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 1, 1888

    “Let There Be No Alliance with Rome” The Signs of the Times, 14, 21.

    E. J. Waggoner

    The Presbyterian Union of New York City is composed of the Presbyterian ministers of that city. In their meeting February 28, the discussion turned on the question, “How far is the Roman Catholic Church our ally, and how far our enemy.” From a report of the proceedings we take the following points of interest:-SITI June 1, 1888, page 323.1

    Rev. Philip Schaff, D. D., the ecclesiastical historian and professor in Union Theological Seminary, opened the discussion. He said that the origin of the Roman Catholic Church was involved in obscurity. It may have originated on the day of pentecost; it may have originated at Corinth, or it may have originated much later. In any event the precise time could not be fixed. He claimed that the Pope is antichrist, but not the church. That the Pope and the church are not one, and that Second Thessalonians refers to the Pope alone, claiming that this was the view held by Calvin, Melancthon, and Luther. He said that the Roman Catholic Church must hold to all the cardinal doctrines, such as the Trinity, divinity of Christ, justification, sanctification, good works, and others. He emphasized the historic character of the church and that under its claim of infallibility it could not abandon one of the cardinal doctrines and live; that it was the largest church of Christendom, with its 200,000,000 members, and should be the ally of Protestantism.SITI June 1, 1888, page 323.2

    Rev. Dr. John Hall, pastor of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, was the next speaker. Each point that Dr. Schaff raised Dr. Hall answered, and when he said that he could not realize how so learned a man, a professor in the chair of church history in a Presbyterian theological seminary, could advocate an alliance with the historic enemy of truth, justice, and morality, he was enthusiastically applauded.SITI June 1, 1888, page 323.3

    He held to his clear and logical style of argumentation, but his deep interest and earnest convictions upon this important subject, led him into such bursts of eloquence that he carried his audience before him with irresistible force.SITI June 1, 1888, page 323.4

    Dr. Hall said that he had lived among Catholics; had preached in a parish where there were three Roman Catholics to one Protestant; he had been to Rome and met the cardinals to whom he had been introduced. He knew Romanists and Romanism, priesthood and laity, better, probably, than any person present. He said the Pope was the church and the church was the Pope, and that both are antichrist, “so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” The Pope and Romanism stand and fall together. Paul demonstrated this antichrist, this son of perdition, as the workman of Satan; that Satan who had overcome the first Adam, and with all the subtlety of his nature endeavored to overcome the second Adam, but had failed. Satan had endeavored to overcome Christ by offers of that temporal power which the Church of Rome now holds out, and the offer was made by the same arch conspirator.SITI June 1, 1888, page 323.5

    Moses’s fight was continually against apostasy. Satan does not ask the people at first to become atheists, but he asks them to place alongside of the true God other gods also. This is what the Roman Catholic Church asks and does. Satan was satisfied when the Jewish kings set up the temple of the living God, provided they had Baal and Ashteroth in their groves. As to the origin of the Roman Church, a careful reading of history showed that it was from Constantine, who was a shrewd statesman, a politican and murderer, that it had sprung. Out of heathenism, Judaism, and Christianity, were taken those portions of their several services that would appeal to the sensualism of man, and with these playing upon the inborn sentiment of natural religion, Christ was kept out of the heart.SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.1

    Dr. Schaff had referred to the decrees of the Council of Trent, acknowledging the divinity, kingship, and priestly offices of Christ. Dr. Hall said that it was true, but it was not fair to quote a portion and not the whole of the decrees. Read them through and in their logical connection, and you would find that they were completely Romish; the doctrine of justification is ignored, Christ’s office as a Saviour is rendered wholly void; and every leading doctrine of the religion of Christ had been manipulated until it was of none effect.SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.2

    The decrees of the Council of Trent claimed ten virtues for the priesthood, traditions, penances, purgatory, indulgences, and in Mariolatry, to one in the atonement of Christ. Christ’s divinity was merged in the infallibility of the Pope, the influence of the Holy Ghost merged in the confessional interferences of the priesthood, and instead of bowing to the kingship of Christ, the devotees of the Roman system kissed the toe of St. Peter’s statue. No Catholic is permitted by the decrees of the church to be “justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” and his soul goes blindly into purgatory in order that the church may receive money for saying masses for his soul.SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.3

