It was a very old idea that only certain kinds of rocks were to be found next to the "Primitive," or Archaean. It is hard to find out who originated it, whether Lehmann, Füchsel, or Arduino; but the well known A. G. Werner (1749-1817), of Neptunian fame, was the first to bring it into prominence. With him this became the notorious "onion-coat" hypothesis, tho his distinctions were based entirely on mechanical and mineralogical grounds. William Smith, in England, and Brougnart and Cuvier, in France, seem to have adopted somewhat the same idea; but with them the fossils were the important things, and mineralogical character quite secondary.
For some time there seems to have been a sort of blending of the two systems, but it was not long before the fossils became the one and only test of age. This early work of William Smith, and of Brougnart and Cuvier, was limited to small sections of the great succession of life, but from the very beginning they evidently had the instinct that this succession ought to correspond to the classification series of to-day; and so, by dovetailing here and there, all the other fossils of the world have been found a place in this great hypothetical ladder of life; tho, as we shall see, in making the rocks always occur in this order, they have
Had to Invent Various Devices
quite as fanciful as the well-known "epicycles" of the Ptolemaic astronomers, and invented for a precisely similar reason, viz., because the facts would not otherwise conform to their precious theory.
But it is now a well-established fact that any kind of fossils whatever, even "young-Tertiary" rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed, or crystalline.
As Dana expresses it:
The idea that gneiss and mica schist are always "Primary," or Archaean rocks; that grade of crystallisation is a safe mark of relative age; was shown to be false by Lyell ("Principles," 1830-33), who, with De la Beche (1834), rejected all Wernerian errors. Lyell went so far as to hold—as a table in the third volume of his "Principles" (1833, p. 387) shows—that crystalline or metamorphic schists may occur in all the formations from the earliest to the latest.—"Manual," p. 408.
The earliest reference I can find to any disproof of this old fable of Werner's is in the observations of Studer and Beaumont in the Alps, 1826-1828, who found "relatively young" fossils in crystalline schists, which, as Zittel says, "was
A Very Great Blow
to the geologists who upheld the hypothesis of the Archaean or pre-Cambrian age of all gneisses and schists."—"History of Geology and Paleontology," etc., p. 353, London, 1901.
It may also be mentioned here that these same observers noticed cases where "gneiss and micaceous schists repose upon unaltered sedimentary strata" (Ib.), which ought surely to have been as great a blow to Hutton's long-popular theory that such rocks were produced by heat from beneath, or from the earth's interior.
James Geikie, doubtless referring to the same series of rocks, tells us that:
In the central Alps of Switzerland, some of the Eocene strata are so highly metamorphosed that they closely resemble some of the most ancient deposits of the globe, consisting, as they do, of crystalline rocks, marble, quartz-rock, mica-schist, and gneiss."—"Manual of Hist. Geol.," p. 74.
An Unsettling Discovery.
Hence we need not be surprised at the following confession made by one of the greatest living geologists:
The last fifteen years of the nineteenth century witnessed very great advances in our knowledge of rock-deformation and metamorphism. It has been found that there is no geological epoch whose sedimentary deposits have been wholly safeguarded from metamorphic changes, and, as this broad fact has come to be realized, it has proved most unsettling, and has necessitated a revision of the stratigraphy of many districts in the light of the new possibilities. The newer researches scarcely recognize any theory; they are directed rather to the empirical method of obtaining all possible information regarding microscopic and field evidences of the passage from metamorphic to igneous rocks, and from metamorphic to sedimentary rocks."—Zittel, "Hist. of Geol.," etc., p. 360.
An Unanswerable Question.
In addition to what Zittel means by recognizing "no theory" as to the origin of species of the so-called "igneous" rocks, it seems to me that this "broad fact" ought surely to prove "most unsettling" to the traditional theories about certain fossils being intrinsically older than others. With our minds divested of all prejudice, and "this broad fact" well comprehended, where on this earth shall we look for the place to start our life-succession? That is, where in this wide world would we now go to find those kinds of fossils which we could prove, by independent arguments, to be absolutely older than all others? It may seem to be very difficult for some to discard a theory so long an integral part of all Geology; but until they can prove that this "broad fact" of Zittel's is no fact at all, I see no escape from the acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils being essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely nothing to support it in nature.
