The Geological Theory of the Age of the Earth Examined.
By D. N. Lord
THE theory on which geologists found their inference of the great age of the earth is, that the materials of which the strata consist, were derived from mountains and continents of granite and other rocks; that those rocks were gradually disintegrated by the action of the air, water, and heat; that they were borne down from those mountains and continents by rains, currents, and rivers to the ocean, and distributed over its bed in successive layers; and that they were at length elevated from the bottom of the ocean to their present position; that the agents by which these vast effects were wrought, were those by which the somewhat similar changes that are now taking place, are produced; and that the number and thickness of the strata, the vast multitudes of vegetable and animal remains that lie buried in them, and the slowness with which similar processes of erosion and deposition now advance, prove that an immense series of ages must have been required for their formation. This inference of the age of the world, is thus founded on a theory of the sources from which the materials of the strata were derived, the agents by which they were transferred to the bottom of the ocean, and the forces by which they were raised to their present position;—not irrespective of that on the strata themselves.
On the other hand, we reject their hypothesis respecting the derivation of the materials of the strata, and the mode in which they were distributed over the bed of the ocean, as a mere assumption, inconsistent with the laws of nature, and the facts of the strata, and subversive of itself; and thereby confute the inference they found on it of the great age of the world, as unproved and unscientific.
The question then we are to debate is, not whether the strata that have been formed since the earth was created, are such in nature and number as geologists represent; nor whether such vegetable and animal relics lie entombed in them. These facts are indisputable, and are admitted as freely in our reasonings as in theirs. But the question between us is, whether their hypothesis respecting the formation of the strata is legitimate; and thence whether the conclusion which they found on that hypothesis respecting the age of the world, is just and authoritative.
In order that the hypotheses and reasonings on which geologists build their inference of the age of the world, may be legitimate and fill the office which they assign them, they must possess, it will be admitted on all hands, certain characteristics, and be free from certain faults.
1. They must be consistent with—not contravene—the laws of nature. Geologists must not assume, for example, as a preparative for their hypothesis respecting the formation of the strata, that the world originally existed in a state that is incompatible with its present nature. Such as that it was created a gas or an assemblage of gases; that implies that there was an immensely greater amount of caloric in it originally than now belongs to it; which is wholly unauthorized and unscientific. Geologists have no right to assume that it was imbued originally with thousands and millions of times its present sum of heat, than they have to assume that it had thousands and millions of times its present bulk of water, air, quartz, lime, or any other ingredient that enters into its composition. It is against the great principle also, on which they proceed in their attempts to account for the changes which the surface of the earth has undergone: namely, that the effects that have been wrought in it, were the work of identically the agents—air, water, and heat,—that are now producing changes on the earth's surface, and acting on their present scale both of extent and of intensity. It is to contradict the laws of matter likewise, to assume that the world was created in the form of gas. Matter with the exception of a few species—such as the elements of air and water—is raised to a gaseous form only by intense heat. But heat is naturally latent. It is developed or made perceptible only by chemical action. To suppose the world to have been created in a gaseous form, is therefore to suppose it to have been created in a condition in which it could not—according to the present laws of matter—have existed, except as a secondary state; or as a consequence of the action of its elements on each other after they were created. That supposition therefore contradicts the laws of heat and the formation of gaseous bodies. It is as unphilosophical and absurd to suppose the matter of the globe to have been created in the form of a gas, as it is to suppose it was created in the form of vegetables and animals; organic structures which matter never assumes until after it has existed in another form. An inference of the great age of the world, founded on an assumption, on the one hand, of the creation of its matter in a state in which by its laws it could not exist, until after it had existed in another form; and on the other, of its originally containing a far larger share of one of its elements than now belongs to it, can have no claim to be regarded as legitimate and authoritative.
2. They must not assume as a basis of their inference of the age of the world, that it once existed in a form of which they have no proof; such as that it was in a state of fusion; and that a granite crust was formed over its molten ocean, by the cooling of its surface. Such a supposition is forbidden, indeed, by the consideration to which we have already referred; that it implies that the earth originally had a far greater proportion of combustible matter than now belongs to it; as at present is not—so far as can be judged,—a hundredth, and probably not a millionth part of the combustible matter in the globe, that would be requisite, if ignited, to reduce its whole mass to a state of fusion. On the assumption, however, that there is no lack of combustible matter in the earth for the fusion of all its substances; there yet, is no proof nor probability that it ever was in a state of universal fusion. It is as impossible to prove that it ever was in such a state, as it is to prove that it once existed in a gaseous form. To build an inference of the age of the world on such an assumption, is therefore to build it on an hypothesis, of what cannot be shown to have been a fact; and that is to build it on nothing, and render it wholly unscientific and worthless.