    As to the church’s influence, no devotee of heathenism in Japan but lives a freer life than does the slave of Romanism. There is no truth of the Decalogue that it has not broken, no truth of Christianity that it has not assailed.SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.4

    It is claimed that the marriage relationship has been defended by the Romish Church, and yet there has been no greater insult offered to that holy relationship than celibacy and monasticism and their attendant evils.SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.5

    It is said that Romanism educates. It does so in places where it has no other way to carry on its aggressive work, and when it does educate, it does so always at your expense; but where it can get along without it, it does not educate.SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.6

    It is claimed that the Roman Church holds in check the turbulent spirits that have caused our strike, and that we should join hands with it to keep this power under restraint. That 60,000,000 of people should conciliate 8,000,000 of enemies to their liberties in order to keep in check a small portion of our body politic! No; a thousand times better that these misguided people should strike, and strike, until they learn how to appreciate the laws of our land and their own good, rather than that the iron hand of superstition and spiritual death should be riveted about their arms and souls until they could not move.SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.7

    The Presbyterian Church should not form such an unholy alliance. It was our duty to magnify Protestantism, the Christianity of the Bible, and not make an unholy alliance with error. He had no word against the individuals of the Church of Rome, but against that church he should always raise his voice.SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.8

    When Dr. Hall had concluded, the Rev. Howard Crosby, D. D., pastor of the Fourth Avenue Presbyterian Church, arose and commenced his address with the question, “Why should we not join with the Roman Catholic Church in the fight against infidelity?” He paused and deliberately said, “Because the Roman Catholic Church makes infidelity.” The answer was electrical. The audience cheered and applauded for several minutes. Dr. Crosby continued: “The Roman Catholic Church has been called an historic church, and we are asked to make it an ally because it is such. Look at Mohammedism, Buddhism; they, too, are historic. Shall we join with them on account of their antiquity?SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.9

    “When does an apple get so rotten that it ceases to be an apple?” said the doctor. “Let us not be deceived by the virtues of those who are superior to their religion, into fellowship with that which is unfriendly to our every interest.”SITI June 1, 1888, page 324.10

    “The ‘New Law’ Examined” The Signs of the Times, 14, 21.

    E. J. Waggoner

    We have been somewhat interested in reading a list of “The Ten Commandments of the New Testament,” as given by one who believes, or professes to believe, that the ten commandments as given upon Sinai were abolished at the cross. We have known quite a number who hold similar views, and as the idea is becoming quite prevalent that the standard of righteousness that existed in Old Testament time has been superseded by a New Testament law, we will give the so-called new law, and examine it somewhat in detail. But first, we will state that the one who gave the list which we quote below, prefaced it with a statement to the effect that Jesus is the lawgiver of the new dispensation, and that the commandments which followed are “the commands given by Jesus.” Here is the list:-SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.1

    “1. ‘Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.’ Matthew 4:10, and Luke 4:8.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.2

    “2. Little children, keep yourselves from idols.’ 1 John 5:11; Acts 15:20-29; 21:25; Revelation 9:20.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.3

    “3. ‘But above all things, my brethren, swear not neither by Heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath.’ James 5:12; Matthew 5:33-36.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.4

    “4. The fourth commandment of the Decalogue is not in the New Testament.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.5

    “5. ‘Honor thy father and thy mother; he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.’ Matthew 15:4; 19:19; Ephesians 6:1.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.6

    “6. ‘Whoso hateth his brother is a murderer.’ 1 John 3:15; ‘Thou shalt do no murder.’ Matthew 19:18; Mark 10:19; Romans 13:9; Ephesians 5:5; Revelation 21:8.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.7

    “7. Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.’ Matthew 5:28. ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Matthew 19:18; Mark 10:19; Romans 13:9; Ephesians 5:5; Revelation 21:8.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.8

    “8. ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ Matthew 19:28; Mark 10:19; Ephesians 4:28.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.9

    “9. ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness.’ Matthew 19:18; Mark 10:19.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.10

    “10. ‘Thou shalt not covet.” Romans 13:9; Ephesians 5:5; 1 Timothy 6:10.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.11


