By reference to Rev. 14 : 6-15, it will be seen that three messages, embracing a commandment, an annunciation, and a warning, are given immediately preceding the coming of the Son of man to reap the harvest of the earth. These messages, of course, are designed to prepare God's people for that great event. The last message, the warning, is based upon the facts brought to view in chapter 13, respecting the worship of the beast and his image. This clearly shows that these miracles are wrought and the worship of the image enforced in the last days, just previous to the coming of Christ; and as the messages of the angels of Rev. 14 are designed to prepare the people of God "to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord," which day and battle are soon to come, so these miracles are wrought during the time of the proclamation of the warning, to deceive the world and to turn away their minds from the truth. This, then, is clearly a work of the last days.
If the wonders of Spiritualism can be shown to be identical with the wonders of this prophecy, it will at once attest the truth of our application of the symbol of the two-horned beast of Rev. 13 to the United States, as it was in this country that Spiritualism took its rise; and also that we are now in the last days, near the close of this dispensation, and the awful scenes of the Judgment.
Concerning the last days, notice the following: In Matt. 24 : 11-14, it is shown that, 1. False christs and false prophets shall arise. 2. Iniquity shall abound, and the love of many shall wax cold. 3. The gospel shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations. 4. Then shall the end come. The same facts are set forth in 2 Tim. 3, which is a prophecy respecting the last days. It says, 1. The last days shall be perilous. 2. Men shall have a form of godliness and deny the power thereof. 3. The truth shall be resisted as it was in the days of Moses, which brings to view the false prophets, as will be shown by an examination of the text. 4. The godly shall suffer persecution, which recognizes the endurance unto the end, as in Matt. 24 : 13. Thus the prophecy of Paul in 2 Tim. 3, is located near the time of the coming of the Lord, and is parallel with Rev. 13 : 12-17. We propose to examine verse 8, which brings to our consideration
ANCIENT AND MODERN SORCERY.
"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth." So denotes in like manner. In the last days, near the coming of Christ, the truth will be resisted by certain ones after the manner that Moses was withstood by his opponents. It will be impossible for us to recognize the fulfillment of this prophecy unless we understand the manner in which it will be fulfilled. This is given in the Scripture account of the mission of Moses.
When God called Moses to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, and to go before Pharaoh, he excused himself, first, because of his unworthiness, and afterward for fear they would not believe me; for he said, "Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee." Ex. 4 : 1. The Lord then told him to cast the rod that was in his hand on the ground; and he did so, and it became a serpent. Again the Lord told him to put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out it was leprous, white as snow; and when he put it into his bosom again and took it out, it was restored. The Lord also told him that if they would not believe these signs he should take water and pour it on the ground and it should become blood. These were signs to convince the children of Israel and Pharaoh that the Lord had sent Moses.
When Moses presented himself before Pharaoh and gave the word of the Lord, Pharaoh answered, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." Ex. 5 : 2. Then Moses and Aaron were directed to show these signs before the king; Aaron cast down the rod, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh called the sorcerers of Egypt, and they did so with their enchantments; they cast down their rods, and they also became serpents. Chap. 7 : 10-12. Thus was Pharaoh confirmed in his rebellion against God.
Then Aaron was directed to take his rod and smite the waters; and he did so; and the waters were turned to blood. And the magicians did so with their enchantments; and so Pharaoh's heart was hardened. Verses 20-22.
Next, Aaron was commanded to stretch his rod over the streams, and over the rivers, and over the ponds, and cause frogs to come up upon the land of Egypt. And he did so. The magicians also by their enchantments caused frogs to come up. Chap. 8 : 5-7.
Again Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and the dust became lice, and they were upon man and upon beast. And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not. After this, the Lord directed Moses and Aaron to show six more signs, none of which were imitated by the magicians. Of these signs and plagues, ten in all, the seventh was a boil or blain upon man and beast, and the magicians could not stand before them, for it was upon them also.
The question is now to be considered, By what power were these wonders wrought? We contend that these signs were wrought by the direct power of God, and not by any power possessed by Moses or Aaron. For this belief we have several reasons.
