act of sanctifying and hallowing the day of his rest. Consequently your assertion that it states his "primary object" in so doing, has no foundation in truth. 2. With greater propriety it might be said that God's primary object in the creation of Eve and in the institution of marriage, was to typify the union between Christ and the church. For the same Apostle in Eph. v, 22—33, speaks much more in favor of such a view, than he does in favor of the view that you present from Heb. iv. Please to notice particularly verses 30—33, where the language of Gen. ii, is quoted and applied; yet no one who reads Gen. ii, with care can believe that God's primary object in the institution of marriage was to typify the union of Christ and the church.—Neither should they on less evidence in reading the same chapter conclude that God's primary object in sanctifying the day of his rest was to "sanctify it as a type." The rest of Jehovah at the close of his work of creation, and the union of Adam and Eve as described in Gen. ii, may respectively illustrate the final rest of the saints, and the perfect union between Christ and his church as noticed Heb. iv; Eph. v; but to assert from this that his primary object in sanctifying the day of his rest and hallowing it, was to make it a type of the future rest of the redeemed, is nothing but pure assertion.
Inasmuch as Paul in Heb. iv makes no allusion to God's act of "consecrating" and "setting apart" the day of his rest, your assertion that he does make such allusion, and consequently must urge "weekly sabbatizing if the Review is correct," fails to the ground.
Your assertions that I use deception in stating that Heb. iv "does not even mention God's act of sanctifying the seventh day," and that "the Review may console itself in scoffing at the type of future redemption when man had not yet fallen" may pass for what they are worth. You are probably aware that such expressions do not constitute very strong argument; perhaps however you entertain the hope that they will pass in its stead.
You state that the Review attempts to run a parallel as to sanctity and perpetuity between the institution of the Sabbath and that of marriage "Not a particle of such evidence can be found," say you, "because it does not exist. But the Review knows how to supply such deficiencies (for such they are to it) with assertions!"
The remarks to which you refer were made in reply to your assertion that Heb. iv contains the only reason given in the New Testament for the sanctification of the seventh day. They are as follows:—"How much more natural the reason assigned by the Lord Jesus for the sanctification of the Sabbath, than the reason inferred by C., which he declares is the only reason in the New Testament! 'The Sabbath was made for man,' says the Lord, 'not man for the Sabbath.' Mark ii, 27. The same expression that is used by Paul respecting the creation of Eve. 1 Cor. xi, 9. 'The primary objects' of both institutions are stated in these two texts, whatever they may be elsewhere used to illustrate. The language in each case carries the mind back to the beginning; and there we find the creation of Adam, of Eve, and of the Sabbath. Gen. ii, 1—3, 7, 18—24." Which of us it is that supplies the lack of argument with "assertions," I leave you to judge.
To show that Col. ii, 14—17, does not refer to the ten commandments and to "the Sabbath of the Lord," I offered the following reasons:
1. The ten commandments do not form a part of the "hand-writing of ordinances" which the text declares are "blotted out;" but they do form a part of the "royal law" which James teaches us is yet in force. Chap. ii, 8,—12.
2. If you will turn to Lev. xxiii, 24, 32, 39, you will find connected with the feasts and meats, and drinks and new moons of the Jews, four distinct annual "sabbaths," "besides the Sabbaths of the Lord." See verse 38.
4. The things abolished in Col. ii, are things "against us," "contrary to us," &c. But the Sabbath of the Lord "was made FOR man." To this you answer as follows:
"The Review tries to dispose of Col. ii, 16, 17, and show that the sabbaths which were a shadow and nailed to the cross with the hand-writing of ordinances, did not include the Seventh-day Sabbath: but the only proof that it can bring for this opinion, is an assertion! Those only who are willing to be deceived will admit such proof."
May I not with the utmost propriety, answer you, that such only as are willing to be deceived will be satisfied with such a reply as yours. But you add: "No evidence can be adduced to show that the weekly Sabbath is not embraced in one of these two terms found in that passage—'an holy day' or 'the sabbaths'."
To this assertion I answer that the term "holy day" is by Macknight rendered a "festival," and by Wesley it is rendered a "feast day." There is, therefore, no propriety, whatever, in applying the expression in this text to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.