Reasoning in a Circle.
For those acquainted with the ordinary methods of determining the "age" of rocks, no words of mine are needed to show how completely everything else is subordinated to this hypothesis of a definite succession in time. There was at one time in Geology an "old red sandstone," and a "new red sandstone," and whenever a red sandstone was found it was classed with the one or the other. But no one now regards color as of any particular help in classifying rocks. Thus James Geikie says:
The names applied to the various members of the fossiliferous strata had originally, in many cases, a local significance, but such names having once become current, were necessarily applied subsequently to rocks which, altho of the same age, yet frequently differed very much from those first described. Thus, when a geologist speaks of "greensand" beds, he simply means certain strata that belong to the cretaceous formation, which may or may not consist of green sand. In short, such terms are mere names and not descriptions.—"Historical Geol.," p. 31.
The same may be said of texture and mineral composition. Dana says they are to be used "always with distrust," and are "usually to be disregarded" ("Manual," p. 400). Thus, what was once called "old red sandstone," and now called Devonian, is about as often limestone or shale as sandstone; while the "chalk," or cretaceous, in scores of cases contains no chalk at all. In fact, we all know that the geological names of groups or systems of rocks mean only rocks containing certain kinds of fossils.
Another "broad fact" that ought also to prove "most unsettling" to this fetish of a life-succession, is that any formation whatever may rest conformably upon any other "older" formation. The lower may be Devonian, Silurian, or Cambrian, and the upper cretaceous or tertiary, and thus millions on millions of years have elapsed after the first and before the following beds were laid down, but the conformability is perfect, and the beds have all the appearance of having followed in quick succession. Sometimes, too, tho less frequently, these age-separated formations are lithologically the same, and can only be separated by their fossils. The literature teems with illustrations of these facts, tho
Two Examples
must here suffice, both from the Canadian Northwest.
The first will be from the summary report of R. G. McConnel, on the region about Banff, in Alberta, near the line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and just east of the Rockies:
East of the main divide the lower carboniferous is overlaid in places by beds of lower cretaceous age, and here again, altho the two formations differ so widely in respect to age, one overlies the other without any perceptible break, and the separation of one from the other is rendered more difficult by the fact that the upper beds of the carboniferous are lithologically almost precisely like those of the cretaceous [above them]. Were it not for fossil evidence one would naturally suppose that a single formation was being dealt with.—"Annual Report," New Series, Vol. II, Part A, p. 8.
Surely this is a fearful example of the power of tradition to blind the minds of investigators to the meaning of the very plainest facts.
The other example is from the District of Athabasca:
The Devonian limestone is apparently succeeded conformably by the cretaceous, and, with the possible exception of a thin bed of conglomerate of limited extent, which occurs below Crooked Rapid, on the Athabasca, the age of which is doubtful, the vast interval of time which separated the two formations, is, so far as observed, unprecedented, either by deposition or erosion. This can hardly be explained, except on the assumption that the formation, during all this period, was buried far from land in the depths of some abyssal ocean, as the only other alternative, viz., that its surface represents a former base level of erosion [i. e., that other beds had once existed here, but had been washed away] is, in view of the remarkable persistency of the upper beds [of the lower formation], almost incredible.—"Annual Report," New Series, Vol. V, Part D, p. 52.9Some of us remember being told—at least, before the days of the "Challenger" expedition—that the "depths of some abyssal ocean" was just the place where all kinds of sediment accumulated. But how could these beds go on their wonderful journey down to these "depths" and up again, without the slightest change from the horizontal? Surely this, too, is "scarcely credible."