    “‘A new commandment I write unto you.’” 1 John 2:8. “And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God, love his brother also.” 1 John 4:21.”SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.12

    Let us examine this list, which is said to constitute the commandments of Jesus, and to take the place of the ten commandments as given upon Sinai: Of the nine quotations, only six of them were made by Jesus. The other three are from the writings of the apostles. So the writer would have, not one lawgiver, but many. Of those that were spoken by the Lord, we note the following points:-SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.13

    The first one was spoken to Satan, at the very beginning of Christ’s ministry, more than three years before the crucifixion, the time when it is claimed that the ten commandments were abolished. Then if this were a reenactment of the law, we should have the anomaly of a law reenacted three years before it was abolished! But again: Jesus prefaced the statement with the words, “It is written.” He was quoting from the law as recorded in the Old Testament. Then the alleged New Testament commandment is identical with the Old Testament commandment; and consequently, if it were true that the old law was abolished at the cross, we should now have no commandment against worshiping false gods. Wouldn’t it be better for us as Christians to admit that there is still a law requiring all men to worship the Creator of the heavens and the earth?SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.14

    The one quoted as the second is from the writings of John, about sixty years after the crucifixion. Therefore if the old law was abolished at the cross, there was a period of sixty years in which it was not sinful to worship idols, because there was no law against it. We trust that few would have the hardihood to declare that such was the case. As a matter of fact, neither the second commandment nor its equivalent appears in the New Testament. The reference in what is given above as the second commandment, is to the first.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.15

    The same thing may be said of the third as is said of what is called the second in the new series.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.16

    The one which is called the fifth was quoted by the Saviour directly from the law as given upon Sinai, together with the announcement of the penalty, which immediately followed; and when Christ uttered it, he showed that he was quoting from the law, by saying, “God commanded, saying,” etc. Again, the fact that the death penalty is not now inflicted for Sabbath-breaking, is often urged as showing that the Sabbath commandment is not binding. But here we have a commandment of the old law, death penalty and all, made a part of the new law. Shall we stone disobedient children? Notice, as in the case of the first, that if the law of Sinai were abolished at the cross, then this one must have gone too, for it is the very same.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.17

    The commandments which are given in the above list as the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth, of the “ten commandments of the New Testament,” were quoted by the Lord direct from the ten commandment law of Sinai. Of these, as of the others, it must be said that if the old law was abolished at the cross, they went too, for they do not simply correspond to the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments of the law, but they are the identical commandments of the law.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.18

    The one given as the tenth was never spoken by Christ, so far as the New Testament record informs us. Paul quotes it about thirty years after the crucifixion, directly from the law as recorded in Exodus, and gives it as a quotation. But if it be held that that law was done away at the cross, and that this was the enunciation of a new commandment, then there must have been a period of thirty years when there was no commandment forbidding coveting.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.19

    The result of our examination is that if it were true that the law given on Sinai was abolished at the cross, and if the above is the law that was given to take its place, then we would have at most only three commandments, since six of the new list were unfortunately given so long before the first were abolished that they were swept away with them! And the three that we have came stringing along at varying intervals during a period of sixty years! Is it not a shame that men will charge the Lord with such folly?SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.20

    But what of the new commandment? Why, John says that it is the commandment which we “had from the beginning.” 1 John 2:7; 3:11; 2 John 5. It is simply the summing up of the last six commandments of the Decalogue; for all the law pertaining to our duty to our fellow-men is fulfilled in this, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” And this commandment, together with the six of which it is the sum, has existed among men, in written form, ever since the days of Moses.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.21

    What was the use of printing this list of so-called New Testament commandments, and noting each one? That people might see what pitiable work men make when they tamper with God’s immutable law. The conclusion all must arrive at, is that unless the original law is binding as spoken from Sinai, then we have no law to guide us. And in that case we would have nothing to judge us, there would be no sin, for sin is the transgression of the law, and there would be no gospel, for the gospel is God’s remedy for sin. But this is not the case. The very effort to construct some other law besides the one which God himself gave, only serves to bring into greater prominence the fact that “all his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.” Psalm 111:7, 8. They are the foundation-stones of the throne of God,-the basis of his Government-and instead of vainly seeking with puny hands to overturn them, men would better yield cheerful obedience to them lest when it is too late they are forced to cry for the mountains to hide them from the face of Him that sitteth upon the throne. W.SITI June 1, 1888, page 326.22

    “The True Israel” The Signs of the Times, 14, 21.