3. They must not found their inference of the age of the world, on the assumption of a condition of the globe, which if it is supposed to have existed, instead of contributing to the formation of the strata, would have made their construction impossible: such as the supposition that the materials of the strata, were drawn from mountains of granite, that were ten or fifteen miles above the level of the ocean. The strata of the earth are held by geologists, to be on an average, about ten miles in depth. To maintain therefore, that their materials were derived from continents and mountains of granite, is to imply that those granite continents and mountains,—even if they covered as large an area as the strata now occupy—were at least ten miles above the level of the ocean; and if the mountains from which it is represented the matter of the strata was chiefly drawn, were of but half, or two-thirds the extent of the strata that are supposed to have been formed from them, then they must have been elevated at least fourteen or fifteen miles above the level of the ocean. But mountains elevated to such an enormous height and extending over vast areas, could it never have been disintegrated by the action of the air, water, and heat. There would have been no air, except of the most attenuated kind, and no water at all probably at that elevation. On the supposition that vapors could have ascended to such a height, and fallen in the form of snow, they would forever have remained congealed. No heat could have been developed there, sufficient to dissolve them. No rivers therefore could have flown from them, and consequently no detritus could have been borne from them to the sea, to be distributed over its bottom, and form layers, like our present strata. The supposition of such mountains, as the source of the materials of the strata, defeats itself, and renders the inference from it of the great age of the earth, unscientific and absurd.
4. They must not assume that the effects for which they attempt to account, are the work of agents, that are wholly inadequate to produce them: such as that the torrents and great rivers which they represent as having borne the materials of the strata from mountains and continents, entered the ocean with a rush, as to diffuse the gravel, mud, and vegetable with which they were loaded, through all its waters, and cause their deposition in layers co-extensive with its bed. None of the present rivers of the globe enter the ocean with such an impulse. So far from it, the currents of all the principal rivers are greatly checked as they approach the sea, divided into numerous channels, and brought to a dead pause, at the distance usually of fifty to one hundred miles from the shore; and consequently the detritus with which they are charged, falls to the bottom within a narrow space. The great mass of the ocean is no more affected by them, than the continents are, that lie opposite to the points where the rivers enter it. To assign to the rivers therefore, or the tides and currents of the sea, the distribution of the materials of the strata, throughout their whole domain, is to ascribe to them an effect, that wholly transcends their power.
5. They must not found their inference of the age of the world on an hypothesis, respecting the mode in which the strata were formed, instead of the strata themselves. To found their inference of the age of the world on the hypothesis, for example, that the strata were formed by the agency of heat, air, and water, acting only on the scale, and with the intensity, with which they are now disintegrating rocks, and bearing their detritus to the sea—is to beg at the outset, the very point which they affect to prove. For if the strata were formed by no other agents, than those which are now acting on the land, and the sea, and their deposition proceeded at no more rapid rate, than similar strata are now forming at the bottom of the ocean, then of course, a vast series of ages must have passed before their construction could have been completed; but such a method of establishing the antiquity of the globe, has no title to be regarded as demonstrative or logical. Geologists must first prove by irrefragable evidence, that the strata were formed by the slow process, which the hypothesis represents, before they can make that mode of their formation, the ground of an inference of the vast age of the world. To assume that hundreds or thousands of years were necessary for the structure of any one of the layers, of which the strata consist; and that therefore, as many hundreds or thousands of years were consumed in the construction of the whole, as there are layers in the whole of the strata—is to take for granted—not to prove the vast antiquity of the earth.
6. They must not assume any condition of the world, the existence of any agents, or the occurrence of any events, the reality of which they cannot demonstrate; and all their assumptions and reasonings must be consistent with all the facts, and all the laws of nature, which the question affects.