The word sabbaths (plural) manifestly refers to the annual sabbaths connected with the festivals or feast-days, and new moons of the Jews, and not to THE Sabbath of Jehovah associated with, Thou shalt not bow down to idols, blaspheme, murder, commit adultery, or steal.3
We do not understand that Paul makes any exception respecting the hand-writing of ordinances, or that any portion of those ordinances yet remain in force.—But we do understand that the ten commandments are entirely distinct from the "carnal ordinances" which Christ blotted out.
The ten commandments were a part of the "carnal ordinances" [Heb. ix, 10.] which Col. ii, 14—17, shows us have been abolished, or they were not. If they were included in those ordinances, then verse 20 of that chapter which reproves the Colossians for being subject to the ordinances in question, is a reproof to them for suffering their "liberty" to be trammeled by the ten commandments. But if the ten commandments (which Paul in Rom. vii, 7—14 calls holy, SPIRITUAL, just and good) were not a part of the CARNAL ordinances which Christ nailed to the cross, then Col. ii, which in your estimation is an "impregnable bulwark against" the observers of Jehovah's hallowed Rest-day, makes no allusion to the real subject in question. You next argument reads thus:
"The Review next speaks of 'the royal law'—Jas. ii, 8, as 'including the ten commandments,' and it is often referred to (not quoted) by those of its faith, as proof for the present obligation of the fourth commandment. If they would quote it (not a part of it, leaving out the middle of the verse, and quoting the first and last clauses for the whole verse,) it would defeat the purpose for which they use it; Read the whole verse as it is: 'If ye fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.' What is the royal law? Not the ten commandments nor, 'Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy;' but it is, 'THOU SHALT LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF.' This is the royal law, and if ye fulfill this 'ye do WELL'—there is no sabbatizing added. A theory that cannot be maintained only by wrestling and mutilating Scripture, like that to which the Review is devoted ought to be abandoned."
Your attention is respectfully invited while I point out the glaring perversions of which you have been guilty.
1. You represent me as referring merely to James ii, 8, for proof that the royal law includes the ten commandments; whereas the quotation as given in the Review reads James ii, 8—12.
2. You give your readers to understand that I did not dare to quote verse 8, whereas in reviewing you, verses 8—12 are twice quoted, verbatim.
3. That the only way we dare to quote the text is to give the first and last clauses for the whole verse. And then to hide the wickedness of your statements you warn your readers against a theory that thus wrests and mutilates the Scripture.
As you have attempted to divert the mind of your readers, and to hide the argument of the apostle James, I call your attention to the following points:
1. The royal law to which James refers, is the original law of God—something found in the Old Testament Scriptures, and not a revised edition of his statutes which the apostles had gotten up in its stead. Verse 8.
2. That original law is not abolished; it stands ready to convince of sin the man who dares to transgress it. Verse 9.
3. Those who fail with respect to one precept of that law [Macknight] have become guilty of all. Verse 10.
4. The same Lawgiver who said Do not commit adultery, [seventh commandment,] said also, Do not kill; [sixth commandment.] Dare you affirm that these commandments are not a part of the law to which James refers? Verse 11. See margin.
5. By this "law of liberty" or "royal law," men will be judged in the day of God. Verses 8, 11.
6. My statement which you attempt to wrest, viz: that those who will read James' testimony with care cannot deny that the royal law includes the ten commandments stands vindicated. Does it not?
7. I suppose that you, in common with other no-Sabbath teachers, deny the idea of "Two laws." If you stand by your theory in the case in question, then your own argument drives you to admit that the ten commandments are a part of the royal law which is not to force. Would it not be quite rational to believe that "the constitution of God's religious system" was sacred enough to form a part of his royal law? But should you adopt the view that two laws are referred to in James ii, 8—12, would it not be very obvious that you became a convert to that theory from necessity?
8. But are you not the very person that is compelled to mutilate the sacred testimony? Had you had the fairness to quote the verses to which I made reference, would not your readers have seen at once that James quotes also, a part of the ten commandments, with the statement that he who violates one has become guilty of all?
9. But as the royal law in your view contains but the single precept, "Love thy neighbor as thyself," let me inquire: Did you love your neighbor as yourself when you attempted to wrest my argument, not to say that of the apostle James, also?