Regarding "the only other alternative," this author gives us on the previous page (p. 51) some idea of this "remarkable persistence of the upper beds" of the Devonian:
From the Athabasca, the Devonian limestone extends in a broad band around the southern end of Birch Mountains, and across Lake Claire, to Peace River, and up the latter stream to a point two miles above Vermillion Falls.
The distance, I should judge from the map, to be not less than 150 miles, and yet he tells us that this series of limestone "is very uniform in character throughout the district," with, I suppose, the cretaceous beds above them over all this area. But this is not all, for from Part E, Report (p. 209), of the same volume, we are told of strata near Lake Manitoba, over 500 miles away, in almost the same wonderful position—“Devonian rocks very similar in character” to those in Athabasca overlaid directly by the cretaceous, tho in this case they say “unconformably.”
The two remarkable facts brought out in this article are alone sufficient to expose the mythical character of this life-succession idea.
I shall repeat them here ere closing:
1. The “broad fact,” as stated by Zittel, that any kind of rocks whatever, i. e., containing any kinds of fossils, may rest on the Archaean, and may themselves be metamorphosed and crystalline.
2. That any kind of beds may rest in such perfect conformability on any other so-called “older” beds, over vast stretches of country, that, “were it not for fossil evidence, one would naturally suppose that a single formation was being dealt with,” while “the vast interval of time” intervening is “unrepresented either by deposition or erosion.”
(Continued next week.)
EVOLUTION AND GEOLOGY BY GEO. MCCREADY PRICE
JOHN THE BELOVED.
By Ellen G. White
BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.
Of all the twelve disciples, Peter, James, and John held the closest relationship to Christ. John could be satisfied with a still nearer intimacy, and this he obtained. At that first conference beside the Jordan, when Andrew, having heard Jesus, hurried away to call his brother, John sat silent, rapt in the contemplation of wondrous themes. He followed the Saviour, ever an eager, absorbed listener.
The Saviour loved them all, but John’s was the most receptive spirit. He was younger than the others, and with more of a child’s confiding trust he opened his heart to Jesus. Thus he came more into sympathy with Christ, and through him the Saviour’s deepest spiritual teaching was communicated to the people.
Yet John’s was no faultless character. He was no gentle, dreamy enthusiast. He and his brother were called “the sons of thunder.” John was proud, ambitious, combative; but beneath all this the divine Teacher discerned the ardent, sincere, loving heart. Jesus rebuked his self-seeking, disappointed his ambitions, tested his faith. But He revealed to him that for which his soul longed,—the beauty of holiness. “Unto the men which Thou gavest Me out of the world,” He said, “I have manifested Thy name.”
Evil temper, revenge, the spirit of criticism, were all in the beloved disciple. But day by day, in contrast with his own violent spirit, he beheld the tenderness and forbearance of Jesus, and heard His lessons of humility and patience. He opened his heart to the divine influences, and became not only a hearer but a doer of the Saviour’s words. Self was hid in Christ. He learned to wear the yoke of Christ and to bear His burden. For him the darkness had passed away, and the true light was shining.
What privilege was theirs who for three years were in daily contact with that divine Life from which has flowed every life-giving impulse that has blessed the world. Above all his companions, John yielded himself to the power of that wondrous life. He says, “The life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” “Of His fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.”
John’s was a nature that longed for love, for sympathy and companionship. He pressed close to Jesus, sat by His side, leaned upon His breast. As a flower drinks the sun and dew, so did he drink in the divine light and life. In adoration and love he beheld the Saviour, until likeness to Christ and fellowship with Him became his one desire, and in his character was reflected the character of his Master.
When John testified of the Saviour’s grace, his simple language was eloquent with the love that pervaded his whole being. He entered into no controversy, no wearisome contention. He declared what he knew, what he had seen and heard. “That which was from the beginning,” he said, “which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; . . . that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.”
The love of God was the theme upon which John delighted to dwell. “Behold,” he said, “what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God; therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as He is pure.”
“Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” “We have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.”
