Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    June 30, 1887

    “What Condemns Men?” The Signs of the Times, 13, 25.

    E. J. Waggoner

    Solomon, the man to whom God gave wisdom such as none ever had before or since his time, sums up everything as follows: “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14. There is a very close connection between these two verses. The statement in verse 14 depends upon that in verse 13. To fear God and keep his commandments is the whole duty of man; and the necessity of performing this duty is enforced by the statement that God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing. From these verses, then, we learn: (1) That the ten commandments contain the whole duty of man; there is no duty outside of them; (2) That the ten commandments are the standard by which men shall be judged; for they are to be judged according to what they have done, and the ten commandments is what they are required to do; (3) That the Judgment will take into account every work, and every secret thing; and (4) That therefore the ten commandments cover every work and every secret thing, that is, every thought.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.1

    From the nature of the law of God we know that it must of necessity cover every work or thought for which it is possible for God to call men to account. 1. It contains the whole duty of man. 2. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” Psalm 19:7. If it is perfect, the man who obeys it strictly must also be perfect, and God requires nothing more than this. Matthew 5:48. 3. Above all, it is the statement of God’s character, which is perfect righteousness. God himself calls his law “my righteousness.” Isaiah 51:5-7. It is the will of God. Romans 2:17, 18. Now since all God requires of men, in order that he may admit them into his eternal kingdom, is that they should do his will (Matthew 7:21), therefore there can be no duty for man outside of the ten commandments. It is utterly impossible to conceive of any sin which is not forbidden by some one of the commandments.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.2

    When this statement is made, people sometimes cite the case of the ancient Israelites, who were required to bring offerings and make sacrifices for sin. On the day of atonement an offering was to be made for the whole congregation, to atone for the sins of all the people; and it was declared that whoever should not afflict his soul on that day should be cut off from among the people. Now it is asked which one of the ten commandments was violated by the man who refused to regard the day of atonement; and the idea intended to be conveyed by the questioner is that there are moral duties outside of the ten commandments. Again we are cited to the ordinance of baptism as something which the Lord requires, but which the commandments say nothing about. Both these objections are the same, and are covered by the question which we have been asked, “What commandment does a man violate by not having faith in Christ?” We think it can be shown that although death will be the portion of those who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, their destruction comes primarily and solely because they have not kept the commandments.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.3

    1. In Romans 6:23 we read that “the wages of sin is death.” Wherever there is death there must have been sin, for without sin there is no death. But “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4), and therefore it is certain that all who shall be “punished with everlasting destruction,” will be punished because they have broken the law. But the law to which the apostle refers is the ten commandments, for Paul says that it was only the law which says, “Thou shalt not covet,” that convicted him of sin.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.4

    2. We are also told that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23. “Death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Romans 5:12. “There is none righteous, no, not one.” Romans 3:10. All men then are condemned to death, and condemned solely by the law of God. When Christ was upon earth, he was not acting as judge, but as reconciler, and therefore he did not condemn sinners. He did not come to condemn, but to save. He himself said: “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.” John 3:17, 18.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.5

    3. This being true, it follows that nothing which pertains to Christ’s work of saving men, can condemn them. Christ came to save the world, not to condemn the world. Therefore nothing in his work of saving the world can condemn the world. Let the reader bear in mind the reason why Christ did not come to condemn. It was not because he had any sympathy for sin, but because he came to save. Now the very fact that he came to save, shows that they were lost. They had violated the law of God, and consequently were “condemned already.”SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.6

    4. The ancient sacrifices, like baptism and the Lord’s Supper, were connected with Christ’s work of saving men. They were part of the gospel. Men who are “condemned already” may be justified by believing in Jesus. Romans 3:24-26. Christ has died, and we are saved by faith in him. Our faith in him brings strength to overcome (1 John 5:4), but first we must have the “remission of sins that are past,” which is given in return for simple faith in Christ’s sacrifice. Now all the ancient sacrifices of the Jews were simply means by which they showed their faith in the Messiah, whose blood could take away sin. In like manner baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ceremonies by which we show our faith in Christ’s death and resurrection. Someone may say that many of the Jews did not understand the full meaning of their sacrifices, and did not fully understand the work of Christ. Very true, and so thousands of professed Christians do not understand the full meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; yet the fact remains that these ceremonies are for the purpose of manifesting faith in Christ, and the object for which they were designed is not affected in the least by the ignorance of any who may use them.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.7