To these axioms, geologists themselves will undoubtedly assent; and it results from them, that if the strata demonstrate that the world has subsisted through a vast series of ages, it must be by what they themselves are, in composition, bulk, and number—not by any theory of an antecedent state of the earth, or the processes by which they were formed. If they do not prove the great age of the world, by what they themselves are, irrespective of any speculations, in regard to the agents by which they were formed, they cannot prove it at all; precisely as, if the nature and number of the elements of which the great pyramid of Egypt consists, and the fact that it was erected by human hands—do not prove that millions of ages were occupied in its erection; no theory, respecting the agents by whom it was built, and the method of their procedure, can demonstrate, that such a period was occupied in its construction.—Geognosy, by D. N. Lord.
Life and Death.
SOME time ago, a man whose name is familiar in the annals of skepticism—Mr. Austin Holyoake—passed away. Three years he had been on the brink of the grave, and when his end drew near he dictated some “thoughts in the sick room,” in the course of which he said, that for twenty years he had experienced the most perfect mental repose, and that the near approach of the “grim King of Terrors,” did not give him the slightest alarm.
We do not see any reason to doubt that Mr. Holyoake spoke truly when he said this, and we do not see any cause to be sorry that it should be proclaimed to the world that the redoubtable atheist had “no bands in his death.” The knowledge of the fact may help to correct two errors. In the first place, there is a vulgar idea in some quarters that an atheist is always visited on his death-bed by an avenging Nemesis, and that the experience of Thomas Paine is the universal lot. It ought to be considered that at the present time unbelief does not represent the same type of moral character which it did in the days of Bolingbroke and Voltaire. Many skeptics live blamelessly and die quietly. The strong-minded and intellectual of them having persuaded themselves that there is no God, view death as merely a physical change—a falling asleep, an extinction of being, and unless they should have any very strong earthly affections, perceive nothing in the in the change to excite their fear.
The manner of Mr. Holyoake’s death may, therefore, be expected to check the habit, still to be found in some quarters, of sensational descriptions of the atheist’s death. In the second place, it may also lead to a more just perception of what it is that makes the Christian’s death-bed so instructive. It is not the mere fact that he has peace. It is the fact that, notwithstanding his views of sin, of himself, of God’s justice, and of his own deserts, he has peace. His peace does not come, like the atheist’s, through denying God’s existence, or God’s justice, or his own sinfulness, or through sopiting his conscience in any way; but with a far quicker conscience than most men, a far livelier appreciation of God’s justice and opposition to sin, and of his own deserts as a sinner, yet, through Christ, he has perfect peace. The Christian’s death is a real victory. But after all, the evidence of the death-bed, is but an addendum to the evidence of the life. The great rule is, that as men live, they die.—Sunday Magazine.
God's Glory in Creation.
By Sturm
WHY are the works of God so splendid? Why is there such magnificence in everything we see? Why do we behold such multifarious, such numberless beauties, each object surpassing the other, and clothed with charms peculiar to itself? Why do I everywhere find new subjects of admiration and astonishment? For this reason: that I may never cease to admire and adore that great Being, who is infinitely greater, more sublime and more magnificent than any of the objects which He has presented to my sense; that I might be led to this reflection. If the works are so perfect, how glorious must be the maker of them! If the beauty of that which He has created is inexpressibly great, infinitely greater must be that Being who surveys all creation at a single glance. The more my mind is here expanded and enlarged by contemplating the greatest of all Beings, the more will it be capable of comprehending His grandeur and majesty in a future state.—Sturm.
The Cross and the Crown
It is they who glorify, who shall enjoy him; they who deny themselves, who shall not be denied; they who labor on earth, who shall rest in Heaven; they who bear the cross, who shall wear the crown; they who seek to bless others, who shall be blessed.
The Southern Exodus.