WAGES OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
By A. O. Tait
BALAK promised to promote Balaam with great honor if he would curse Israel, and God said unto Balaam, “Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt not curse the people, for they are blessed.”
Such a command from the Lord was sufficient. But Balak had hired Balaam to curse Israel, and Balaam loved the wages, expected to be promoted and to have great honors bestowed upon him. So when Balak sent more honorable princes the second time, Balaam’s desire was so great to accompany them that he requested them to remain, and he would inquire of the Lord again. God saw his heart and told him to go, but no power would be given him to curse the people.
Balaam started soon after. The ass saw the angel and refused to move. Balaam’s eyes were so full of wages and promotion that they formed a veil between him and the angel. The angel said: “The ass saw me, and turned from me these three times; unless she had turned from me surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.”
So it is possible that the wages we are expecting may blind our eyes, and the destroying angel must needs stand before us with his drawn sword. The curse that Balaam intended to pronounce upon the children of Israel returned upon his own head, not because he loved unrighteousness, but he loved the wages and longed for promotion and honor. But this was selfishness, and selfishness is sin.
OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
By Editor
[The following is sent us by a retired Christian switchman and signalman on the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. It was dedicated to the Switchman’s Brotherhood. The writer tells us that apart from the Bible he thinks the SIGNS is the best thing he knows. And this is, we are sure, because there is so much Bible in it.]
WE’VE chummed it well, my lamp and I,
For eighteen years together;
Through dreary nights, ’neath cloudy sky,
In every kind of weather.
The iron horse we helped to guide
Upon his steely way;
Our brother men must safely ride
And death rides every day.
And so we swung the red or clear,
Or gave the switch a turn;
For trains run fast, and danger’s near,
Our lamp must brightly burn.
But God was at the switch each day,
And I was switchman under,
Else there were many a big delay,
And many a serious blunder.
Our life is like the iron road,
And we are switchmen all;
We help our fellows up to God,
Or make them sadly fall.
Our thoughts, our words, our many deeds,
Are switches in disguise;
They turn men from the path of life,
Or lead them to the skies.
O Saviour, swing Thy lamp of love
Before our eyes to-day
From Thy great signal tower above,
And show the heavenly way.
This train of life is nearing home,
The station’s just at hand;
But will it be the place of doom,
Or be God’s glory land?
Strong Aspirations and Accomplishments
“INSPIRATIONS are born of strong aspirations, and the greatest accomplishments are but the first of inspirations. Failure, poverty, defeat, etc., are therefore directly traceable to moral heartfailure and a lack of strong, holy heart purposes.”
Responsibility for Church Condition
The Lord will hold men responsible for the result of their own actions. If churches are starved, the men who have undertaken to feed them, and have stood in the way so that others could not do it, are answerable for their condition. If they have taken places which they are unfit to fill, and to which they are not called of God, then it is most important that they should learn their mistake and humble themselves in the dust before the Lord.
JESUS LOCKED OUT.
By H. A. St. John
BY H. A. ST. JOHN.
IT was Sunday night in Jerusalem, long centuries ago. A company of disciples of Jesus were locked in an upper room. They were utterly disheartened, hopeless, faithless, filled with doubts and fears.
Suddenly there came a knock on their door. Trembling with fear they felt that they must be careful about unlocking the door. Perhaps it is our enemies, they thought, coming to bear us away to the same cruel treatment and end that befell Jesus last Friday. Cautiously they approached the door, and quietly inquired who was there. Two disciples, your brethren; good news for you, was the response. They were cautiously and quietly admitted, and began at once to dispel the gloom, sadness, and doubt that rested like an ill-omened cloud upon the hearts of the disciples. Jesus is risen; the women told the truth this morning when they said He was risen, and that they had seen Him. We, too, have seen Him, and we know He is risen. And with glad hearts and great joy these two disciples related the story of the manifestation of Christ to them, on their way to Emmaus, and in their humble home. But this was not all.