Your remarks on Ex. xvi, next claim attention.—As every point in your argument was reviewed in my notice of your "report of the Bible class," it is now only necessary that I should show that your reply to my review is a perfect failure. In your "report" you stated that though the Sabbath was spoken of in the wilderness of Sin, yet the Testimony (the tables of stone) which was not then in existence, "was spoken of at the same time even more familiarly than the Sabbath."
I called your attention to this false statement in substance as follows:
1. The Sabbath was distinctly rehearsed by Moses to the rulers of Israel in the wilderness of Sin. On the sixth day, Moses said to them, "TO-MORROW is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord."—Verse 23.
2. But Ex. xvi does not contain a particle of evidence that the Testimony, which was not then in existence, was even mentioned in the wilderness of Sin.
3. Ex. xvi could not have been written until about forty years after the departure from Egypt; for it informs us that God sustained his people with manna for the space of forty years, even until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan. Verse 35. So that the fact that verse 34 tells us that the pot of manna gathered in that wilderness was laid up before the Testimony does not furnish the slightest proof that the Testimony (not then in existence) was even mentioned in that wilderness.
Hence I charged you with "handling the word deceitfully," and endeavoring to "darken as far as possible the testimony of this chapter that the Sabbath existed before Israel came to Sinai." I submit to you the question, Was not the charge a just one?
After exposing your effort to darken Ex. xvi, I did expect that you would either explain the facts in the case, or acknowledge that you were wrong. But what kind of an answer have you made to the point? It is this:
"It [the Review] has not disproved the statement in the report that the Testimony is spoken of in Ex. xvi, even more familiarly than the Sabbath; so that that chapter does not prove that the Sabbath had been known before the Israelites came into the wilderness of Sin any more than it proves that the Testimony. i. e. the two tables of stone containing the ten commandments, had existed before that time and was well known to the people."
Let me assure you, Dear Sir, that you "can't get off so." The point at issue has not been (as you now try to give the idea) whether Ex. xvi, mentions the Testimony or not, but it is this: Does Ex. xvi, contain any proof that the Testimony (not then in existence) was spoken of in the wilderness of Sin? You asserted that it was spoken of at the same time that Moses spoke of the Sabbath, and in a more familiar manner. Can any credit be attached to persisting in a false statement after it has been exposed, by attempting to conceal the real point at issue?
In your "report of the Bible class" you next asserted that the Sabbath was "something entirely new to the people."
"Their strangeness with regard to it cannot be accounted for on the ground of their having just come out of Egypt; for the Israelites were in Egypt, from the time Joseph was taken thither to the time Moses led them out, only about 215 years, and they were only a part of that time in oppression. So that if they had kept the Sabbath before they went into Egypt, we cannot suppose that about one century of oppression would cause them to forget all about it."
To this I replied as follows: "The writer next asserts that the Sabbath was 'something entirely new to the people.' His reasons for this assumption he offers in another place: they will be examined in their order. On the assumption just stated, he infers that they neither kept the Sabbath in Egypt, nor before their going thither. Of course this deduction amounts to nothing until the premise assumed, is made good. But we will notice the deduction in a brief manner.—Please turn to Josh. v. It will there be seen that the ordinance of circumcision, though solemnly enforced by God, [Gen. xvii, 9—14; Lev. xii, 3; John vii, 23,] was neglected by the people while in the wilderness. See verses 5—7. Now if in a forty years sojourn in the wilderness, the ordinance of circumcision fell into total disuse, and was introduced the 'SECOND TIME' by Joshua, it is possible that a CENTURY of 'cruel bondage' in the 'iron furnace' of Egyptian servitude, [Ex. i, 13, 14; Deut. iv, 20; 1 Kings viii, 51; Jer. xi, 4,] might render it necessary that the holy Sabbath, (which it is difficult, if not impossible, to observe in abject servitude,) should be solemnly set forth and enforced."
To this you answer that if Ex. xvi, contains the account of the revival of the Sabbath, it is unaccountable that no mention is made of the suspension of its observance in Egypt as there was of the revival of the rite of circumcision, which had been neglected in the wilderness, [Josh. v.] or of the passover by Hezekiah, [2 Chron. xxx,] or of the children of Israel being without a king during the days of their dispersion.—Hos. iii; Eze. xxi.