    E. J. Waggoner

    The throne of David is the only throne promised to Christ; therefore the dominion, the receiving of which is described in Daniel 7:13, 14, must be the kingdom of Israel. It was declared that his everlasting dominion should be over the house of Jacob, yet the prophet, after telling of the destruction of earthly monarchies, says: “And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” Daniel 7:27. Therefore it must be that all the saints of God will constitute the people of Israel, over whom Christ shall reign. This truth has been referred to before, but now more extended positive Scripture proof is in order.SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.1

    1. The promise is: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Revelation 3:21. Now the word “Israel” signifies, “a prince of God,” or “one who prevails.” It was given to Jacob after he had wrestled all night with the angel, and had gained the victory. The Lord said to him: “Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.” Genesis 32:28. Therefore an overcomer is an Israelite; and the promise is that to those who are Israelites Christ will grant to sit with him on his throne.SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.2

    2. The natural descendants of Abraham were never considered as the true Israel, and heirs according to the promise, unless they were, like him, righteous. When Christ told the Jews that if they believed in him they should know the truth and the truth should make them free, they replied, “We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man.” John 8:33. But Jesus showed them that they were in a worse bondage than any human slavery, namely, the bondage of sin (verse 34); and to their repeated statements that they were the children of Abraham, he replied: “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham.” “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” Verses 39, 40, 44.SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.3

    In like manner, also, John the Baptist told the wicked Pharisees and Sadducees not to flatter themselves that they were the children of Abraham, because God was able of the very stones to raise up children unto Abraham (Matthew 3:7-9), plainly implying that sooner than fulfill the promise to such unworthy descendants as they were, God would raise up children unto Abraham, out of the stones. That this was not a new idea, is evident from the fact that even in the wilderness, from the very time that the promise was renewed to the Jews, at the exode, the stubborn Jew who refused to humble himself before God, and confess his sin, on the day of atonement, was cut off from among his people (Leviticus 23:28, 29), while a stranger was at any time permitted to identify himself with Israel by circumcision.SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.4

    Circumcision was the mark of Jewish citizenship. The man who was circumcised was known to be an Israelite; yet, as has been stated, this rite was administered to foreigners, after which they were considered the same as those that were born of Jewish parents, thus showing that the natural descendants of Abraham did not comprise all Israel. More than this, we have evidence to show that the Lord never regarded the outward mark of circumcision, whether in the person of a native Jew, or a foreigner, as evidence that that individual was really an heir of Abraham. In Romans 4:8-11 we learn what circumcision implied:-SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.5

    “Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.”SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.6

    Abraham received circumcision as a sign that he had obtained “the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.” Circumcision was, therefore, a sign of righteousness. If a person was circumcised, but was not righteous, he was no more a child of Abraham than any other man; and whoever was righteous, like Abraham, was really his child. So Abraham was the father of all that believed, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. That outward circumcision did not make an Israelite, unless a man was righteous, is plainly declared by Paul in Romans 2:25-29:-SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.7

    “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.8

    This was true, not simply when the apostle wrote, but from the beginning of the history of the Jewish nation. When the Lord gave laws to his people, from Mount Sinai, he said that if they disobeyed him he would bring desolation upon their land, and they should perish among the heathen; but,-SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.9

    “If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; and that I also have walked contrary unto them, and have brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity; then will I remember my covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember; and I will remember the land.” Leviticus 26:40-42.SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.10

    And so it was in the days of Moses, as well as in the days of Christ, that “an Israelite indeed,” was one in whom was “no guile.” John 1:47.SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.11