No sooner had these happy disciples delivered their joyful message to their fellows, than lo, Jesus manifests Himself to the amazed disciples, and dissipates all their doubts and sorrows, and fills them with faith and hope.
The same door that was unlocked and opened to let the disciples in, let Jesus in, also, and they did not know it. But no sooner had the disciples fulfilled their mission, than the blessed, risen Jesus manifested Himself to them. Through the same door that was unlocked and opened to admit the disciples, Jesus entered, and at the same time.
Here is a wonderful lesson for us. Jesus teaches that we should love one another as He has loved us. If we love not our brethren whom we see, how can we love God whom we have not seen? If we thus love one another, we will be keeping the commandments of Jesus, and He says that all such love Him, and He further says that He will love them, and will manifest Himself to them. John 14:21.
Let the poor Laodiceans, both preachers and people, who have been engaged in evil speaking, backbiting, murmuring, fault-finding, criticizing, and thus biting and devouring one another with their unclean lips, cease this evil work by true repentance, unlock and open the door of their hearts, and let their brethren in, and thus love one another with pure hearts, fervently, and very soon they will find that the same unlocked and opened door by which they let their brethren in, will be entered by the blessed and risen Jesus. He will manifest Himself to them as He does not to the world,11and their souls will be filled with hope, faith, courage, zeal, and a joy unspeakable and full of glory. All such will be filled with a burning desire to tell others what a dear Saviour they have found. Let us love one another as He hath loved us, and as He has commanded us; then we shall all be of one accord, and in one place spiritually, and nothing can prevent the heavenly dove of divine power from descending and abiding upon us and in us. Then will the Gospel of the kingdom very soon be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations, and the end come, when we shall see Jesus as He is, be made like Him as He is, and forever dwell with Him where He is.
THE SABBATH
By L. A. Phippeny
BY L. A. PHIPPENY
THE SABBATH AND SUNDAY.
SINCE Jesus did not institute a change of the Sabbath before His death, and could not after His resurrection, why is Sunday regarded as a day of rest by the majority of the Christian world? It is not necessary for the purpose of this study to refer at length to this point. There are numerous publications that enter into the matter fully. A few facts will be sufficient here, and the honest searcher after light and truth will investigate further.
How the Sunday Rest-day Came in.
A careful search through the Bible, following thoughts touched upon in our study of last week, will reveal no authority for a change of the Sabbath. But the Word does tell us that after the time of the early apostles many heresies would come into the church. Evils were working even in their day. History tells the rest. The church became contaminated with the pagan doctrines of Rome, with the exception of a few branches here and there which retained in remarkable purity the apostolic faith and practise. As Christianity and Paganism felt more and more the influence of each other in the empire of Rome, their forms and doctrines became blended. But the Sabbath was observed by the Jewish Christians, and also by others, and no attempt appears to have been made to oppose it until Constantine's time.
As is well known, this emperor professed Christianity, but his profession, and his friendship toward the Christians were inspired more by political considerations than by anything else. Tho when this is said all is said, for religion in the Roman empire was an essential part of the state. Constantine himself was an ardent admirer and worshiper of Apollo, the Roman deity representing the sun, and sun worship in its various forms was old when Rome was born.
The chief festival of the sun worship was observed weekly on the first day of the week, and while Constantine pleased the Christians by adopting Christianity as the religion of the empire, he shrewdly retained his hold on his pagan subjects,—now made Christians because the empire was Christian—by bestowing special honors upon the "venerable day of the sun," as he called it. His famous, but mild, Sunday decree of 321 A.D. was followed by other enactments regarding worship upon that day, these enactments thereafter being largely accomplished through the demands of the bishops of the church in their continued endeavors to increase their power. Gradually the holding of games on Sunday was transferred to other days of the week because the circus had more attendants than the church services could claim; the celebration of Easter—the observance of the Passover—was definitely fixed to take place always on Sunday; the council of Laodicea decreed "that members of the church should not rest from work on the Sabbath (Saturday) like Jews, but should labor on that day and preferring in honor the Lord's day; then, if it be in their power, to rest from work as Christians;" and about the end of the fourth century "civil transactions of every kind on Sunday were strictly forbidden. Whoever transgressed was to be considered, in fact, as guilty of sacrilege."—Neander.