But have you not in this taken for granted what you should first have proved, viz: that the people were entirely ignorant of the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath itself (if in existence) had fallen into entire disuse? Which idea do you think most reasonable, yours that the seventh day was made into the holy Rest-day of Jehovah when Moses said "to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord?" Or mine that the seventh day had been the holy Rest-day of the Lord ever since he rested upon it and hallowed it, and that Moses only rehearsed a truth as old as creation? May I not with propriety ask you, Is it not entirely unaccountable how the seventh day became the holy Rest-day of the Creator in the wilderness of Sin?4
You proceed to repeat the assertion that the Sabbath was entirely new to the people, and add that the Review thinks that the people were acquainted with the Sabbath because they gathered twice as much manna on the sixth day as on any other, as though to make provision so that they would not need to gather on the seventh. But how could the people be so much better informed than their rulers? For they reported the act of gathering twice the usual amount as an act likely to incur the divine displeasure. You add that God had told Moses that the people should have a double portion on the sixth day, and that Moses on that day proclaimed the Sabbath for the first time. You charge me with attempting to hide the plain testimony of this chapter against the previous institutions of the Sabbath, by making a great flourish about your statement that God wrought a miracle in making each man's portion of manna just an omer on each of the first five days of the week, and just two omers each on the sixth day, and by displaying all sorts of emphases on points of no importance. You add that the people did not know that they had obtained twice as much manna until they had measured it. You then quote verses 16—18 and add that nothing less than a miracle could have made the portion of 600,000 men each just an omer. You add that "2 Cor. viii, 14, 15 does not bear at all against the view here taken," and that "the Review's attempt to explain the ignorance of the rulers and the knowledge of the people in reference to the Sabbath is as futile as the rest."
As the language of the Review explains itself I introduce it that you may judge for yourself whether you have answered it or not. It is a continuance from the last quotation:
"But this is proceeding on the assertion of C., that the Israelites knew nothing of the Sabbath. We will now see if he be able to prove it."
"In order to show the entire ignorance of the people relative to the Sabbath, it is necessary to explain away the fact, that, on the sixth day, they, without any direction from Moses, as he admits, 'gathered twice as much bread' as the daily rate. Verse 22.—To evade the testimony that this act bears to their regard for the Sabbath, he introduces miraculous interposition. Notice the first miracle described by him:"
'Then they gathered, the stout ones more and the weak ones (who were probably crowded away by the stouter ones) less, but when they came to measure it, God wrought a miracle, so that each one had just an omer full and no more.'
Such is the view entertained by C. respecting Ex. xvi, 18. Now let us look at the view taken of it by the apostle Paul. See 2 Cor. viii, 14, 15. 'But by an EQUALITY, that now at this time YOUR ABUNDANCE MAY BE A SUPPLY FOR THEIR WANT, THAT THEIR ABUNDANCE ALSO MAY BE A SUPPLY FOR YOUR WANT, THAT THERE MAY BE EQUALITY.—AS IT IS WRITTEN, HE THAT HAD GATHERED MUCH HAD NOTHING OVER; AND HE THAT HAD GATHERED LITTLE HAD NO LACK.'
C. declares that God wrought a miracle to diminish the portion of some, and to increase the portion of others. (As well might he claim that God would make the paschal lamb to increase or diminish according to the number of persons; but that was not so.—Ex. xii, 3, 4.) But Paul shows us that there was an equality, the abundance of one supplying the lack of another. The first miracle, therefore, described by C. ceases to be a miracle.
Having introduced, as we have noticed, miraculous intervention to make the daily receipts of manna alike, C. is now prepared to account for the double quantity of manna obtained on the sixth day. Hear him again:
'The rulers did not know why, on measuring the manna the sixth day each person should have twice as much as on other days: for Moses had not told them any thing about the Sabbath; therefore neither they nor the people knew any thing about it. But now he makes that known to them. Verses 23—26.'