1. They were first given to Moses to satisfy his mind when he feared the people would not believe his word.
2. He evidently did not expect that the rod would become a serpent, for he was afraid of it, and fled from before it.
3. The Lord said, "I will multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt." Ex. 7 : 3.
4. The magicians confessed, when their enchantments failed, that the finger of God was in it.
5. Each successive sign was given under the immediate direction of the Lord.
6. The whole was completed by the plague of the destruction of the first-born, a sign in which Moses and Aaron had no agency.
Other considerations, such as the nature of the plagues, darkness over the land, etc., clearly show that no human power controlled these signs. Neither were they illusions or deceptions, by which the people they did not see in reality; for they could scarcely be mistaken in regard to the boils or blains upon their own persons, the flies and locusts, or the darkness over the land. The only conclusion that it is possible to arrive at, is that these miracles were wrought by the direct power of the Lord.
We have been thus particular, not because we supposed that any would deny the position assumed, but there is another question involved which is this: Did the wise men of Egypt possess any more power than Moses and Aaron? We contend that they did not in themselves possess any power to cause their rods to become serpents, nor to turn the water to blood. Neither did their rods become serpents by the same power that Aaron's did; for, first, they stood in opposition to Moses; and as Aaron's rod was changed by the power of God, he could not consistently oppose his own power by working also through the magicians; secondly, the Scriptures say they were sorcerers, and worked with their enchantments; and such are condemned in both Testaments, and declared to be an abomination to the Lord. The only conclusion at which we can arrive, is that the magicians performed these wonders by the power of Satan.
Against this position it is objected that there is no such being; and it is further urged that he cannot exist, and it is inconsistent with the wisdom and benevolence of God to create a devil and give him such power. To this we agree; we have no idea that God ever created a devil. As it has become very common to deny the existence of such a being, we will notice
THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL.
We take the question in this form because it is more comprehensive, and will apply to evil of every kind and degree. Dr. Hare said:-
"But I conceive that the existence of devil is irreconcilable with all goodness and omnipotency; and that were a devil created by God, the Creator would be answerable for all the acts of the being so created. Evidently, the devil could be nothing else but what omnipotence should make him, and could do nothing but what prescience would foresee. The acts of the devil would therefore be indirectly those of his Maker." -Spiritualism Scientifically Demonstrated, page 31.
In another place, he said:-
"No evil can endure, which any being has both the power and desire to remove. "If God be both omnipotent and omniscient, he can, of course, make his creatures exactly to suit his will and fancy, and foresee how they will fulfill the end for which they are created. . . . "Is it not more consistent with divine goodness to infer that we are placed in this life for progressive improvement, and that there is no evil which can be avoided consistently with his enormous, though not unlimited, power?"—Id., page 20.
Epicurus, the pagan philosopher, put forth the same objection in the following propositions: "Either God wills to remove evils and cannot, or he can and will not; or he neither will nor can; or he both can and will." After showing that the last position is the only one consistent with God, he inquired, "Then whence are evils? and why does he not remove them?"
Our answer to all is, "He both can and will." And to arrive at this conclusion we need not query in doubt with Epicurus, nor make God accountable for evil, or limit his power, as Dr. Hare has done. Spiritualism boasts of wise adherents, but in talking of this and kindred subjects, they have illustrated the scripture, that the wisdom of the world is foolishness. A degree of evil exists, and we hold that it is no inconsistent for God to permit a strong being to sin than a weak one, if both have facilities to discern good and evil—to distinguish right from wrong. The Saviour called the devil a murderer and a liar, and we know that murderers and liars do exist. Here is surely an approximation to the devil in character. Paul enumerates "the works of the flesh" in Gal. 5, which are certainly manifested in the world; and if all of these were developed in one person, though it would not make the devil of him, he would be bad enough to bear such a name. Murder and adultery are amongst these works, the existence of which no one can doubt. We will parody Dr. Hare's remarks, and apply them to these as follows:-
"But I conceive that the existence of murderers and adulterers is irreconcilable with all goodness and omnipotency; and that were murderers and adulterers created by God, the Creator would be answerable for all the acts of the beings so created. Evidently, murderers and adulterers could be nothing else but what omnipotence should make them, and could do nothing but what prescience would foresee. The acts of murderers and adulterers would therefore be indirectly those of their Maker."