    5. From the above, it will readily be seen that a refusal to offer sacrifices, or to take part in the exercise of the atonement day, indicated a lack of faith in Christ as the Saviour of sinners. Since Christ has ordained that men shall show their faith in him, if they have any, by the ordinances of the gospel, it follows that those who reject those ordinances, do so because they reject Christ and his sacrifice. In other words, they refuse pardon and salvation. All such, without any doubt, will suffer destruction; but it must be remembered that the penalty which they suffer is not as a punishment for failure to comply with the provisions of the gospel, but for the sins which they have committed, from which they might have been freed by accepting the gospel.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.8

    Let us illustrate this by something which is more common. Here is a murderer who is under sentence of death. He is told that the Governor will pardon him if he will acknowledge his guilt and make application for pardon, promising, of course, to obey the law in the future. But he refuses to do this, and the law is allowed to take its course, and the man is hanged. Now why is the man hanged? Is he hanged because he refused to sue for pardon? Of course not. He is hanged for the murder. There is no law saying that a man must apply for pardon, and making death the penalty of refusal, but there is a law against murder, and death is the penalty for its violation. Whoever commits murder is condemned, and is subject to the penalty. If he is hanged, even though a pardon has been offered and rejected, he is hanged solely for the murder. No part of the penalty is inflicted because he refused the pardon, although every particle of the penalty would have been remitted if he had accepted the pardon.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.9

    Carry the illustration a little farther: Here are two murderers in their cells awaiting execution. Both are equally guilty; their crime is the same. Now suppose that pardon is freely offered to one, but not to the other. The one who has been offered pardon refuses it, and both he and the one that had no pardon offered him are hanged. Now which is the guiltier man of the two. When they were put in their cells, both had the same degree of guilt. Has the one who refused to be pardoned acquired additional guilt by that refusal? Not by any means. If he is hanged, he is hanged for precisely the same reason that the other one is,-because he has broken the law.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.10

    So it is with the sinner in his relation to the law of God. He is “condemned already.” Now Christ comes, offering pardon; if the sinner accepts it, he may be saved; but if he refuses pardon, then the curse of the law, death, is allowed to fall upon him. God invites men to be saved, but he has no law to compel them to be pardoned. The refusal to receive the pardon is not that for which men are destroyed, but it is the sins which they committed and which condemned them even before the way of salvation was made known to them.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.11

    Now if it is borne in mind that a failure to comply with the provisions of the gospel, whether in the so-called old dispensation or in the new, is simply a refusal to receive the pardon which the gospel brings, it will be seen that the fact that men were cut off for not afflicting their souls on the day of atonement, is no evidence whatever that the death penalty is inflicted for anything save violation of the ten commandments. As Christ said, “He that believeth not is condemned already.”SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.12

    “Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 4:3. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23. Not merely have all men broken the law as a whole, but all men have broken every portion of the law, as it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” Romans 3:10-12. We read also that “whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Romans 14:23. Therefore if we were asked, “What commandment does a man violate if he doesn’t have faith in Christ?” we should reply that he breaks them all, or rather that he is a breaker of all of them, and that his punishment will be inflicted for such violation and not for his lack of faith.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.13

    Once more: Sin is active and positive. Failure to have faith is not an act at all. It is the absence of action. It is a passive condition, which leaves him exposed to punishment for sin, but it is not of itself a sin for which he is to be punished. But enough has been said to make the point clear, that violation of the law of God, and that alone, brings punishment. Let no one think that we lightly regard the ordinances of the gospel. We do not. No one can lightly regard them if he has any just conception of the law of God. But they are not primary duties. The punishment which will be inflicted upon the finally impenitent will be death, just what would have been inflicted upon man if the gospel had never been introduced. The gospel, with its ordinances, furnishes the way by which man may escape the wages of his sins, and therefore it is of the most vital importance. To those who imagine that a belief that men are punished only for violation of the moral law must be at least a partial ignoring of the gospel, the following words are in place:-SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.14

    “And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds.” Romans 2:3-6. W.SITI June 30, 1887, page 390.15

    “Cut Off from Among His People” The Signs of the Times, 13, 25.