    In the eleventh of Romans the apostle very forcibly illustrates the way in which the promises to Israel could be fulfilled, even though all the literal descendants of Jacob should forfeit their right to the inheritance. In the first and second verses he declares that God has not cast away his people. This might lead us to suppose that literal Israel are yet the chosen people of God, if he did not say in verse 5 that those that remain are “according to the election of grace.” Then he represents Israel by an olive tree. Some of the branches have been cut off, and the Gentiles, a wild olive tree, have been grafted in. This grafting is contrary to nature, for the grafts partake of the root and fatness of the tame olive tree into which they are grafted, and bear the same kind of fruit. He warns those who are thus grafted in not to boast, since they stand only by faith, and that as the natural branches were broken off because of unbelief, so they may likewise be removed. The Jews, the natural branches, may become part of the tree, but if they do, it will not be as original branches, but as spiritual grafts. Thus the people of Israel are only a spiritual people,-those who are Christ’s,-“and so all Israel shall be saved.” W.SITI June 1, 1888, page 327.12

    “Learning by Obedience” The Signs of the Times, 14, 21.

    E. J. Waggoner

    After the plain truth of the Scripture has been set forth concerning the Sabbath, the nature of man and his dependence upon Christ for life both here and hereafter, the coming of the Lord, and kindred subjects, it is very common to hear someone talk something like this: “That seems very clear; but there’s one objection that bothers me; and until it is answered I cannot think of accepting the doctrine that you have been expounding. Now while it is perfectly proper to seek to have everything made plain, such a position as that noted above is not consistent. It is likened to the infidel assertion, “I will not believe anything that I cannot fully understand.” When a person takes that position he effectually cuts himself off from really understanding anything. Very often the acceptance of a thing which we do not fully understand, is necessary to a full understanding of it. the child who should refuse to accept any principle in mathematics until he could understand reason for it, would never advance to the higher mathematics in which the earlier principles are rightly demonstrated.SITI June 1, 1888, page 328.1

    Many things which when we were children we look upon trust, we find ourselves able to fully analyze as our minds become mature. And so it is in matters of religion. It is utterly impossible that we should understand all the truth of God at once. If we accept as much as we can see, the way till be prepared for greater light to come to us. “The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith.” And when we arrive at a state of more mature spiritual judgment, we shall find that what we thought were objections are not objections at all. There were many people to whom the whole matter was perfectly clear, even while it seemed to us an insuperable objection; but it was an objection to us because of our own ignorance, and because of our immature judgments in spiritual things they could not explain it to us. The Christian must grow in knowledge, and this presupposes the fact that he doesn’t know everything when he first starts out.SITI June 1, 1888, page 328.2

    “The Commentary. Moses Sent to Egypt” The Signs of the Times, 14, 21.

    E. J. Waggoner


    1. When Moses went out the first time to deliver Israel, by slaying the Egyptians, what did he manifest?-Pride and self-sufficiency.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.1

    2. What must we conclude was his idea of the way deliverance would come?-That the people would rally around him, and that under his military guidance they would fight their way out of bondage.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.2

    3. In that case who alone would have received the glory?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.3

    4. What was God’s design?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.4

    “And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I have gotten me honor upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.” Exodus 14:17, 18.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.5

    5. While Moses was keeping sheep in the wilderness, what did he learn?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.6

    “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.” Numbers 12:3.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.7

    6. When he went with the Lord’s commission, how was he regarded?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.8

    “And the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people.” Exodus 11:3.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.9

    7. How did the Lord appear to Moses, when he would send him to Egypt?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.10

    “And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.” Exodus 3:2-4.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.11

    8. When Moses went to see the burning bush, what was said to him?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.12

    “And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. And he said, Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.” Verses 4, 5.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.13

    9. Who was it speaking form the bush?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.14

    “Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.” Verse 6.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.15

    10. What other instances can you name where people were required to put off their shoes on account of the presence of God?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.16

    11. What did the Lord say he had seen and heard?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.17

    “And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows.” Verse 7.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.18

    “I have seen, I have seen the affliction of my people which is in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.” Acts 7:34.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.19

    12. What did he say he now proposed to do?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.20

    “And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto me; and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Egyptians oppress them. Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth my people the children of Israel out of Egypt.” Exodus 3:8-10.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.21

    13. How eager was Moses now to go?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.22

    “And Moses said unto God, Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?” Verse 11.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.23

    14. What did the Lord say?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.24

    “And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain.” Verse 12.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.25

    15. What question did Moses ask?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.26

    “And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?” Verse 13.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.27