This is the Dr.'s argument in its full strength; shall we therefore conclude that there is no murder and adultery? It is easy to see that with all his show of wisdom he was weak in argument.
The blasphemous conclusion that God is responsible for all sin, necessarily attaches to that argument with only one possible refuge, that is, the limited power of God! To this, Dr. Hare resorts as a substitute for human accountability, and the spirits endorse it, for he says:-
"Such an inference coincides with communications recently received from the spirits of departed friends; which it is the object of this publication to promulgate."—Id., page 20.
The object and the alternative are now before us. Probation is uniformly denied by Spiritualists; hence man is not responsible for his actions. But all perceive that wrong exists, and responsibility must rest somewhere; if not with man, then with his Maker. Is it not so? Spiritualism answers, Not necessarily; perhaps he cannot help it; his power may be limited!
So to avoid the truth of human probation, we have men irresponsible and God either wicked or weak? And this is sanctioned by the spirits, and Dr. Hare has published a book to promulgate it, under their instructions. EDITOR.
(To be Continued.)
THE SABBATH.
By J. E. L.
Oh, the day of sacred stillness! Oh, the day supremely blest! Speaking ever through the ages Of the mighty Maker's rest.
Telling in a glorious whisper, Solemn, low, and deep, and grand, That He made the starry heavens, And the sea and all the land.
Hear the story, idle dreamer, Hear the winds and waters say, As you rove mid trees and flowers, Holy is the Sabbath day.
Read the law, so pure and perfect, Graven deep for all our race By God's finger on the tables, Now on hearts, too, by his grace.
Mighty One! we bow and worship, Not the gods of wood and stone, Not the things our hands have fashioned. Praise belongs to Thee alone.
Just beyond the gathering shadows, (Low the sun sinks in the west,) Faith discerns a cloudless morrow, Sabbath of eternal rest.
East Oakland, Cal. J. E. L.
Hatred Is Blind as Well as Love
HATRED is blind as well as love.
Babylon.
It is singular that Herodotus, in speaking of "the many sovereigns who had ruled over Babylon, and lent their aid to the building of its walls and the adornments of its temples," does not even incidentally refer to Nebuchadnezzar, whose name was stamped upon the bricks of every important structure. What is styled the "standard inscription" of Nebuchadnezzar, is a document of high interest. In this the great monarch gives a minute account of his principal works. He tells how, "with bricks made as hard as stones, I made a way for the branch of the Shimat to the waters of the Yapur Shapu, the great reservoir of Babylon. With two long embankments of brick and mortar, I built the side of the ditch. Across the river, to the west, I built the walls of Babylon with brick. The reservoir I filled completely with water. Besides the outer wall, I constructed inside of Babylon a fortification such as no king had ever made before me, namely, a long rampart five miles square, as an extra defence against presumptuous enemies. Great waters I made use of continually. I did not allow the waters to overflow; but the fullness of the floods. I caused to flow on, restraining them with a brick embankment. Thus I completely made strong the defenses of Babylon. May it stand forever."
This fortress, we imagine, stood not upon the Euphrates itself, but upon both sides of a bayou, or comparatively shallow side-branch, running from it. This supposition enables us to comprehend the manner in which this strong citadel was captured by Cyrus. Herodotus, indeed, says Cyrus turned the course of the Euphrates itself into a huge artificial reservoir, 420 stadia in extent. But Sir Henry Rawlinson is confident that no such reservoir was ever practicable. If it had existed, it is scarcely possible that all traces of it should have vanished, the more especially as it is said to have been faced throughout with stone, and that, too, in a region where, for a hundred miles, not even a pebble is to be found. Xenophon, who, in such a matter, is much better authority than Herodotus, says that Cyrus drained the river by two cuttings, one above and the other below the city, and thus was able to enter the town by the dry bed of the stream. If we suppose that this stream was a bayou or side-channel, the operation is comprehensible. He had only to dam up the mouth of the bayou above the fortress, and deepen its channel below, by which it entered the Euphrates, and in a few hours the bed would be left dry. This, as we learn from the book of Daniel, was done in the dead of night. The defenders were so confident in the strength of their fortress, that they even neglected to close the water-gates which fronted the stream at the foot of each street; and so, when the water was drawn off, there was nothing to prevent the entrance of the besiegers into every part of the fortress.