    E. J. Waggoner

    Just as we were writing the article, “What Condemns Man,” in which we made reference to the cutting off of those who would not afflict their souls on the day of atonement (Leviticus 23:29) the following question was received:-SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.1

    “In Leviticus 23:29 it is said that ‘whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people.’ Does this mean that they were to be killed, or only separated from the people?”SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.2

    We think the text means that they were to be killed, and the following are some of the reasons for so thinking:-SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.3

    1. Where the expression “cut off” is used in other similar instances, it is known to mean death. In 2 Samuel 7:9 we read that the Lord had cut off all the enemies of David out of his sight. There can be no question as to the meaning of this. Again, the Lord promised to send an angel before the Israelites, and to “cut off” the Amorites, the Hittites, the Canaanites, etc. Exodus 23:23. And in Joshua 23:3, 4 we read that the great nations had been cut off. We know that those nations had been exterminated.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.4

    In 2 Chronicles 32:21 we read thus of Sennacherib, who had invaded Judah: “And the Lord sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valour, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned with shame of face to his own land. And when he was come into the house of his god, they that came forth of his own bowels slew him there with the sword.” Compare this with 2 Kings 10:35-37, and it will be seen that this cutting off of the mighty men of valor, was the killing of one hundred and eighty-five thousand men.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.5

    More positive proof is found in Exodus 31:14: “Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you. Every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.” Here we see that being “cut off from among his people” is the same as being put to death.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.6

    In Numbers 15:30, 31 we are told that the soul that should do aught presumptuously should be “cut off from among his people,” and again that he should “utterly be cut off;” and in the verses following we are told that one who presumptuously profaned the Sabbath was stoned to death with stones. Read now the sins that are forbidden in Leviticus 18:7-26, of which it is said: “For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.” Verse 20. And then read in Leviticus 20:2-16 the same list of sins, where it is stated of each one that those who do them “shall surely be put to death.” These passages, with many others that might be mentioned, show clearly what meaning usually attaches to the expression “cut off,” or “cut off from among his people.”SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.7

    2. This is still more apparent when we consider the meaning of the day of atonement, and the whole Jewish sanctuary service. The Jewish priests served “unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Hebrews 8:4, 5. Each year of service closed with the day of atonement, and was a type of the whole gospel dispensation. The day of atonement, closing the year of sanctuary service, was a type of the general Judgment, closing the period of human probation. In the work of the sanctuary service the Jews had before them continually a graphic representation of the penalty of the law and of the great propitiation.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.8

    When the sinner brought his victim to the door of the sanctuary, and, having confessed his sins upon it, killed it, he signified (1) That the wages of sin is death; (2) That he himself was worthy of death because of his sins; and (3) That he believed in the Lamb of God, who should take away the sin of the world. When the offering was placed upon the altar and entirely burned up, the fate of the victim that was offered for sin showed them what the sinner himself justly merited; and thus they learned that “the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs; they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.” Psalm 37:29.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.9

    At that time God was leading his people directly. The Jewish Government was a pure theocracy. Consequently when outbreaking crimes were committed, the offenders were at once put to death. This was not meant to take the place of a final judgment, but was an indication of how God would deal with sinners. So when we come to the closing up of the Jewish service, to the day when the priest made an atonement for the people, to cleanse them from all their sins, the man who obstinately refused to humble himself, with contrition of heart, was cut off, put to death, just as will be done to those who, at the close of the real Judgment, shall be found impenitent. The people of Israel were the people of God; they had his law and his gospel. To be cut off from Israel was to be cut off from God as a worthless branch, and the death penalty was inflicted at once, and thus the type of the real work connected with the sanctuary in Heaven was completed.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.10