Note that no writer of the first three centuries attributes the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or to His apostles. No one had thought of honoring the Sunday because of any divine authority connected with it. And it was not until about the fourth century that the idea of attaching any special significance to the day as related to the resurrection of Christ, or calling it the Lord's day, begins to appear. From this time on, the history of the church is the history of the development of the Papacy, with its numerous festivals and feast days and traditions. This, in brief, is the manner in which Sunday found its way into the church and gradually came to be called the Lord's day. But the Lord's day of the Scriptures refers to the seventh-day Sabbath.
Compromise Brings Apostasy.
In noting the gradual growth of Sunday observance the fact must not be lost sight of that the combining of pagan with Christian forms of worship resulted in apostasy. It was not the church in its simplicity and purity that allowed the introduction of error, and corrupted the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Men were not vastly different then than they are now. Possession of wealth and power and influence and worldly pleasures absorbed the minds of men and women then as now, both in and out of the church. A great light had shined into the world when Jesus came, and seeds of truth had been planted which would bear fruit in due season. After the long night of moral darkness the light of a new day began to dawn on the world, preparatory to the second coming of the Master to restore the lost dominion.
Truth's Witnesses among the Nations.
But even during the darkness the seed which had taken root grew. There were honest souls among all nations, as witness the millions who died for holding to the truth as against apostasy. Neither was the Lord's Sabbath forgotten during this time. There are many noteworthy examples and sufficient records showing that God was not left without witnesses on this point. The Waldenses and Albigenses retained from the first their allegiance to God's ordained Sabbath. The Abyssinians, who separated from Rome in the fourth century retained the observance of the Sabbath, altho sufficient of Rome's forms had been adopted to cause them to hold to the Sunday also, so that both days have since been observed as festival and rest days by that people. The Armenians of the East Indies were Sabbath-keepers. Sabbath-keeping was known in Scandinavia long before the Reformation, and severe penalties were imposed by the established (papal) church upon those who persisted in keeping Saturday. The Christian Jews of India, who remained in the far East after the Babylonian captivity, and received the Gospel of Christ through the preaching of Thomas, who traveled among them in the early days, kept the Sabbath then and keep it still.
These are not the only instances that might be cited. Wherever the Word of God has gone, whether proclaimed by word of mouth, through manuscripts, or by the printed page, there are found some who have broken away from the traditions of the church, whether or not they have known how Sunday came in, and have taken their stand by faith on the everlasting Word. Why should it not be so? And why should not all Christians of the present day look the matter squarely in the face and realize the blessedness and the supreme pleasure of following the Master in His example and teachings, and give Him the honor due Him by honoring the Sabbath day ordained by Him for the everlasting good of all mankind?
DANIEL.
By F. D. Starr
BY F. D. STARR.
"WHOSO readeth, let him understand." This is our Lord's statement concerning the book of Daniel, as found in Matt. 24:15.
With this warrant for the perusal of this book, and the assurance that it is the will of God that we should understand it, let us proceed to the delightful pursuit of examining its contents.
It seems futile to attempt, in human language, adequately to extol the merits of this portion of divine revelation. This is the book upon which were based the calculations that showed that a great crisis was to take place in the time of the great Advent movement of over a half century ago. It is the little book spoken of in the tenth chapter of Revelation, which the angel held in his hand, open, and from which he made the proclamation that time should be no longer; the book whose contents were first so sweet and then so bitter, illustrating the experience of the church at the time when its hopes of the soon-coming of our Lord were not realized.
This point can be better explained when we come to consider the book of Revelation. These are companion books, and indeed there is a great similarity not only in the books themselves, but also in the character and experience of the writers of these two books.