Babylon, after its capture (B. C. 538), was made a royal residence of the Persian kings. But after two unsuccessful attempts at revolt, its fortifications were partly thrown down. It ceased to be a royal city; its walls and palaces, mainly of unburnt brick, fell into decay, and in the time of Alexander the great (B. C. 323) it was mostly a ruin. He had it in mind to restore Babylon, and make it the metropolis of his Asiatic dominions; but his death prevented the execution of the project. His Syrian successors made the neighboring Selucia their capitol, using many of the materials of Babylon in the building of the new city. In like manner Ctesiphon and Bagdad were subsequently built in part from materials of Babylon, which became a complete ruin about the commencement of the Christian era. Four centuries later, according to St. Jerome, the site had been turned into a hunting park for the sport of the Persian kings, who partially restored the walls in order to preserve the game. From that time it passed more and more out of the memory of man, until its very site was forgotten; and it was not again positively identified until 1847.—Sunday Magazine.
Suffering Teaches Sympathy
WE must suffer before we can sympathize, and when we have suffered our experience teaches us to be pitiful to others. We can handle best the sore of which we have felt the smart, and the burden which we ourselves have borne we can help to adjust on the shoulders of others with greatest knowledge of where the corners press. All the hardness of youth comes from want of experience; all the tender pity of age, the helplessness of maturity, comes from the foregone knowledge of pain. If sorrow does nothing else for us, it teaches us to be tender to others, and shows us how to alleviate by having taught us how to bear.
Blessings for Blessing Others
BLESSINGS are granted to us that we may bless others therewith.
The Sabbath Everywhere.
By Editor
WE promised to answer the query of our brother in Yokohama in regard to keeping the same day in different longitudes. Permit us to ask, What day do the Christians keep in Japan? The first day of the week. In adopting the Christian calendar, the Japanese adopt the same computation, and, as our correspondent says, are about to adopt "the German and French Sunday holiday." Is it the belief of the Christians in Japan, and of the Japanese, that they have there "the German and French Sunday?" Yes; of that they have no doubt. Why do they keep the first day of the week? Professedly in honor of the resurrection of Christ. Do they, then, know when the day of the resurrection comes in Japan, assuming that to be the first day of the week? They think they do. We also think they do. There is no conflict—no difficulty here. Now we will briefly examine the reasons for this belief.
1. In Japan they number the days of the week as they do in China and India. And in these countries they number them as they do in Western Asia—in Palestine. And in Palestine they number them as they did in the days of the Saviour. See the evidences given in last week's answer for proof that there has been no change there. And in Palestine they number them just as they do in Turkey, and in all Europe. And the numbering in Europe agrees with that in America.
It is always a fact that a person starting in China and traveling westward will find that his enumeration of the days of the week will agree with that of every place through which he passes until he again reaches the Pacific, in California. And reversing the order, starting at San Francisco, he may travel eastward, and he will find that his days of the week agree with those of every place through which he passes, until he reaches the other shore of the Pacific. Through Asia, through Europe, across the Atlantic, and through America, no change is found.
2. But the query next arises, What about identity of time? Seeing that they do not observe the same time throughout the twenty-four hours, do they keep the same day? They do. But if they kept the same time exactly they would not keep the same day, for the same day does not come to all parts of the world at the same time. This every body knows. And this creates the necessity for changes in our reckoning of time as we travel east and west.