    It is very common to speak of the finally impenitent, that when the Judgment closes they are found with their sins upon them. This is strictly true, and shows the contrast between the sinner and those whose sins have been washed away in the blood of the Lamb. There is an expression in Numbers 9:13, which, while it does not refer to the day of atonement, does have reference to an important feature of the sanctuary work, and shows just why those who refused to take part in any of the ceremonies of the sanctuary were cut off. The passage reads thus:-SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.11

    “But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people; because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.”SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.12

    The Passover represented the sacrifice of Christ, our Passover. The man who was not hindered by absence or sickness, or some other unavoidable circumstance, from celebrating the Passover, and who should indifferently let it pass by, was to be cut off. Why? “Because he brought not the offering of the Lord in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.” From this we may learn again, what has before been proved, that failure to accept the gospel, as indicated by neglect of its ordinances, simply left the man to bear his sins, and it was for those sins that he was cut off.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.13

    “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation.” Hebrews 2:1-3. W.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.14

    “Who Are the Sadducees?” The Signs of the Times, 13, 25.

    E. J. Waggoner

    A subscriber enters a mild protest against the doctrine taught in the SIGNS, that when man dies his soul, or spirit, or any part of him, does not continue to live, and he adds: “Are you not becoming modern Sadducees?” We have often heard it charged that those who do not believe that there is any life for the dead except by means of the resurrection, are Sadducees; but whenever we hear such a charge, we conclude that the one making it has very little idea of what the Sadducees were.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.15

    The Sadducees were the cultured aristocracy of the Jewish nation. Two texts of Scripture plainly tell their belief concerning the state of men after death. Read Matthew 22:23: “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection,” etc. Their question and Christ’s answer, which we will comment upon next week, taken with this statement, show that the Sadducees did not believe that there would ever be any life for the dead. Again we read in Acts 23:6-8: “But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.” In direct opposition to this non-resurrection doctrine of the Sadducees, we teach that “there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” Acts 21:15. We believe that “the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his [Christ’s] voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” John 5:28, 29. We believe that “the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible” (1 Corinthians 15:52); “for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise.” 1 Thessalonians 4:16.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.16

    Now we would like to ask our friend who holds that those whom we call dead are not really dead, what he believes in regard to the resurrection. If the righteous dead are not dead at all, but are alive in Heaven, how can Christ come to receive them to himself (John 14:1-3)? and how can he call them from the graves, to clothe them with life and immortality? Is it not clear as noonday that they who hold that the soul of man is by nature immortal, thereby deny the necessity for, or the possibility of, a resurrection? And now, reminding our readers that the distinguishing characteristic of the Sadducees was that they denied the resurrection, we leave them to decide who in modern times most nearly represent the Sadducees-whether it is those who teach that there can be no resurrection, or those who hold that “the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 6:23), to be bestowed “at the resurrection of the just.” Luke 14:14.SITI June 30, 1887, page 391.17

    “Back Page” The Signs of the Times, 13, 25.

    E. J. Waggoner

    By an inadvertence the Bible-reading which appeared in last week’s SIGNS was not credited. It should have been credited to Mrs. A. W. Heald. The conclusion of the subject appears in this issue.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.1

    We are sorry that this week again, as well as last week, we are unable to furnish the regular Sabbath-school lessons, for we know that many of our readers looked anxiously for them; but we have received non to print, and therefore had no alternative. We are sure, however, of the lessons for the next two weeks, and we hope that the Sabbath-school machinery will soon get in such a good running order that the lessons may be furnished to us without any break.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.2

    The series of tent-meetings that has been in session in Oakland for the last six weeks, closed Sunday evening, June 26. The attendance has been very good through the entire series, and we think that solemn impressions have been made upon of the hearers. Seventeen have taken their stand for the truth, and others are almost persuaded to obey. While the tent-meetings are being continued in another quarter of the city, the interest started by the late effort will be followed up with personal labor; and it is hoped that several more will be gathered in.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.3