THE colored people in the South are in earnest; they act like those who have become thoroughly imbued with a sense of the justice of their cause, and the terrible wrongs inflicted upon their race. At a meeting in Louisiana the President, Mr. C. H. Thompson, delivered what the papers aptly style "a moderate but extremely ominous address." He said:—
"Prominent Southern men have confessed to me that when the country was invaded and its women and children were at the mercy of the negro, that race remained faithful beyond expectation; but the Southern people have trusted too much to the docility of the negro. There is a settled conviction among our race that we have not been justly located. Our fidelity in a season of deadly peril has not been met by the amity we have a right to expect. They tell us we will die in Kansas of cold, but we had better die there than die here by the shotgun. Treated as citizens, we can do better here than anywhere else. If white capitalists will put down ruffianism, I will, to the utmost of my ability endeavor to prevent the exodus. We were born here, and the climate is congenial, but if we cannot live here in peace we had better leave. One delegation on this floor represents a society of 40,000 souls. We have carefully considered the consequences of this move. The experience of a few in St. Louis will not be repeated. Those who go henceforth will go amply provided with means to place them in their homes, and with a sufficient sum to maintain them until they can secure profitable labor. We know the consequences, and we know that our labor here cannot be replaced, but the white people have presumed upon our good nature, and unless we have better guarantees than have yet been accorded, within a year there will not be a man, woman, or child of our race left in Louisiana."
The Sanctuary Cleansed.
By Editor
WE have been accustomed to look upon Eld. Wm. Sheldon as one of the ablest of first-day Adventist writers. Where he has labored personally he has not been considered the most devotional or spiritually minded, but has generally been regarded as among the first in clear reasoning and sound argument. We do not by any means agree with him in very many of his conclusions, but where there is a serious defect in his argument it is mostly because of a weakness in his premises,—of unsoundness in his general position. From this recommendation, as far as it goes, we must except some of his writings against "the law," in which he has shown the weakness common to those who set themselves in opposition to the moral precepts of Jehovah.
Mr. Sheldon has been writing a series of articles in the World's Crisis on the periods in the prophecy of Daniel. One article speaks of "the sanctuary to be cleansed," to which we call attention. He most clearly shows that the earth or Palestine is not the sanctuary, as many first-day Adventists have claimed. Thus he commences:—
"What sanctuary is meant? Or, what is meant by 'the sanctuary'?
"1. Not Heaven, or a sanctuary in Heaven, as maintained by some; for just as truly as we can make out that the upper sanctuary has been trodden down at all in some accommodated sense, so truly it has been trodden down much longer than the time specified—thousands of years."
As he gives no proof on this point, we pass it for the present to notice his argument.
"2. Not the whole earth, as affirmed by others; for this is only assumption.
"3. Not Palestine, as claimed by others; for not a text quoted in support of this claim gives it the least support, but all fairly negate the assumption. Let us see. The first text claimed is Ex. 15:17—'Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in; in the sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.' Here the sanctuary is not made to include more than the mere 'mountain'—Mount Moriah—instead of including all Palestine. The second text is Ps. 78:54—'He brought them to the border of his sanctuary, even to this mountain.' So Mt. Moriah is the 'border' of the sanctuary, containing its outskirts; thus forbidding the claim that the sanctuary takes in all the land of Palestine.
"The third text is Eze. 42:20, and 45:2—'He measured it by the four sides; it had a wall round about, five hundred reeds long, and five hundred broad, to make a separation between the sanctuary and the profane place.' 'Of this there shall be for the sanctuary five hundred in length, with five hundred in breadth, square round about, and fifty cubits round about for the suburbs thereof. And of this measure thou shalt measure the length of twenty-five thousand, and the breadth of ten thousand; and it shall be the sanctuary and the most holy place.' This text, even if rightly applied, would not only fail to show that Palestine is the sanctuary, but would positively restrict it to a limited and meagre portion thereof. This text, however, only relates to a conditional programme, which has been forfeited; but it shows the Bible view of the sanctuary.
"Primarily the sanctuary was connected with the tabernacle, but subsequently with the temple, located on Mt. Moriah—so in process of time that small piece of ground came to be called the sanctuary—the container being put for the contained. That is the sanctuary where once the glory of God was manifested to men. It needs cleansing. The mosque of Omar covers it to-day."
His proof texts do prove just that for which he quotes them, namely, that neither the earth nor Palestine is the sanctuary. But that Mt. Moriah is the sanctuary he offers no proof. His argument is entirely negative. He proves what is not the sanctuary, and then affirms, without any proof, what is the sanctuary. We will let him speak, however, of its desolation:—
"The casting down and treading down of the sanctuary by the Roman horn is thus recorded: 'He magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary [the Prince's sanctuary] was cast down.' Dan. 8:11. 'Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. . . . He shall make it desolate, even until the consummation.' Dan. 9:26, 27. 'And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles till the time of the Gentiles be fulfilled.' Luke 21:24. 'Behold, your house is left unto you desolate [the temple].' &c."