Suppose an order were issued by the United States Government that a certain document shall be put on record at the capital of each State exactly at noon on the fourth of July. Could this be done? Certainly it could. There is no difficulty in finding the same day in each State capital in the Union. But, would it be put on record at the same time in each place? No; for noon at each place is when the sun is on the meridian, and the sun is not on the meridian at the same time at any two capitals in the Union. If it were put on record at the same time in each locality the order would not be obeyed—it would not then be done at noon in each place. This all understand.
But what is true of noon of the same day, is true of all times of the same day. And what is true of these places, is true in all longitudes. Then, of course, if a person starts from one of these places with a watch set to indicate correct time at that one place, it will not indicate correct time at any of the other places which he may visit. To do this the watch itself must be corrected. When we travel, in order to keep our watches with sun time, that is, true, or correct time, we must often set them by local time. The whole amount of such changes in traveling around the world, will be 24 hours. For if we travel eastward we must correct our time-pieces by setting them forward four minutes to each degree, one hour for every fifteen degrees, and of course twenty-four hours for the complete circle. Having changed our time twenty-four hours in going round the world, it is evident that, on returning to the locality whence we started, we find there the same time with which we started, and to conform to that time we must drop out of our count all the variations we have made in traveling. The effect is the same in traveling westward, but the order is reversed.
We have said that a person traveling westward from China to California, or eastward from California to China, will find himself agreeing, in his enumeration of the days of the week, with the people in every place through which he passes. But let him start from the coast of China and cross the Pacific Ocean and the case is different. On landing at San Francisco he will find his week one day in advance of those living there, unless he corrected his count by one day, on the ocean. And in like manner, if he crosses from California to China, he will find himself one day behind the inhabitants of China, unless he corrected his time, by one whole day, on the passage.
In order that there may be uniformity in the reckoning of time these corrections must be made—they are made by all travelers. And in order that no disagreement shall exist between China and California a correction line has been adopted. This is called the day line. This line is in the Pacific Ocean; not, however, by arbitrary arrangement; it is located there naturally. We cannot change it. We find no necessity for it in crossing the Atlantic Ocean, or in sailing up the Mediterranean. But we do find it necessary in crossing the Pacific. Navigators all correct their reckoning in the Pacific Ocean. By this means uniformity of enumeration in the days of the week is preserved in all the world. Practically, no difficulty exists on this subject. If we keep the reckoning in any given locality, which belongs to that locality, we shall not be wrong.
We trust this is enough on this point. Much more might be said to illustrate the truth here stated; we will return to it at some time if further light seems necessary, or is called for.
— EDITOR.
Sunday Not the True Seventh Day.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Continued.)
IF Dr. Akers, in this extraordinary computation, errs to the extent of one day, he fails to show that Abib 16 was the original Sabbath. But, on the other hand, if he could prove it beyond all doubt, he has not even then established the change of the Sabbath at the exodus, till he has shown that God bade Israel relinquish the seventh day which came that year, as Dr. A. says, on Abib 16, and take the sixth day of the week which came on the fifteenth. And to say that Dr. A., by his system of counting, has proved God’s rest-day to be Sunday, and that he has proved, by the same means, that the Hebrews kept a Sabbath that came one day before the Sabbath of the Lord, is to insult the good sense of the reader; and to do despite to the English language.
But Dr. Akers, having proved to his own satisfaction, by the process indicated above, that God’s Sabbath at the exodus came upon the sixteenth of Abib, undertakes to prove that God then made the fifteenth of that month into a Sabbath for Israel; which two things, taken in connection, show that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh day to the sixth at that time.
How does Dr. A. prove that Abib 15 was the Jewish Sabbath? It should be stated that, according to Dr. A., God made the day of the exodus, Abib 15, being the sixth day of the week, to be the Sabbath of the Jews, and that same day of the week was ever afterward observed as their Sabbath. And he so constituted the year that the fifteenth of Abib came every year upon that day.
Now both parts of this proposition are simply false. Neither of them is stated by the sacred writers, and both involve great absurdities.