    In a private letter, Elder G. B. Starr, of Springfield, Ill., says:-SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.4

    “Well, you may rejoice with us that the Sunday bill failed to become a law. Our friends in the Senate never allowed it to go to a second reading. We feel sure that God worked for us, and held the winds for the work here a little longer. Several urgent petitions were read in the Senate and an effort was made to get the bill through; but the Senate, by a vote of 21 to 14, refused to suspend the rules to consider it. We feel very grateful to God, and shall try to consecrate ourselves anew to his service, to work harder while the day lasts.”SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.5

    We do rejoice that there are men who love justice so well that they will not listen to the voice of bigotry, but will stand against those who preach that no definite day, but only one day in seven, is required by the Lord, but will try to force others to keep a definite day of which their conscience disapproves.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.6

    From reports and comments and lesson helps (?) received at this office there can hardly be a doubt that the Sunday-school children throughout the land have actually been taught that the manna did not fall on Sunday, and that it would keep only over Saturday night and Sunday. Now even though the subject were a mere matter of history, and nothing more, such teaching could not be excused from the imputation of downright dishonesty, nor would it be by any intelligent person. How much less then can it be excused when the subject is one of divine truth, given by inspiration of God, and which deeply concerns the eternal interests of every human soul. Then, such teaching becomes not only dishonest but it is wicked deception, and is simply teaching rebellion against the Lord by causing the people to trust in a lie. Jeremiah 28:15, 16.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.7

    It has been a standing assertion among a certain class of people that wine drinking tends to temperance, because where wine is freely drunk there will be less whisky consumed. The logic of this has never been very apparent, even though it be allowed that wine drinking diminishes the amount of whisky drinking; for wine itself is an intoxicant, although not so powerful as whisky. But now the falsity of the assertion has been demonstrated. France has always been noted as the great wine country of the world; and if the assertion just noted be true, it ought to be the most temperate. But now we learn that the drinking of spirits has assumed such proportions in that country that the Senate has decided that steps must be taken to diminish it. Drunkenness is getting so common that it cannot be endured. And this will prove to be the invariable result. The desire for stimulants always increases as it is gratified.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.8

    Just before Cardinal Gibbons returned from Bonne, a Baltimore priest named J. L. Andreis preached to his congregation, in St. Levi Church, a discourse which was simply a mass of servile flattery of the Cardinal. It was not simple flattery, either, for the following paragraph from the “sermon” contains blasphemy as great as any that ever issued from the mouth of the beast:-SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.9

    “The importance of the threefold reception is equal to the meaning. The clergy will spontaneously be made to ask, ‘Who is this that cometh from Rome with dyed garments, this beautiful one in his robe, walking in the greatness of his strength? And why is his apparel red, and his garments like them that tread in the winepress?’ The answer to them will be that he is their own archbishop, whom the Vicar of Christ has made his immediate counselor, and as such has clad him in red robes,” etc.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.10

    Those to whom the blasphemy is not apparent will be able to realize it by comparing the paragraph with Isaiah 63:1-3.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.11

    The report of the “Committee on the Sabbath,” at the late Reformed Presbyterian Synod, says:-SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.12

    “Sunday saloons robbed the working classes of their weeks’ pay, and turn the working man’s home into a very healthy.”SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.13

    Indeed! It is the Sunday saloon bar robs people. It is the Sunday saloon that turns people’s homes into a hell! What a wicked thing that Sunday saloon is! Annihilated it by all means before next Sunday comes, so that the working classes may be perfectly secure in their money, and the working man’s home may be made happy. But by all means let the dear, good, honest, week-day saloon, that makes gentle the British husband, that makes kind the cruel father, that protects the promising youth, that turns the working man’s home into a paradise-let it remain, and touch it not, for a blessing is in it. Robbery and hell are found alone in the Sunday saloon.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.14