Is there any proof that "the container was put for the contained," in Dan. 8:14? Is there any proof that "the cleansing of the sanctuary" refers to the spot of ground where the sanctuary stood, instead of to the sanctuary itself which stood thereon? Let us look more closely to the prophecy. The angel said the people of the prince that shall come "shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." We have proof that it was so destroyed. Mr. Sheldon says "the sanctuary was connected with the tabernacle, but subsequently with the temple located on Mt. Moriah." This is true; and he has very aptly quoted the words of the Saviour concerning the desolation of the sanctuary, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."
In connection with the proof given by Mr. Sheldon that the whole earth is not the sanctuary, and that Palestine is not the sanctuary, let us turn to another prophecy of the destruction of the sanctuary, exactly parallel to that of Daniel, for the two prophecies were fulfilled in the same event. See Ps. 74:7,—"They have cast fire into thy sanctuary, they have defiled by casting down the dwelling place of thy name to the ground."
So here we have a prophecy, parallel to that of Daniel, which makes a clear distinction between the sanctuary and the ground on which it stood. And we leave it to the judgment of any candid reader that Mr. Sheldon has proved no point in his argument respecting the earth and Palestine, more clearly than this proves that Mt. Moriah—"the ground"—is not the sanctuary.
Now notice a few Scripture points.
God's dwelling place was the sanctuary which the people of Israel built. Ex. 25:8.
This, as Mr. Sheldon says, was first connected with the tabernacle, and afterward with the temple on Mt. Moriah.
The sanctuary was destroyed by fire—was burned "to the ground." Dan. 9. Ps. 74.
The cleansing of the sanctuary was the work of the high priest, with the blood of the sin offering. Lev. 16.
Both the high priest and that sanctuary were typical of Christ and the sanctuary in Heaven. Heb. 8.
The blood of bulls and goats, which was offered in the earthly sanctuary could not take away sin. Those animals were inferior to man, and could not meet the just demand of the holy law of God. Heb. 9 and 10.
The sanctuary in Heaven is cleansed by the blood of our "perfect sacrifice," even the blood of Christ, which "cleanses from all unrighteousness." Heb. 9; 1 John 1.
The earthly sanctuary was defiled by "the uncleanness of the children of Israel," not by any contact with the children of Israel themselves, but by the high priest bearing their sins into the dwelling place of God. Even so our High Priest takes our sins into the presence of God, which makes it "necessary" to cleanse "the heavenly themselves" with the "better sacrifice" of his own blood. Lev. 16; Heb. 9:23.
As the prophecy of Dan. 8 and 9, reaches down to the last days, and the typical sanctuary was destroyed ages ago, it is certain that Dan. 8:14 must refer to the heavenly, or antitypical sanctuary.
The atonement, or the cleansing of the sanctuary, was effected by applying the blood in the most holy place, over "the ark of the testament." Lev. 16:15-19.
When the 2300 days of Dan. 8:14 expired, and the seventh angel sounded, then "the temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament." That is, the time then was come to "cleanse the sanctuary" in the antitype,—in the service of our High Priest in Heaven. And this indicates also that "the hour of His judgment is come."
And this proves, also, that now is the time to proclaim the last message preparatory to the coming again of our blessed Lord, of "the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
How wonderful are the ways of God; how great his goodness to the children of men; how beautiful and harmonious his precious truth given to us in these last days. Oh, that we might better appreciate our privileges, and give more honor and praise to God for a sanctifying message which is given to preserve us from the seven last plagues, and fit us to meet our precious Saviour when he shall come in his glory.
If any person yet thinks that there is any proof that any piece of ground or any part of this earth is the sanctuary to which Dan. 8:14 refers, we will be happy to consider the evidence when it is offered.
Sunday Not the True Seventh Day.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Continued.)