    16. What did the Lord reply?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.28

    “And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM; and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.” Verse 14.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.29

    17. What did God say of this name?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.30

    “And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you; this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.” Verse 15.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.31

    18. What is its meaning?-It means “the One who is,” that is, the self-existent One, thus expressing the distinguishing characteristic of God.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.32

    19. What objection did Moses still interpose?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.33

    “And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee.” Exodus 4:1.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.34

    20. What three signs did the Lord give him by which he might prove that he had a divine commission? Verses 2-9.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.35

    21. Was Moses ready to go then?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.36

    “And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant; but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.” Verse 10.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.37

    22. What reply did the Lord make!SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.38

    “And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man’s mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.” Verses 11, 12.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.39

    23. What did Moses still say?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.40

    “And he said, O my Lord, send, I pray thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send.” Verse 13.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.41

    24. How did the Lord regard this continued refusal?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.42

    “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses.” Verse 14, first clause.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.43

    25. What help did he provide for Moses?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.44

    “And he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee; and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart.” Verse 14, last clause.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.45

    26. Who did he say should instruct them both?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.46

    “And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth; and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God.” Verses 15, 16.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.47

    27. What confidence may the Lord’s servants have in this age as they go to preach the gospel?SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.48

    “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matthew 28:18-20.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.49


    Some people confuse meekness with weakness. They suppose that a meek person must be what is popularly known as “soft,” and so they have a mild contempt for meekness. But Moses, whose very name has become a synonym for meekness, was not a milk-and-water man. Brought up in the Egyptian court, he was “mighty in words and in deeds.” His summary punishment of the Egyptian who was striving with a Hebrew, shows the impulsiveness of his nature. His firmness and fearlessness were shown when he stood up in defense of the daughters of Jethro, against the ruffianly shepherds. When he finally went before Pharaoh to demand the release of the Israelites, he showed intrepidity. Indeed, all through his life he showed a firmness that is rarely seen. He possessed a strong character, yet he was meek.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.50

    When God sent Moses back to Egypt, he gave him the best commission that was every given to man. “This shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM sent me unto you.” God made himself known as the self-existent one-the living God. He is the living God, in contradistinction from all other gods of every kind. He has “life in himself,” he is the Author of life. The title, “I AM” comprises all that may be said of God, for that he is the Creator of all things is necessarily conveyed in the idea that he alone lives by his own power. The possession of life, inherent life, marks Deity. The man who claims to have life in himself, whether he has faith in Christ or not, actually claims to be God.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.51

    On the changing of the rod into a serpent, “Speaker’s Commentary” says:-SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.52

    “This miracle had a meaning which Moses could not mistake. The serpent was probably the basilisk or Uracus, the Cobra. See Tretram, Nat. His., p. 271. This was the symbol of royal and divine power on the diadem of every Pharaoh. It was a poisonous snake, as is shown by the flight of Moses, and by most passages in which the same word occurs, sehash, derived from hissing. This snake never attacks without first inflating its neck, and then hissing; on the monuments it is always represented with its neck enormously swollen. The conversion of the rod was not merely a portent, it was a sign, at once a pledge and representation of victory over the king and gods of Egypt.” W.SITI June 1, 1888, page 330.53

    “The Sabbath and the Resurrection” The Signs of the Times, 14, 21.

    E. J. Waggoner

    “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” etc., Matthew 28:1. Here we have New Testament testimony upon the subject of what day should be called the Sabbath. It is the day that immediately precedes the first day of the week, therefore the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. This is just what the commandment says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” And Luke, in speaking of the Sabbath day which immediately preceded that first day of the week in which Christ arose from the tomb, says that the women “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” Luke 23:56. This item alone should be sufficient to firmly establish anyone who may be wavering concerning the Sabbath in the New Testament.SITI June 1, 1888, page 331.1