    But what makes the Sunday saloon so intensely bad that it must be denounced more than any other saloon? Any saloon at all is an unmitigated curse. Then why condone it on weekdays by condemning it only on Sunday. If the Sunday saloon can be abolished, why cannot all be abolished? There is quite a large class of people who, realizing that the sale of intoxicates cannot yet be absolutely prohibited, propose to cut off as many saloons as possible by high license. This the Prohibitionists denominate “a covenant with death and an agreement with held.” Very well. Then the same prohibitionist will loudly denounce the Sunday saloon and demand laws that shall close the saloon on Sunday but let them run full blast all the rest of the week. What is that then but “a covenant with death and an agreement with hell,” just as much as is the other? The high license folks say, “If we can’t yet abolished all, we will abolish all we can.” This the Prohibitionists denounce in the unmeasured terms, and then say the same thing, only in other words. We wish the Prohibitionists would stick to their text, and not so stultify themselves. Prohibition absolute, everywhere, all the time, and forever, say we.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.15

    “The Truth Told” The Signs of the Times, 13, 25.

    E. J. Waggoner

    Some time ago a friend sent us a copy of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat of April 3. It contained an article on “Sunday Legislation” by Rev. John Snyder, of St. Louis, who, while he believes in Sunday and Sunday rest, does not favor hasty legislation on the subject. He believes that Sunday should be kept because man needs a rest-day, and Sunday seems to have the majority in its favor, and he knows that the Sunday-sabbath stands on no other foundation than this. He says:-SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.16

    “The truth must be spoken, and the truth about the Sunday question is simply and briefly this: If we would preserve the day of rest for wholesome and rational use, if we would make it truly a day of peace and worship, it must frankly be placed upon a sure and solid foundation. Every instructed man knows that the Christian Sunday and the Jewish Sabbath are not identical. That the sanctions of the one cannot be transferred to the other. If there is anything plain in the Bible, it is that not ‘any day,’ but one particular day, is sanctified by the older law, and testified to by miracles. That day is the seventh and not the first day of the week. Every instructed man knows that the Catholic Church gave to the Christian world the Sunday, and determined the manner in which it should be used. And when Protestantism threw off the authority of the Catholic Church it abandoned the only ecclesiastical foundation upon which the Sunday can logically rest.”SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.17

    “Is There Room Enough?” The Signs of the Times, 13, 25.

    E. J. Waggoner

    “It is asserted that there is not room enough on the earth for all the people who have ever lived on it. Is there anything in print on the subject? J. M. D.”SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.18

    Yes; the folly of assertion has been shown scores of times, yet it is made with as much confidence as ever. It is a standing objection with infidels against the possibility of a general resurrection, and evinces just about as much learning as the usual run of infidel objections to the Bible. We think that the falsity of the assertion will be apparent to all who read the following brief calculation:-SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.19

    “The present population of the world is, in round numbers, 1,400,000,000. The earth has been standing about six thousand years. It is true that many people claim that the earth is much older, but they do not claim that it has been inhabited by man for a much longer period. Now we will allow that the entire population has changed every thirty years, and that there were just as many people the first thirty years and every thirty years after, as there are now. This is an exceedingly liberal allowance, for there were but two people in the beginning, and but eight after the flood. The whole number of people, then that have lived on the earth, would be 1,000,000,000,000 or 2,000,000,000,000. Now if we should allow each one of these people a square rod of land for standing room, they would occupy only 2,734,316 square miles. The area of the United States and Territories is 3,442,198 square miles. Therefore all the people who have ever lived on the earth could be accommodated in the United States, with ample room for everyone and there would be more than 800,000 square miles of land to spare.”SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.20

    Don’t be afraid when infidels prate about the impossibility of things which the Bible says shall take place. There was never an infidel assertion that could stand for a moment against the Bible. All the arguments brought to bear in the Bible have had less effect than so may feathers would have upon the rock of Gilbraltar.SITI June 30, 1887, page 400.21

    Larger font
    Smaller font