It will be noticed that C., (in order to reconcile this act of the people, with the idea of their entire ignorance of the Sabbath) proceeds on the assumption that there was still another miracle wrought by God; the miracle this time being to double the manna found in the vessels of the people!—We think however, that this miracle if examined, will turn out very much like the first; for neither instance presents any necessity for a miracle. It would seem that when God had provided food from heaven by a direct miracle, that the people who had 'not one feeble person among their tribes,' [Ps. cv. 37, 40,] might gather it without miraculous aid.—But we enquire, was it the act of the people, or a miracle from God, that a double quantity was obtained on the sixth day? 'To the law and to the testimony.' 'On the sixth day THEY GATHERED TWICE AS MUCH BREAD, two omers for one man, and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.' Verse 22. There is no higher testimony than this; we believe it and rest upon it. 'It was the act of the people in gathering, NOT the act of God in doubling what they had gathered, that accounts for the double portion of manna on the sixth day. And this PLAIN TESTIMONY refutes the assertion of C. that 'the rulers did not know why' the people had a double quantity on that day.
But it will be asked, 'Why then did the rulers come and mention this matter to Moses?' Verses 19, 20 present a reasonable answer, and one that involves no absurdity. They had been directed to leave none of the manna till another day, and how could their act of preparation for the morrow (the seventh day) be reconciled with that direction?—Moses in his answer to the rulers, sanctions the act of the people. 'This,' says he, 'is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake to-day and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over, lay up for you, to be kept until the morning.' Verse 23. They laid it up, and it did not corrupt as on the preceding days, but was preserved. Take notice. The preparation on the sixth day named by God to Moses in verse 5, was not rehearsed by him to the people until AFTER they had gathered the manna on the sixth day. Verse 23.—This fact shows that the gathering of a double portion, was the voluntary act of the people, facilitated doubtless, by a more plentiful supply on that day.—Verse 29. This act of the people, therefore, directly refutes the assertion of C. that they were 'perfectly ignorant' of the Sabbath. Whether the two miracles which he introduces to sustain the point, are entitled to any weight, others must judge.'
I might be allowed to laugh at the absurdities which you have collected, were it not that the subject is quite too serious to be treated with lightness. To represent the children of Israel as crowding each other from the manna, like a herd of swine, when it 'lay upon the face of the wilderness' every where, and to represent God as interfering by a miracle to make the portions of such a people just alike, is an idea sadly derogatory, both to the character of God and that of his chosen people. And Paul in taking this case [2 Cor. viii, 14, 15] as an illustration of the manner in which the Corinthians should treat their brethren, made a sad blunder. For if the Corinthians should act as you represent the Israelites to have acted, each would grasp from his brother or sister all that he could get, and then God would by a miracle so order the matter that he would have just a supply for his own wants, and would as miraculously increase the portions of those who had been defrauded?
With reference to the double portion on the sixth day, you first represent in the report that the manna gathered by the people was miraculously doubled, and then in enumerating certain 'laws' say that they had been COMMANDED TO GATHER twice as much that day. Though both the assertions are false, it may not be out of place to thus contrast them, as it shows at a glance how difficult it is for a man who argues against truth to be consistent even with himself. You next state:
'In admitting that the term Sabbath occurs for the first time in Ex. xvi, the Review insinuates that the same thing had been previously known under a different name. But where is the record of it? Echo answers,—Where?'
In answer, I call your attention to Gen. ii, again. God's act of 'hallowing' and 'setting apart' his Rest-day is stated in the first part of the chapter, and his act of instituting marriage is recorded in the concluding part of the chapter. It is true, indeed, that Gen. ii, does not apply the word Sabbath to the seventh day, but it is also a fact that it does not apply the word marriage to the union of Adam and Eve. You will not deny the application of the word marriage to the last act, but as you do deny the application of the word Sabbath to the seventh day at that time, I request your attention to the words of the Decalogue respecting that act. Ex. xx, 11. 'Wherefore the Lord blessed the SABBATH-DAY and hallowed it.' This testimony proves beyond all controversy the existence of the holy Sabbath before the expulsion of man from Paradise. Had you listened to Revelation, instead of Echo, it would have told you that at the time God hallowed the day of his rest, that day was 'the SABBATH-DAY.' You continue:
'The Review inquires for the act of instituting the Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin, and asks with surprise if it was kept before it was instituted. It was commanded to be observed in the wilderness of Sin, and was observed; but it was not regularly instituted, as an ordinance to be celebrated by after generations, till the law was given at Sinai, about a month later.'