Dr. Akers' proof that God established the fifteenth of Abib to be the first Sabbath in the series of weekly Sabbaths observed by the Hebrews, is found in statements of the law respecting the first fruits of barley harvest, and in an explanation of Lev. 23, which endeavors so to shape the months that the Jewish weekly Sabbath, as he calls the seventh day, shall fill them in turn and come again on the fifteenth of Abib, in the next sacred year.
His proof drawn from the offering of the first fruits of barley harvest may be presented thus:—
(1) The law required the first fruits of barley harvest to be offered to God on the morrow after the Sabbath. Lev. 23:9-11.
(2) Josephus says that they were offered on the sixteenth of the first month.—Antiquities, book 3, chapter 10.
(3) Joshua, in his record of the passover and feast of unleavened bread (chap. 5:10, 11), shows that the first fruits were offered on the sixteenth of the first month, and therefore the Sabbath, after which the law required them to be offered, was the fifteenth.
(4) A further proof that the fifteenth of the first month was the Sabbath, is found in that our Lord being crucified on the fourteenth of Abib, the day of the passover, the following day was the Sabbath. John 19:31.
These are the chief points used by Dr. A. to prove that the fifteenth of Abib was the Jewish weekly Sabbath. Let us see if they do prove that point:—
(1) That the first fruits were to be offered on the morrow after a weekly Sabbath is very evident. Lev. 23:15, 16.
(2) That this Sabbath was fixed to the fifteenth of the first month is nowhere stated in the Bible.
(3) It is true that Josephus says that the first fruits were offered on the sixteenth of the first month, but this does not help Dr. Akers at all, inasmuch as in the same paragraph he states that the month was a lunar month, i. e., one governed by the appearance of the moon, which would make it impossible to have the weekly Sabbath come upon its fifteenth day only occasionally. As Dr. A. denies that the months were governed by the moon it is manifest that in citing Josephus, he quotes a witness whose testimony does not help him, and which he himself impeaches.
(4) As to Dr. Akers' argument from Josh. 5:10, 11, it is an entire failure. The text says that they kept the passover on the fourteenth of the day of the first month, and that on the morrow after the passover they ate the old corn of the land. Observe the following facts: (a) The passover was upon the fourteenth day. (b) The unleavened bread and parched corn was eaten the morrow after the passover, i. e., on the fifteenth day of the month, and not on the sixteenth, as Dr. A. maintains. (c) That this was certainly on the fifteenth and could not be crowded over to the sixteenth is proved by the fact that the law required them to eat unleavened bread on the fifteenth day, the very thing which they are here said to have done. Lev. 23:6. (d) A second positive proof that the morrow after the passover is the fifteenth of Abib, and not the sixteenth, is found in Num. 33:3: “And they departed from Rameses in the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.” (e) But mark another point. The children of Israel did not on this occasion use the first fruits. The Bible is so express as to place it beyond all dispute. It says twice that what they ate was the OLD CORN of the land. And so Dr. Akers entirely fails both as to the time of this act, and the act itself.
(5) That the Saviour was crucified on the day of the passover, and that the fifteenth of the first month did that year come upon the Sabbath, we think to be true. All we deny is, that the fifteenth day of the month always comes that day, which idea is one of the most important arguments of Dr. Akers' theory.
(6) The feast of pentecost came upon the fiftieth day after the offering of the first fruits. The first fruits were offered on the morrow after the Sabbath. But this only fixed the day of the week on which that offering should be made, and did not fix the precise day in the first month when that Sabbath should come. And the letter of the law governing the time was simply that the ripening of the barley harvest should mark the commencement of the period. “Begin to number the seven weeks,” says Moses, “from such time as thou beginnest to put the sickle to the corn.” Deut. 16:9. See also Lev. 23:10-16. The forwardness or backwardness of the season must therefore affect the time when they should select the week, on the first day of which they should present the first fruits to God. And it is remarkable that, whereas there are three feasts ordained in the law of Moses, and whereas the first and the third are fixed to definite points in the first and seventh months respectively (Lev. 23:5, 6, 34), the precise point at which the feast of pentecost should come is not thus marked, but is left to be determined by the ripening of the harvest. Lev. 23; Deut. 16.