DR. JENNINGS' principal reason for denying that the Sabbath of the Hebrews was identical with the Paradisaical Sabbath has been considered, and the fact that Dr. Aker sets it wholly aside has been shown from his own language. But if Dr. A. and Mr. F. had imitated the modest statement of Dr. J. relative to Sunday as the true seventh day, it would much better accord with the doubtful deductions which, in so positive a manner, they offer to us. But Dr. J. only makes it "a very probable conjecture" that Sunday was the true seventh day. Thus, he frankly acknowledges his theory to be based on probabilities, to say the most that can be said, and that it does not rest upon certainties.
One remarkable fact pertaining to Dr. Jennings' theory should here be noticed: He holds that Sunday is the Sabbath which was observed in Paradise, and that it was binding, as such, till superseded at the fall of the manna by Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. He also holds that the Saturday next preceding the one marked by the cessation of the manna, Israel marched from Elim to Sin; which assertion he uses as a clear proof that it was not then the Sabbath. He further holds that the manna began to fall the next day after that march.
So, according to Dr. Jennings, the manna began to fall upon the morning of Sunday, the true Sabbath of the Lord, as observed from creation down to that time; which original Sabbath was not superseded by the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday, till six days after this, at the first cessation of the manna.
And Dr. Jennings' theory requires him to believe that the people went out and gathered manna for the first time on Sunday morning, though it was the Sabbath which God hallowed in Eden, and which had been observed down to that point; and though the act of gathering manna upon that day is one that directly violated the Sabbath, as this chapter plainly teaches (Ex. 16:4-30), yet the people did this without an expression of surprise that God should send them bread to be gathered upon his holy Sabbath!
And observe this remarkable fact, that whereas they had just spent six days in labor, ending, according to Dr. J., with this march on Saturday, from Elim to Sin, now they begin a second six days' labor on the morning of Sunday, which was the Lord's Sabbath day, which continues till the day on which the manna was withheld. In other words, twelve days elapsed between the ancient Sabbath of the Lord and the newly-ordained Sabbath of the Jews! And during this period, but six days before the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday, had superseded Sunday, the Sabbath of the Lord, the people spontaneously, and with the divine141sanction, violate the true Sabbath by gathering their first manna on that day.
So that, whereas Dr. Akers changes the Sabbath by having one week consist of only six days; and whereas Mr. F. changes the Sabbath by having one week that has two Sabbaths in it; Dr. Jennings changes the Sabbath by having one week constituted of thirteen days! And he has the manna begin to fall on God's seventh day, which is the seventh day of this thirteen-day week! And as if it were not enough to teach that God's Sabbath was by divine authority removed, to give place to the Sabbath of the Jews, he teaches that it was violated six days before the Jewish Sabbath came into existence; and all this was effected by the wonderful miracle of the manna!
Dr. Jennings' alleged change of the Sabbath rests upon the supposed employment of Saturday as a day for marching one week before the first Sabbath marked by the cessation of the manna. But to carry out his theory, he has the manna begin to fall on Sunday which he calls the true seventh day, and the original Sabbath, and has the people gather it that day, though the new Sabbath was not instituted for five days after that time! God sent the manna to prove the people whether they would walk in his law or not. Ex. 16:4. And according to Dr. Jennings, the very first day of the manna was the original Sabbath! And so, in the providence of God, they were called to do that which his law forbade!
Leaving Dr. J., let us now consider the position of Mr. Fuller.
