Earlier text: General ArticlesThoughts on Daniel.
By Uriah Smith
CHAPTER XI.—A LITERAL PROPHECY.
VERSE 41. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. The facts just stated relative to the campaign of the French against Turkey, and the repulse of the former at St. Jean d'Acre, were drawn chiefly from the Encyclopedia Americana. From the same source, we gather further particulars respecting the retreat of the French into Egypt, and the additional reverses which compelled them to evacuate that country. Abandoning a campaign in which one-third of the army had fallen victims to war and the plague, the French retired from St. Jean d'Acre, and after a fatiguing march of twenty-six days, re-entered Cairo in Egypt. They thus abandoned all the conquests they had made in Judea; and the "glorious land," Palestine, with all its provinces, here called "countries," fell back again under the oppressive rule of the Turk. Edom, Moab, and Ammon, lying outside the limits of Palestine, south and east of the Dead Sea and Jordan, were out of the line of March of the Turks from Syria to Egypt, and so escaped the ravages of that campaign. On this passage, Adam Clarke has the following note: "These and other Arabians, they [the Turks] have never been able to subdue. They still occupy the deserts, and receive a yearly pension of forty thousand crowns of gold from the Ottoman emperors, to permit the caravans with the pilgrims for Mecca to have a free passage." VERSE 42. He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape. On the retreat of the French to Egypt, a Turkish fleet landed 18,000 men at Aboukir. Napoleon immediately attacked the place, completely routing the Turks, and re-establishing his authority in Egypt. But at this point, severe reverses to the French arms in Europe called Napoleon home to look after the interests of his own country. The command of the troops in Egypt was left with Gen. Kleber, who, after a period of untiring activity for the benefit of the army, was murdered by a Turk, in Cairo, and the command was left with Abdallah Menou. With an army which could not be recruited, every loss was serious. Meantime, the English Government, as the ally of the Turks, had resolved to wrest Egypt from the French. March 13, 1800, an English fleet disembarked a body of troops at Aboukir. The French gave battle the next day, but were forced to retire. On the 18th, Aboukir surrendered. On the 28th, reinforcements were brought by a Turkish fleet, and the Grand Vizier approached from Syria with a large army. The 19th, Rosetta surrendered to the combined forces of the English and Turks. At Ramanieh, a French corps of 4,000 men was defeated by 8,000 English and 6,000 Turks. At Elmenayer, 5,000 French were obliged to retreat, May 16, by the Vizier, who was pressing forward to Cairo with 20,000 men. The whole French army was now shut up in Cairo and Alexandria. Cairo capitulated June 27, and Alexandria, Sept. 2. Four weeks after, Oct. 1, 1801, the preliminaries of peace were signed at London. "Egypt shall not escape," were the words of the prophecy. This language seems to imply that Egypt would be brought into subjection to some power from whose dominion it would desire to be released. As between the French and Turks, how did this question stand with the Egyptians? They preferred French rule. In R. R. Madden's Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Turkey, and Palestine, in the years 1824-27, published in London in 1829, it is stated that the French were much regretted by the Egyptians, and extolled as benefactors; that "for the short period they remained, they left traces of amelioration," and that, if they could have established their power, Egypt would now be comparatively civilized. In view of this testimony, the language would not be appropriate if applied to the French; for the Egyptians did not desire to escape out of their hands. They did desire to escape from the hands of the Turks, but could not. VERSE 43. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. In illustration of this verse we quote the following from "Historic Echoes of the Voice of God," p. 49. "History gives the following facts: When the French were driven out of Egypt, and the Turks took possession, the Sultan permitted the Egyptians to reorganize their government as it was before the French invasion. He asked of the Egyptians neither soldiers, guns, nor fortifications, but left them to manage their own affairs independently, with the important exception of putting the nation under tribute to himself. In the articles of agreement between the Sultan and the Pasha of Egypt, it was stipulated that the Egyptians should pay annually to the Turkish Government a certain amount of gold and silver, and 'six hundred thousand measures of corn, and four hundred thousand of barley.'" "The Libyans and the Ethiopians," the "Cushim," says Dr. Clarke, "the unconquered Arabs," who have sought the friendship of the Turks, and many of whom are tributary to them to the present time. VERSE 44. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. On this verse, also, Dr. Clarke has a note which is worthy of mention. He says: "This part of the prophecy is allowed to be yet unfulfilled." His note was printed in 1825. In another portion of his comment, he says: "If the Turkish power be understood, as in the preceding verses, it may mean that the Persians on the east, and the Russians on the north, will at some time greatly embarrass the Ottoman government." Between this conjecture of Dr. Clarke's, written in 1825, and the Crimean war of 1853 to 1856, there is certainly a striking co-incidence, inasmuch as the very powers he mentions, the Persians on the east and the Russians on the north, were the ones which instigated that conflict. Tidings from these powers troubled him [Turkey]. Their attitude and movements incited the Sultan to anger and revenge. Russia being the more aggressive party was the object of attack. Turkey declared war on her powerful northern neighbor in 1853. The world looked on in amazement to see a government which had long been called "the Sick Man of the East," a government whose army was dispirited and demoralized, whose treasuries were empty, whose rulers were vile and imbecile, and whose subjects were rebellious and threatening secession, rush with such impetuosity into the conflict. The prophecy said that they should go forth with "great fury"; and when they thus went forth, the profane vernacular of an American writer described them as fighting "like devils." England and France, it is true, soon came to the help of Turkey; but she went forth in the manner described, and, as is reported, gained victory after victory, before receiving the assistance of these powers. VERSE 45. And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. We have now traced the prophecy of the 11th of Daniel down, step by step, and have thus far found events to fulfill all its predictions. It has all been wrought out into history except this last verse. The predictions of the preceding verse having been fulfilled within the memory of the generation now living, we are carried by this one past our own day into the future; for no power has yet performed the acts here described. But it is to be fulfilled; and its fulfillment must be accomplished by that power which has been continuously the subject of the prophecy from the 40th verse down to this 45th verse. If the application to which we have given the preference, in passing over these verses, is correct, we must look to Turkey to make the move here indicated. And let it here be noted how readily this could be done. Palestine, which contains the "glorious holy mountain," the mountain on which Jerusalem stands, "between the seas," the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean, is a Turkish province; and if the Turk should be obliged to retire hastily from Europe, he could easily go to any point within his own dominions, to establish his temporary headquarters, appropriately described as the tabernacles, movable dwellings, of his palace; but he could not go beyond them. The most notable point within the limit of Turkey in Asia, is Jerusalem. And mark, also, how applicable the language to that power: "He shall come to his end, and none shall help him." This plainly implies that this power has previously received help. And what are the facts? In the war against France in 1798-1801, in the war between Turkey and Egypt in 1838-1840, in the Crimean war in 1853-56, and in the late Russo-Turkish war, Turkey received the assistance of other powers, without which she would probably have failed to maintain her position. And it is a notorious fact that since the fall of the Ottoman supremacy in 1840, that empire has existed only through the sufferance of the great powers of Europe. Without their pledged support, she would not be long able to maintain even a nominal existence, and when that is withdrawn, she must come to the ground. So the prophecy says the king comes to his end, and none help him; and he comes to his end, as we may naturally infer, because none help him; because the support previously rendered is withdrawn. Have we any indications that this part of the prophecy is soon to be fulfilled? As we raise this inquiry, we look not to dim and distant ages in the past, whose events, so long ago transferred to the page of history, now interest only the few, but to the present, living, moving world. Are the nations which are now on the stage of action, with their disciplined armies and their multiplied weapons of war, making any movement looking to this end? All eyes are now turned with interest toward Turkey; and the unanimous opinion of statesmen is, that the Turk is destined soon to be driven from Europe. Some years since, a correspondent of the N. Y. Tribune, writing from the East, said: "Russia is arming to the teeth, . . . to be avenged on Turkey. . . . Two campaigns of the Russian army will drive the Turks out of Europe." Carleton, formerly a correspondent of the Boston Journal, writing from Paris, under the head of "The Eastern Question," said:— "The theme of conversation during the last week has not been concerning the Exposition, but the 'Eastern Question.' To what will it grow? Will there be war? What is Russia going to do? What position are the Western powers going to take? These are questions discussed not only in the cafes, and restaurants, but in the Corps Legislatif. Perhaps I cannot render better service at the present time than to group together some facts in regard to this question, which, according to present indications, is to engage the immediate attention of the world. What is 'Eastern Question'? It is not easy to give a definition; for to Russia it may mean one thing, to France another, and to Austria still another; but sifted of every side issue, it may be reduced to this: the DRIVING OF THE TURK INTO ASIA, and a scramble for