The Review speaks for itself. I append the paragraph to which reference is made:
'What account, then, does the record contain of any act of instituting the Sabbath in the wilderness? The first sentence reads thus: 'And he (Moses) said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord;' then follows directions respecting the disposal of the manna. We ask then in candor, Did the statement given by Moses, constitute the seventh day 'the holy Sabbath unto the Lord?' Was it not by that language confessed to be such already? If the latter question be answered in the negative, then we will look at the matter further. To constitute it his Sabbath (Rest-day) did God rest upon the seventh day in the wilderness of Sin? No. He did this at Creation. Did he sanctify and hallow the day in the wilderness? Nothing of the kind is claimed. He did that at Creation, even the enemies of the Sabbath 'being judges.' How then was it instituted? Was it by Moses giving express direction that it should be observed? The record is searched in vain for even that, until after at least one Sabbath had been in part observed in the wilderness. Perhaps it can be proved by what some would call 'plain bible testimony,' that the Sabbath was instituted in the wilderness of sin, but we would be glad to have THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED. Or shall we conclude that the children of Israel observed the Sabbath without having it instituted?') You proceed to say in concluding your first article:
'The Review tries to explain the expression, 'See for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath,' verse 29, by John vii, 22. 'Moses therefore gave you circumcision.' Moses gave to the people circumcision in the sense of its being incorporated into what was called the law of Moses: yet we have a record of its existence before that law was given. But not so with the Sabbath; there is no record of its existence prior to the time when God gave it to them in the wilderness of Sin. It tries to explain Neh. ix, 14.—'Thou madest known to them thy holy Sabbath,' by Eze. xx, 5: 'I made myself known unto them in the land of Egypt.' It infers that as God existed and was known to men before the time he made himself known to his people in Egypt, so the Sabbath existed and was known to men before God made it known to them in the wilderness. But this inference is unsound; for we have abundant evidence that God existed and was known to men before he made himself known in a peculiar manner and by a peculiar name to his people in Egypt; but not a particle of such evidence exists in relation to the Sabbath. From the evidence presented it is manifest that we have no authority for dating the institution of the Sabbath prior to the giving of the manna in the wilderness of Sin.'
As you had presented objections which you deemed unanswerable, my object was to show that they possessed no real force. Whether, or not, you have shown that I did not answer you fairly, may be determined by comparing the paragraph in question with your reply already stated. It is as follows:
'The writer argues that because it is said 'the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days,' that the Sabbath must then for the first time have been communicated to Israel. For surely he did not 'give them what they already had!'—A text in the New Testament may help the mind of C. Please to read John vii, 22, and then answer me, How could Moses give them circumcision when they already had that ordinance, even from the days of Abraham? Gen. xvii, 9—14; Josh. v. 5. If you answer that the subject was still further set forth and impressed upon them, then we say, just so was it with the holy Sabbath.
He proceeds to quote Neh. ix, 13—15, which testifies that Thou (God)' madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath. 'Certainly God did not make known to them what they already knew!'—We answer how could GOD MAKE HIMSELF KNOWN unto Israel in the land of Egypt, [Eze. xx, 5,] when he chose them, and lifted up his hand unto them, saying, 'I am the Lord your God;' when they already knew the true God? (For they were the only church of God on the earth at that time.) Ex. ii, 23—25; iii, 7; iv, 31.
If you answer He revealed himself to them more fully, and made known their duty to him more clearly, we add even so was it with his holy Sabbath.—And we request the reader's attention to the point a moment longer. The testimony of Nehemiah is directly against C. God did not make his Sabbath for the Jews. No! No! It was already in existence, as well as himself, and he made it known to them.—Amen.'
With a single question I submit the subject thus far discussed. Did the seventh day become the holy Rest-day of the Lord when God rested from his work of Creation on that day and hallowed it, or did it become such in the wilderness of Sin when on the sixth day Moses said, 'To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord?'
Yours for the Truth, J. N. ANDREWS.
Rochester, N. Y. April 15th, 1852.