Mr. F. holds that Sunday was Adam's first day of the week, and Saturday was his seventh. He also holds that Adam kept Sunday for the Sabbath. This order continued till the exodus of Israel from Egypt, when, by divine direction, the children of Israel changed, not the order of the week, but only the day of the Sabbath, adopting Saturday, the seventh day of the week, in the place of Sunday, the first day of the week. He proves this assertion by referring the reader to the work of Dr. Akers, who claims to have made an exact count of the days from creation to the exodus. But it is remarkable that Dr. A., in this exact count of the days, reckons the first six days of the creation week, which Mr. F. asserts ought not to be reckoned. Also, that he sets out with Monday as the first day of the week, and Sunday as the seventh; and when the exodus takes place, he has one week with only six days in it, in order that he may have the sixth day, or Saturday thenceforward reckoned as the seventh day, and Sunday, the seventh day of the week, to be, ever after, the first day of the week. Dr. A.'s week, thus changed, corresponds exactly to the week which Mr. F. asserts was used by Adam. Mr. Fuller's book, the "Two Sabbaths," rests, almost wholly, upon the exact computation of days from creation, which is given in Dr. Akers' Chronology. But if Dr. A.'s calculation is good for anything, it establishes his own reckoning of the week, and disproves and sets aside Mr. F.'s order of the week, on which his theory rests. Now it is particularly dishonest in Mr. F. to make the use which he does of Dr. A.'s calculation. Mr. F.'s argument rests upon the truthfulness of Dr. A.'s reckoning of the week from creation. And Dr. A.'s reckoning is wholly directed to show that Sunday is the seventh day of the week, as reckoned by Adam, which Mr. F. denies, asserting it to be the first day of that week. Dr. A. professes to be able to count the time from Adam to the exodus so exactly that he can positively prove that Sunday was the seventh day of that entire series of weeks. But when he comes to the exodus, in order to show that the Sabbath observed by Israel was not the ancient Sabbath of the Lord, he changes the reckoning of the week, and thus makes a week that begins with God's seventh day and ends with his sixth! and which thus exactly corresponds to Mr. F.'s week. And thereupon Mr. F. seizes this result, thus obtained, and gives his readers to understand that Akers' Chronology proves that this kind of week had been observed without change from the beginning; whereas, Dr. A avows just the reverse! And Mr. F. rests his theory of a change from Sunday, the first day, to Saturday, the seventh, at the exodus, on this misstatement of Akers' calculation! How reliable that calculation is, we shall soon consider.
J. N. A.
(To be Continued.)
General Meeting.
By Editor
WE have received a telegram from Elder S. N. Haskell, in which he says he expects to arrive in Oakland the 6th of May, and requests us to appoint a general meeting for May 10.
We have looked forward to this occasion with much anxiety. Seventh-day Adventists are an order-loving people. Obedience to the law—which is the only means of preserving order—is the burden of our message,—the very reason of our existence as a separate people. For months past our people in California have been unfortunately situated. Their Conference has had no President, and there has been no leading mind to take hold of the work to guide it to prosperity. Labor has not ceased; the Lord has not failed to bless; souls have embraced the truth wherever it has been proclaimed. But many things have necessarily been neglected which were essential to the full prosperity of the cause.
In like manner Tract and Missionary work has suffered. The Sabbath-school Association has not flourished. And some have grown somewhat discouraged over this state of things.
The labor of Bro. Haskell has been signally blessed in other States. His special work has been in connection with the Tract and Missionary Society; but this so directly opens the way for other work, that it is very intimately connected with every other branch. Therefore we look for every interest in this cause to be materially benefited by the coming of Bro. Haskell.
Now a few words to our brethren and sisters in behalf of the coming meeting. At this time there ought to be such a representation of the churches that it will be equivalent to a
# SPECIAL SESSION OF CONFERENCE.
There is not time to formally call such a session, but there is urgent need of consultation with a view to united efforts to move forward the work during the coming season. Therefore we say, let every church be represented in this meeting. Also every
T. AND M. DISTRICT
should be represented. Our late State Quarterly meeting was attended by but few; but little business was done. Now we need a good quarterly meeting, or that which shall serve the purpose of a quarterly meeting. Every Director should attend, if possible; likewise every District Secretary. All who come will be glad for the opportunity. This work must be revived. Now is the time to begin anew. And the
SABBATH-SCHOOL ASSOCIATION
must be revived. The welfare of our Sabbath-school means the welfare of our children; it means in many instances, their salvation. No wise parent can fail to feel a deep interest in this work. Every Superintendent of a Sabbath-school should be here.
Another important matter is the coming
## CAMP-MEETING.
As yet, we have no Camp-meeting Committee. It is generally expected that a new location is to be sought; and it is well known that suitable locations are not plenty—are not easily found and obtained—in California. It is full time that somebody is moving in this matter.
Here we have called attention to several points of interest to all our brethren. And, as it will be a time of general consultation, we think every minister should be present who can come without injury to meetings which he may be holding, or has already appointed.
We have no definite knowledge of the course of Bro. Haskell's labors. We expect he will attend the Camp-meeting in Walla Walla, W. T., June 4, and that of Salem, Oregon, up to July 1. And we hope that California will enjoy the benefit of his labors from that time until our Camp-meeting. Let us all take hold with courage, and so hold as to encourage those who are doing what they can to assist us.