    But some may say that this Sabbath was past before the resurrection, and that the change in the day could not take place until Christ had risen and appeared to his disciples. We reply that the resurrection of Christ has nothing to do with the matter. The gospels were all written years after the occurrence of the events which they record, and the names which they give to things must be the names by which the Holy Spirit wishes those things to be known throughout the entire Christian age. With one accord they speak of the seventh day of the week-the day immediately preceding the first day of the week-as “the Sabbath.” The first day of the week they call simply “the first day of the week,” and nowhere in the Bible is it given any other title. Now when the Bible says that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and throughout both the Old and the New Testament it is called the Sabbath, by what authority do men give that title to the first day? How dare men take such liberties with the word of God? The Lord looks with favor only on those who tremble at his word. See Isaiah 66:1, 2.SITI June 1, 1888, page 331.2

    Facts must outweigh conjectures; yet even in the face of the uniform testimony of Scripture, some will argue that “redemption is greater than creation.” Well, suppose for a moment that it is; what has that to do with the Sabbath? How is it possible to find any connection between the alleged fact that redemption is greater than creation, and the Sabbath day. The seventh-day Sabbath rests upon the great fact that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh, and that he afterwards blessed and sanctified that day. Now to make the redemption argument apply to the alleged change of the Sabbath, people must argue like this: “Redemption is greater than creation, therefore the Lord did not bless and sanctify the seventh day.” But says one, “That is nonsense.” Of course it is, and so it is nonsense to argue that anything in God’s plan of redemption can possibly affect the day which he himself has made holy, and commanded all men to observe.SITI June 1, 1888, page 331.3

    But who knows that redemption is greater than creation? Has it been revealed in the Bible? No. Then what man has known the mind of the Lord so well that he could declare it? Who can fathom infinity, so as to compare two infinite works? No power less than that of an infinite God could create a world, and it required is power to redeem it. And no mind but the mind of God can ever comprehend either work. Then it well becomes poor, ignorant mortals to accept the judgments of God, as “righteous altogether,” and not try to do for him that which he has not done.SITI June 1, 1888, page 331.4

    The idea that men can commemorate finished redemption by resting on Sunday is a wild one. In the first place is has never been commanded, and that alone is sufficient to condemn it. If it had been commanded, then we should have to observe two days, for no power can ever annul the fact that the seventh day is the sacred rest-day of the Lord. But God has not required another day of rest. The resurrection of Christ is a pledge of the final redemption of all who believe in him; but it did not mark the close of redemption. Paul says that “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Romans 8:22, 23. And he also says that the possession of the Spirit is simply the pledge of our inheritance, until the purchased possession is redeemed and given to us. See Ephesians 1:13, 14. Only when the saints shall stand around the throne of God, in the kingdom of glory, can they celebrate redemption completed; and those who share that triumph will have lived not according to their own views or preferences, but “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” W.SITI June 1, 1888, page 331.5

    “Back Page” The Signs of the Times, 14, 21.

    E. J. Waggoner

    “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” Proverbs 3:5, 6.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.1

    Among the prominent men who have been elected to the office of bishop in the M. E. Church, by the General Conference now in session, are Drs. J. H. Vincent and John P. Newman.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.2

    At the Presbyterian General Assembly, now in session in Philadelphia, Dr. Howard Crosby opposed to adoption of a resolution denying church membership to liquor sellers. Dr. Crosby has doubtless given more encouragement to the liquor traffic than any other man in America. In spite of his opposition, however, the resolution was adopted with a large majority in its favor.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.3

    The members of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, have extended a unanimous call to Dr. Lyman Abbott to become permanent pastor. Dr. Abbott has been temporarily filling the position since the death of Mr. Beecher, and will accept the call. The Doctor has all of Mr. Beecher’s “liberality,” that is, conformity to infidel ideas in the interpretation of Scripture, besides some extra heresies of his own.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.4

    In the General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterians, in session in Baltimore, the case of Dr. Woodrow, of Georgia, was considered. It will be remembered that charges were brought against him some time ago for teaching evolution to the students under his charge. The assembly gave a practical indorsement of the evolution theory, by sustaining Dr. Woodrow by a vote of thirty-four to nineteen.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.5

    The Oakland Enquirer speaks of a Spiritualist paper which was recently mentioned in these columns, as “a religious journal.” This results from too narrow a classification. It is quite customary to classify newspapers as religious and secular, but this does not cover the ground. A better classification would be religious, irreligious, and secular. To the first belongs the papers which are devoted to religion, are devoted especially to politics and the news of the day. But there is a class of papers, like the one mentioned week before last, that are devoted to denunciation of the Bible and of Bible morality, that try to show their puny hatred for God by spelling the word with a small “g,” and that exercise all the brain power that God has given them in inventing new forms of blasphemy. Such papers must be called irreligious. That which they call religion is a religion that tends to promote immorality.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.6