his territory." "Surely the indications are that the Sultan is destined soon to see the western border of his dominions break off, piece by piece. But what will follow? Are Roumania, Servia, Bosnia, and Albania, to set up as an independent sovereignty together, and take position among the nations? or is there to be a grand rush for the estate of the Ottoman? But that is of the future—a future not far distant." Shortly after the foregoing extracts were written, an astonishing revolution took place in Europe. France, one of the parties, if not the chief one, in the alliance to uphold the Ottoman throne, was crushed by Prussia. Prussia, another party, was too much in sympathy with Russia to interfere with her movements against the Turk. England, a third, in an embarrassed condition financially, could not think of entering into any contest in behalf of Turkey, without the alliance of France. Austria had not recovered from the blow she received in her late war with Prussia; and Italy was busy with the matter of stripping the pope of his temporal power, and making Rome the capital of the nation. A writer in the N. Y. Tribune remarked that if Turkey should become involved in difficulty with Russia, she could count on the prompt "assistance of Austria, France, and England." But none of these powers, or any others who would be likely to assist Turkey, were in any condition to do so, owing principally to the sudden and unexpected humiliation of the French nation. Russia then saw that her opportunity had come. She accordingly startled all the powers of Europe in the fall of the same memorable year, 1870, by stepping forth and deliberately announcing that she designed to regard no longer the stipulations of the treaty of 1856. This treaty, concluded at the termination of the Crimean war, restricted the warlike operations of Russia in the Black Sea. But Russia must have the privilege of using those waters for military purposes, if she would carry out her designs against Turkey; hence her determination to disregard that treaty right at the time when none of the powers were in a condition to enforce it. Christ's Condemnation of the Jews.
LAST week's lesson ended with Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem. We think that the following comments on the events of the succeeding day will be of the deepest interest to all, whether Sabbath-school scholars or not:— On the following morning the Sanhedrim was assembled for the purpose of deciding what should be done with Jesus. His singular invasion of the temple was so presumptuous and surpassingly strange in their eyes, that they urged the propriety of calling him to account for the boldness of his conduct in interfering with the authorized keepers of the temple. Three years before they had challenged him to give them a sign of his Messiahship. Since that time he had wrought mighty works in their midst. He had healed the sick, miraculously fed thousands of people, walked upon the boisterous waves, and spoken peace unto the troubled sea. He had repeatedly read the secrets of their hearts like an open book; he had cast out demons, and raised the dead to life; yet they still refused to see and acknowledge the evidences of his Messiahship. They now decided to demand no sign of his authority for his bold action regarding the temple, but to confront him with questions and charges calculated to draw out some admissions or declarations by which they might condemn him. After carefully arranging their plan, they repaired to the temple, where Jesus was preaching the gospel to the people, and proceeded to question him as to what authority he had for his acts in the temple. They expected him to reply that God had invested him with the authority which he had there manifested. This assertion they were prepared to deny. But instead of this, Jesus met them with a question apparently pertaining to another subject: "The baptism of John, was it from Heaven or of men?" His questioners were at a loss how to reply. If they should deny the mission of John and his baptism unto repentance, they would lose influence with the people, for John was acknowledged by them to be a prophet of God. But if they should acknowledge that John's mission was divine, then they would be obliged to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah; for John had repeatedly pointed him out to the people as the Christ, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world." John had spoken of Jesus as one whose shoelatchet he was not worthy to unloose. Jesus laid the burden of decision upon them as to the true character of John's mission. "And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say from Heaven, he will say, Why believed ye him not? But and if we say, Of men, all the people will stone us; for they be persuaded that John was a prophet." In their hearts they did not accept the teachings of John. If they had done so they could not have rejected Jesus, of whom John prophesied. But they had deceived the people by assuming to believe in the ministry of John; and now they dared not, in answer to the Saviour's question, declare that John's mission was divine, lest Jesus should demand their reason for not receiving the prophet's testimony concerning him. He might have said, If John was from Heaven, so am I; my ministry and work are so closely connected with his that they cannot be separated. The people were listening with bated breath to hear what answer the priests and