Let us notice some of the points of resemblance between Daniel, the prophet, and John, the writer of the book of Revelation. In the first place, they seem to have been in a special way the favorites of Heaven. Concerning Daniel, it was said by the angel, "Thou art greatly beloved;" "O Daniel, a man greatly beloved;" "O man greatly beloved." Dan. 9:23; 10:11, 19. The well-known appellation given to the apostle John was the "beloved disciple." This is founded upon the expressions found in John 13:23; 20:2; 21:20. "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved;" "The other disciple, whom Jesus loved;" "Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following." While all are in a sense loved by the Lord, yet these men were designated as being in a special way beloved of the Lord. Surely what they wrote must be full of messages of love. Both these men were in a strange land when they had these important visions. Daniel was a captive in Babylon, and John was an exile on the isle of Patmos. Both were miraculously preserved from the hands of those who sought their lives. Daniel was delivered from the lion's den without harm. John was cast into a caldron of boiling oil, but came forth unharmed—the only one of the twelve who escaped a violent death. Both these men lived to the age of nearly or quite a century, which was something extraordinary even in their days.
The points of similarity in the books themselves are too numerous to mention. Both bring before the mind the fate of the universal empires of antiquity. Both give in a very clear manner the blasphemous, persecuting, and disloyal character of the Papacy, furnishing some six or more points of identity in describing the career of this power. Both give the allotted time of this power as being 1,260 days (prophetic years). Both give important information concerning the Eastern question; and, indeed, these prophets seem to furnish about all the information we have on this question. These are the only two books concerning which anything was said directly in regard to their being sealed. Of the book of Daniel it was said: "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end." "The words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end." Dan. 12:4, 9. In the last chapter of Revelation we read, "And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book; for the time is at hand." Here is a similarity in dissimilarity; the books are alike in that something is said concerning their being sealed, but unlike in that while one was sealed for a limited time, the other was not to be sealed at all. It seems quite significant and appropriate that something should be said about the book of Revelation, whether it should be sealed or not, inasmuch as this book describes the opening or unsealing of the precious book that was sealed; so the question naturally arises as to whether the book of Revelation should be sealed or not.
The book of Daniel contains several distinct and very important lines of prophecy. For a very interesting explanation of these lines of prophecy, the reader is referred to the work entitled "Daniel and the Revelation," and other works of like nature, for sale at the office of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES.
We will notice a few points of interest. The first half of the book, with the exception of chapter two, is largely historical; the last half, prophetic. In the first chapter we have one of the most pronounced instances of the beneficial results of an abstemious and temperate manner of living. It is interesting to note that the Septuagint gives for the word pulse, as found in our version (Dan. 1:12), the word "seeds," showing that what is meant is the same kind of diet that God gave man in the beginning (see Gen. 1:29), a vegetarian diet, the best calculated for health.
In the explanation of the vision of chapter two, the interpreter said the various metals were ground to pieces, so that they became as chaff of the summer thrashing-floor. The Greek version says, "as the dust of the summer thrashing-floor." It seems more in harmony with the reality, that stone and iron, etc., should become dust than that they should become as the chaff. According to the German translation, Dan. 8:17 (last part) reads: "This vision belongs in the time of the end." Both the Septuagint and the German give the word law in Dan. 7:25 in the singular, showing it was the law of God, the Decalogue, that the Papacy sought to change.
The subject of Christ in the Old Testament is very clearly developed in this book. For instance, in chapter 9:25, we have in both the German and the Greek the statement that the given prophetic period would last unto "Christ the Prince." The word "Messiah," of course, means the same thing, but the meaning is not as readily discerned as when we use the familiar name, Christ.
Surely this is one of the books to which the Saviour alludes when He says, "they are they which testify of Me." May we, through a saving knowledge of this same Christ, as revealed in this book, be so happy as to have it said to us, in the closing words of this book: "Thou shalt . . . stand in thy lot at the end of the days."