    One of the “Seven Modern Wonders of the World,” according to Joseph Cook, is the “establishment of a scientific supernaturalism.” In plain English, “scientific supernaturalism” is Spiritualism, and it is this which Mr. Cook lauds as a modern wonder. But he doesn’t call it by that name. Nominally he doesn’t believe in Spiritualism any more than do thousands of others who preach against it, but, like them, he believes not only in natural immortality, which is the foundation of Spiritualism, but also in spirit communication. We believe most heartily in a supernaturalism, but not a “scientific supernaturalism.” Science, as men use the term, knows nothing of the supernatural. When men try to penetrate the deep things of God by “scientific” methods, they are sure to follow that philosophy which is only “vain deceit.” Those who take their ideas of immortality and supernaturalism from the Bible alone, are safe, and none others are.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.7

    “An Uninspired Psalm” The Signs of the Times, 14, 21.

    E. J. Waggoner

    It may be interesting to our readers to note the difference in tone between apocryphal and inspired Scriptures, and so we give them the following, which, with the introduction, we clipped from a recent number of the Independent. While it is true as to fact, the psalm has no likeness whatever to the genuine psalms of David. It simply lacks inspiration.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.8

    “From a Syriac manuscript, formerly belonging to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, but now deposited in the University Library at Cambridge, Prof. W. Wright translates the following apocryphal psalm:-SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.9


    1. I was youngest among my brethren And a youth in my father’s house.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.10

    2. I used to feed my father’s flock, And I found a lion and a wolf, and I slew them and rent them.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.11

    3. My hands made an organ, And my fingers fashioned a harp.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.12

    4. Who will show me my Lord? He, my Lord, is become my God.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.13

    5. He sent his angel and took me away from my father’s flock, And anointed me with the oil of anointing.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.14

    6. My brethren, the fair and the tall, In them the Lord had no pleasure.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.15

    7. And I went forth to meet the Philistine, And he cursed me by his idols.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.16

    8. But I drew his sword and cut off his head And took away the reproach from the children Of Israel.’”SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.17

    This sounds very much like the self-praise of the ancient Assyrian kings, but not at all like the songs in which the sweet psalmist of Israel praised God.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.18

    “What of the Bible?” The Signs of the Times, 14, 21.

    E. J. Waggoner

    An investigation to ascertain whether or not a certain woman was sane, occupied the attention of one of the courts in Oakland for several days lately. It was in evidence that she was a Spiritualist, and in the course of the investigation the following question and answer passed between a lawyer and a witness who also professed faith in Spiritualism:-SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.19

    “You say you are a member of the Presbyterian Church, how can you reconcile that faith with you belief in Spiritualism?”SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.20

    “I will reconcile it with the statement that one week ago our clergyman, Dr. Horton, made, that Spiritualism was the only proof that we had that we are immortal.”SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.21

    Dr. Horton is one of the most prominent Presbyterian clergymen on the coast, and is now in the East as the representative of the denomination in the General Assembly, and this utterance which is attributed to him, and which we must accept as a correct report, since it was made under oath, and by one of his friends, is truly significant. It is another indication of how the way is being prepared for Spiritualism to take possession of the churches. We do not expect that Spiritualism, under that name, will ever become much more popular than it is now; but we do expect, and have good reason to believe, that under the guise of Christianity, every principle of it will very soon be avowed by all the great religious bodies of the world. It will be the active agent in forming a union of the denominations and the union of Church and State.SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.22

    This utterance of Dr. Horton’s should give pause to those believers in the natural immortality of man who truly love and reverence the Bible. If the Bible does not teach that man now has immortality-if those who hold the theory are forced to go to Spiritualism, which repudiates the Bible, for “evidence” in its favor,-is it a safe doctrine to be held? Is it not worth while to examine this matter carefully, and bring our belief into strict harmony with the Bible?SITI June 1, 1888, page 336.23

    Larger font
    Smaller font