What Dr. Akers has adduced from the law respecting the first fruits of barley harvest, to prove that Abib 15 was appointed to be the day of the weekly Sabbath, is therefore destitute of any foundation in truth. Let us now examine Lev. 23, to discover his further argument by which he endeavors to show that this alleged weekly Sabbath, reckoning from Abib 15, answers to the annual sabbaths of that chapter, and that the year was so arranged as to bring the fifteenth of Abib every time upon the Jewish weekly Sabbath. In the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus are seven annual sabbaths, i. e., seven sabbaths which came at seven specified points in the year, and cannot come any oftener than once in the year. The first of these is the fifteenth of Abib, the first month. Verse 7. The second of these was the twenty-first day of that month. Verse 8. The third was the fiftieth day from the first fruits of barley harvest. Verse 21. The fourth was the first day of the seventh month. Verses 24, 25. The fifth of these was the tenth day of the seventh month. Verses 27-32. The sixth was the fifteenth of the seventh month. Verse 39. And the seventh annual sabbath was the twenty-second day of that month. Verse 39.
We have tested the argument of Dr. Akers to prove that the first of these sabbaths, viz., the fifteenth of Abib, was no other than the Jewish weekly Sabbath and have seen that his argument in support of this is an entire failure.
But Dr. A. does his best to trace the weekly Sabbath of the Jews, which he claims was the sixth day of the original week, through this entire list of sabbaths. He has failed to identify Abib 15 with the weekly Sabbath, and the next one of these annual sabbaths is fixed at such a point that he does not even attempt to identify it with the weekly Sabbath. Indeed, he passes it in silence, so much as noticing its existence.
The feast of unleavened bread was for seven days, commencing with Abib 15. It lasted seven days. Its first day, and its seventh, were to be days of abstinence from labor. But they were not identified with the weekly Sabbath, for they began on a certain day of the month, without regard to the day of the week, and they were only five days apart. Thus the weekly Sabbath corresponds with neither of these.
And the weekly Sabbath does not correspond with the third annual sabbath, because that was fixed upon the morrow after the seventh of a series of weekly Sabbaths. Dr. Akers does not attempt to identify the weekly Sabbath with that sabbath which the law said should come the morrow after it. Lev. 23:15-21. So we have now found three annual sabbaths, one of which never can correspond to the weekly Sabbath; and only in a series of years is it that either of the other two could come upon the seventh day of the week, and never but one of them in the same year.
J. N. A.
A Good Meeting. 1
By Editor
TUESDAY evening, June 24, witnessed an excellent meeting in Oakland. The prayer meeting was spirited and lively. After several earnest prayers, twenty-seven hearty testimonies were given in fifteen minutes.
So many of the tract and missionary workers having removed from the city, the society wisely concluded to hold their meetings on the nights of prayer-meetings, and thus secure the interest and aid of all who meet on those nights.
So far the result has been good, the interest being on the increase throughout the membership. On the evening referred to, encouraging letters were read from California, Iowa, Virginia, and South Carolina. The letter from Japan, since published, was also read, and commented upon. Several suggestive questions were raised: How did this man happen to get a copy of the SIGNS, nearly two years old, in Yokohama? How was it taken there? Who sent it? What will result from the sending of that paper?
Here is another evidence presented of the utility of working, and of persevering in well-doing, without stopping to wait for results. We believe that many missionary workers whose names are little known in this world, will find stars in their crowns of which they will not be aware till the glorious gathering day.
A Novel Was a Book
By Pollok
A Novel was a book
Three-volumed and once read, and oft crammed full
Of poisonous error, blackened every page,
And oftener still, of trifling, second-hand
Remark, and old, diseased, putrid thought,
And miserable incident, at war
With nature, with itself, and truth;
Yet charming still the greedy reader on
'Till done, he tries to recollect his thoughts,
And nothing found but dreamy emptiness.
—Pollok, Course of Time.