rulers would make to the direct question of Jesus, as to the baptism of John, whether it was from Heaven or of men. They expected them to acknowledge that John was sent of God; but, after conferring secretly among themselves, the priests decided to be as wary as possible; "and they answered, that they could not tell whence it was. And Jesus said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things." Scribes, priests, and rulers stood confused and disappointed before the people, whose respect they had lost in a great degree by their cowardice and indecision. . . . As they stood mortified and silent before the Saviour, humiliated in presence of the great multitude, he improved his opportunity of presenting before them their true characters, and the retribution sure to follow their evil deeds. He arranged the lesson in such a manner that the priests and elders should pronounce their own condemnation: "But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to-day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not; but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir; and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father?" This abrupt question threw them off their guard; they had followed the parable closely, and now immediately answered, "The first." Fixing his steady eye upon them, Jesus responded in stern and solemn accents: "Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not; but the publicans and the harlots believed him; and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." These terrible truths struck home to the hearts of the hypocritical priests and rulers. The first son in the parable represented the publicans and harlots, who at first refused obedience to the teachings of John, but afterwards repented and were converted. The second son represented the Jews who professed obedience and superior virtue, but insulted God by rejecting the gift of his Son. By their wicked works they forfeited the favor of Heaven. They despised the mercies of God. The most thoughtless and abandoned are represented by Jesus as occupying a more favorable position before God than the haughty and self-righteous priests and rulers. They were unwilling to bear these searching truths, but remained silent, hoping that Jesus would say something which they could turn against him; but they had still more to bear. Jesus looked back upon the past, when his ministers, the prophets of God, were rejected and their messages trampled upon by the ancestors of the very men who stood before him. He saw that the sons were following in the footsteps of their fathers, and would fill up the cup of their iniquity by putting to death the Lord of Life. He drew from the past, present, and future to compose his parable:— "Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first; and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?" Jesus addressed all the people present; but the priests and rulers, not anticipating that the parable was to be applied to them, answered at once, "He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons." Again they perceived that they had pronounced their own condemnation in presence of the people who were listening with rapt interest to Jesus. The Saviour referred to messenger after messenger that had been sent in vain to Israel with reproofs, warnings, and entreaties. These faithful bearers of truth had been slain by those to whom they were sent, even as the faithful servants were slain by the wicked husbandmen. In the beloved son whom the lord of the vineyard finally sent to his disobedient servants, and whom they seized and slew, the priests and rulers suddenly saw unfolded before them a distinct picture of Jesus and his impending fate. Already they were planning to slay Him whom the Father had sent to them as a last and only appeal. In the retribution visited upon the ungrateful husbandmen was portrayed the doom of those who should slay Christ. In the parable of the vineyard Jesus brought before the Jews their real condition. The householder represented God; the vineyard, the Jewish nation hedged in by divine law, which was calculated to preserve them as a people separate and distinct from all other nations of the earth. The tower built in the vineyard represented their temple. The Lord of the vineyard had done all that was necessary for its prosperity. So God had provided for Israel in such a manner that it was in their power to secure the highest degree of prosperity. The Lord of the vineyard required of his husbandmen a due proportion of the fruit; so God required of the Jews a life corresponding with the sacred privileges he had given them. But as the servants who demanded fruit in their master's name were put to death by the unfaithful husbandmen, so had the Jews slain the prophets who had come to them with messages from God. Not only were these rejected, but when he sent his only Son to them, the destined Heir to the vineyard, thinking to preserve the vineyard to themselves, and to secure the honor and profit accruing therefrom, the haughty Jews, the unfaithful servants, reasoned among themselves, saying, "This is the heir; come, let us kill him." Thus Jesus revealed in his parable the dark purposes of the Jews against himself. After Jesus had heard them pronounce sentence upon themselves in their condemnation of the wicked husbandmen, he looked pityingly upon them and continued: "Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected the same has become the head of the corner; this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." The Jews had often repeated the words of this prophecy while teaching the people in the synagogues, applying it to the coming Messiah. But Jesus connected the heir so cruelly slain with the stone which the builders rejected, but which eventually became the principal stone of the whole building. Christ himself was the originator of the Jewish system, the very foundation of the costly temple, the antitype to whom all the sacrificial services pointed. The Jews had watched with apparent anxiety for the coming of Christ. The scribes, who were learned in the law, and acquainted with the declarations of the prophets regarding his coming, knew from prophetic history that the time of looking and waiting for his advent to the world had expired. Through the parables which Jesus spoke to the Jews, he brought their minds to prophecies which had foretold the very things which were then being enacted. He sought by every means within his power to awaken their consciences and to enlighten their understanding, that they might consider well the steps they were meditating. In these parables he laid the purposes of the Pharisees before them, together with the fearful consequences resulting. A solemn warning was thus given to them. And to leave the matter without a shadow of doubt, Jesus then dropped all figures and stated plainly that the kingdom of God should be taken from them and given to a nation bringing forth fruit. At this the chief priests and scribes were so enraged they could scarcely restrain themselves from using violence against him; but perceiving the love and reverence with which the people regarded him, they dared not follow out the malice of their hearts.—Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, by Mrs. E. G. White. THERE is one peculiarity about deeds, and thoughts, and words of impurity. It is the loathsome and stirring tenacity with which they cling to the mind. The vindictive man may become meek, and not a trace of the vengeful spirit remain. Thus it was with Paul, who, originally ireful and revengeful, learned to say, "Most gladly will I spend and be spent for you, though the more ardently I love you, the less I be loved." Unhallowed ambition may be replaced by the deepest humility. But unclean thoughts once harbored, never leave the soul empty and swept and garnished. There is always a taint. The gospel converts all sorts of men. But we believe that the impure man is the hardest to convert; and we believe that even when converted, there remains in his nature a rankness of odor, a coarseness of grain.—Sel. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." True; but also out of the emptiness of the heart the mouth can speak even more volubly. He who can always find the word which is appropriate and adequate to his emotions, is not the man whose emotions are deepest; warmth of feeling is one thing, permanance is another.—Sel. THERE is one peculiarity about deeds, and thoughts, and words of impurity. It is the loathsome and stirring tenacity with which they cling to the mind. The vindictive man may become meek, and not a trace of the vengeful spirit remain. Thus it was with Paul, who, originally ireful and revengeful, learned to say, "Most gladly will I spend and be spent for you, though the more ardently I love you, the less I be loved." Unhallowed ambition may be replaced by the deepest humility. But unclean thoughts once harbored, never leave the soul empty and swept and garnished. There is always a taint. The gospel converts all sorts of men. But we believe that the impure man is the hardest to convert; and we believe that even when converted, there remains in his nature a rankness of odor, a coarseness of grain.—Sel. THE following remarks on the resurrection are from Dr. Dwight:— ‘‘Against the resurrection itself there is no presumption, and in favor of it a strong one, from analogy. Many works of God naturally and strongly dispose the mind to admit the doctrine without hesitation. In this climate almost the whole vegetable world dies annually. At the return of spring the face of nature is renewed; and all the plants, shrubs, and trees with which it was adorned, are again clothed with verdure, life, and beauty. In the insect creation, we find a direct and striking example of the resurrection itself. Animals of this class begin their existence in the form of worms. After continuing some time in the humble state of being to which they are confined by their structure, they die and are gone. In the moment of death they construct for themselves a species of shell or tomb, in which they may, with the strictest propriety be said to be buried. Here they are dissolved into a mass of semi-transparent water; the whole which remains of the previously existing animal, exhibiting to the eye no trace of life, and no promise of a future revival. When the term of its burial approaches an end, the tomb discloses and a winged animal comes forth, with a nobler form, often exquisitely beautiful; brilliant with the gayest splendor; possessed of new and superior powers; and destined to a more refined and more exalted life. Its food is now the honey of the flowers; its field of being, the atmosphere. Here it expatiates at large in the delightful exercise of its faculties, and in the high enjoyment of those sunbeams which were the immediate means of its newly acquired existence. Could there be a rational or even a specious doubt concerning the power of God, and his sufficiency to raise the body from the grave, this change in the world of insects, accomplished before our eyes, and for these animals not less extraordinary than that which we are contemplating is for man, puts an end to every such doubt, and place the possibility of this event beyond debate. In truth, this change is nothing less than a glorious type of the resurrection.’’ No cause is benefited by being advocated in a manner contrary to just reasoning. The above remarks present a popular, but by no means a Scriptural or reasonable, view of the resurrection. There is no analogy to the resurrection of the dead in any of the illustrations given. In each and all of them, that which dies does not live again, and that which shows life again does not die. The stalk which bears the flower dies and never lives again. The root which bore the stalk does not die, but lives to produce other stalks. The leaves die and fall from the tree; they never live again. The living tree produces other leaves. But if the tree dies it does not produce other leaves, nor does it live again. The insect or animal undergoes a transformation, and appears in another form. But if it dies—if the life become extinct—it never undergoes its transformation; it never reappears in any form. Such is not the idea of the resurrection as taught in the Scriptures. In his resurrection Christ became ‘‘the first-fruits of them that are asleep.’’ (Revision). 1 Cor. 15 : 20. In his case he ‘‘died, and rose, and revived.’’ Rom. 14 : 9. It was not the dying of one part, and the revivifying of another part, as in the case of plants. So it was with Lazarus. He had been dead four days, and corruption was doing its work. But at the voice of Him who is ‘‘the resurrection and the life,’’ ‘‘he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes; and his face was bound about with a napkin.’’ John 11 : 44. The nearest to any analogy in nature is the example presented by Job; but he presents it as a contrast instead of a case of analogy. ‘‘For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground.’’ But its nearness to analogy is but in appearance. Often do we see a stump that is really dead above ground, and the main roots decaying, ‘‘yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant.’’ And all because, as he said, ‘‘the tender branch thereof will not cease.’’ It had not become utterly dead. He then presents the contrast: ‘‘But man dieth, and is cut off [Margin—Heb.]; yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he? As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up, so man lieth down and riseth not; till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep.’’ Job. 14 : 7–12. By no process of nature, or natural process of his being, can man show signs of life, as the vegetables do. Nothing less than the direct power of God can awaken him; nothing but the voice of the archangel can call him forth and revive him. That which sleeps in the dust of the earth shall awake. Dan. 12 : 2. ‘‘Thy dead men shall live; together with my dead body shall they arise.’’ Isa. 26 : 19. ‘‘All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.’’ John 5 : 28, 29. There is no life-germ in a dead human body by which it may revive, and show signs of life. Where, then, is the analogy between the resurrection of the dead and the revival of the vegetable world in the time of spring? It does not exist. Such illustrations are entirely destitute of argument. There are those who dislike this presentation of the case. If we would predicate the resurrection on some such process as nature presents in revivifying plants in the spring—something which they could accept on philosophic grounds—they say they would no longer object to the doctrine. And we think that is so; they would rather accept it upon the deductions of their own reasonings than upon the word of God’s revelation. But we have neither science nor philosophy to meet either the facts of the resurrection as demonstrated in the case of Lazarus and others, or the doctrine as presented by the prophets, and by Messiah and his apostles. Did we not believe the Bible, we should reject the idea of the resurrection of the dead as readily as the unbelievers of Athens did when Paul preached it to them. A crucified Saviour was foolishness to the Gentiles because they did not believe in the possibility of his resurrection. The ground taken by our Saviour in confuting the Sadducees, is that upon which we rest; upon which every Bible believer must stand. Said Jesus, ‘‘Ye do greatly err.’’ Why? Because they could not reconcile Scripture with ‘‘true science?’’ Because they were not well versed in philosophy? No. They erred, ‘‘not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.’’ The Scriptures many times declare that the dead will arise. The resurrection was taught to Abraham, as Paul informs us in Heb. 11. It was taught to Moses, as Christ proves in Matt. 22, etc. Job, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hosea, each spoke of it in terms so plain as not to be mistaken. Surely they were in great error, and in great ignorance of the Scriptures, if they did not know these things. And as God has said that the dead shall arise, so he has power to fulfill his own word. Here the Saviour rested it; here we leave it with the full assurance of faith and hope. God has spoken; he is able to perform; and so we believe.