Review and Herald, Vol. 24, No. 17. (9/20/1864)

Review and Herald

Sep 20, 1864

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 20, 1864

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.

By N. V. Hull

DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.

Elder Hull's Third Article.—Part II.

ELD. R. F. COTTRELL:

V. You admit that I make a fair argument on Matt. x, 28, and to those who choose such sentiments, it may be sufficient. Shall I understand you, then, to say, that it is not "satisfactory" to you, because your "prepossessions" and "prejudices" disincline you thereto? Ah! I fear so! But, being affected as I suppose by your choice, you proceed to say, "But those who can bring their minds to a thorough and impartial investigation of the whole tenor of the Bible teaching on this subject," (how like the talk of the Spiritualist,) "will find that your exposition of this text is out of harmony with the Scriptures." Your effort to free yourself from the force of my argument on this important verse, is confined to the meaning of the term soul. Of course I am glad to see this, as it is a clear yielding to the force of the logic employed, so that if I can sustain myself here, I may consider the question settled. My reason for regarding the term soul in the light in which I have considered it in this text, is that the ideas involved in the passage demand it. I have in another place given the rule for determining the meaning of words, namely, it is to be obtained from the connection in which they are found. This rule has, so far as I am informed, forced all commentators to the same view I have taken of the passage. Any other sense makes it meaningless. You refer to what Dr. Clarke says on the translation of the word psuche by the term soul, in Matt. xvi, 26, when in the 25th verse it is translated life, whereon the doctor says that in both instances it means life. But how does the doctor come to such a conclusion, seeing that in both instances the word is psuche (soul) and not zoe, the Greek word for life? Simply by translating the word by the sense of the passage, according to the rule I have indicated above.

But what is his opinion on Matt. x, 28? Does he here give the sense of zoe to psuche? Not at all! Hear him. "Verse 28—Fear them not which kill the body—those who slay with acts of cruelty, alluding probably to the cruelties persecutors should exercise on his followers in their martyrdom. But are not able to kill the soul. Hence we find that the body and the soul are distinct principles, for the body may be slain, and the soul escape, and, secondly, that the soul is immaterial, for the murderers of the body are not able—have it not in their power—to injure it." Thus you see that the doctor is strongly against you on this important verse. And if his testimony as a translator and commentator is good in one instance, why not in the other, especially when he follows the same rule of translation in both instances; for certainly, if he is right in the first case, he is also in the latter. Mr. Barnes says on this text, "That is, men who have no power to injure the soul, the immortal part." Boothroyd says, "There is such an opposition between the soul and the body, as clearly proves the former to be immaterial—what does not and cannot perish with the body." The soul exists separate from the body, and must be conscious of that existence, else the soul would be as properly killed as the body. The latter clause proves that the soul may perish by being subject to future misery, but it does not cease to exist.

But I will not multiply these quotations, although it could be easily done to almost any length; but will call your attention to the fact, that in several instances in the Old Testament, the Hebrew terms nephesh (soul) and ruahh (spirit) are used in precisely the same senses as are the Greek terms psuche (soul) and pneuma (spirit) in the New Testament, and that too when pneuma (spirit) has its highest signification. Gen. xxxv, 18—"And it came to pass, as her soul (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psuche,) was in departing." Eccles. xii, 7—"And the spirit (Hebrew ruahh, Greek pneuma,) shall return to God who gave it." Psa. lxxxviii, 4—"My soul (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psuche,) is full of troubles." Job xxi, 4—"Why should not my spirit (Hebrew ruahh) be troubled." Psa. cxix, 28—"My soul (ruahh) is overwhelmed." Mr. Bush says, "What assignable difference can be suggested in the import of these two words in this connection?" But he continues and says, "The case is rendered still more striking where the same Hebrew term (ruahh) is rendered variously in the Greek, as Gen. xli, 8—"And it came to pass that his spirit (Hebrew ruahh, Greek psuche) was troubled." Isa. ix, 3—"And the spirit (Hebrew ruahh, Greek psuche) of Egypt was troubled." A similar diversity obtains in the Greek of the New Testament, as follows: John xii, 27—"Now is my soul (psuche) troubled." John xiii, 21—"Having said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit (pneumati). How, moreover it may be asked, is anguish of soul (Hebrew nephesh, Greek psuche,) Gen. xli, 21, to be distinguished from anguish of spirit (Hebrew ruahh, Greek pneuma,) Ex. vi, 9? or "bitterness of soul," Job xxi, 25, from bitterness of spirit, Gen. xxvi, 35?" I have been thus lengthy, that I might put beyond reasonable doubt the correctness of my interpretation of Matt. x, 28, and to show you that you have great need to consider your statement of the import of psuche, in its bearing upon this question; and I trust every appreciative mind will concede, that the task has been performed with fairness, as well as with thoroughness; and if so, then, according to your own admission, the question in dispute is certainly put at rest.

There is one thing further on this point, to which I should pay a passing notice. You rightfully take advantage of an unguarded expression of mine, where I use the words destroy and kill in the same sense. This of course is incorrect, as the words are not synonymous in their signification, nor is the word kill applied to the soul (or spirit) as descriptive of its future punishment in a single instance, as I now recollect.

VI. You briefly return to the question of the "inward man," 2 Cor. iv, 16, and make, as it seems to me, a feeble and unsuccessful effort to sustain your former interpretation. Indeed your position is so utterly untenable, that the wonder is, you do not at once and openly abandon it! Let me quote a few passages, to show how plainly the case is against you. I begin with the text under consideration, 2 Cor. iv, 16—"For which cause we faint not, but though our outward man perish, our inward man is renewed day by day." Rom. vii, 22—"For I have pleasure in the law of God as to the inward man." Eph. iii, 16—"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man." Now let me ask you one question, Does Christ in us the hope of glory sense the strengthening influence of grace, or do we sense it in ourselves? If it is us that sense it, then it is us that are "renewed."

VII. You now return to the case of Nicodemus, and an attempt to show that he was questioning Christ as to the immediate appearing of his kingdom, and quote Luke xix, 11. But surely the case of the setting up of Christ's kingdom is not the subject of the Saviour's remarks to the noble Pharisee; but rather the necessary conditions of entering into the kingdom? Pray, brother, who ever but one burdened with the weight of a tottering but cherished theory, which he felt bound at every hazard to save, could invent such a theory of interpretation as you have attempted to defend in this case? Indeed, so palpable is your error, that it seems difficult to regard your effort with sobriety.

VIII. You now change the method of taking the lead yourself, and concerning the nature of man proceed to lay down the three following propositions:

1. "Man is formed of the dust of the ground."

2. "Man is mortal."

3. "Man in death has no knowledge."

On your first proposition, I have to say, that there is no dispute as to whether man's body was made of the dust of the ground, and that in death the dust returns to its kindred dust. Eccl. xii, 7—"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was." Gen. iii, 19—"For dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return." Job—"All flesh will perish together, and man will return again to dust." Psa. xc, 3—"Thou turnest man to dust, and sayest, Return, ye children of men." But that this returning to the dust refers to the body, which is therefore called mortal, is most easily seen. Rom. vi, 12—"Let not therefore sin reign in your mortal body." viii, 11—"He who raised Christ from the dead will also quicken your mortal bodies." But that which God breathed into man, when he became a living soul, was not "dust," and therefore cannot return to the dust, but on the death of the body, returns to God. Eccl. xii, 7—"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it."

So when Jesus speaks of his death, he is careful to confine it to his body. John ii, 21—"But he spake of the temple of his body." Therefore, when he was crucified, his body falling under the dominion of death, he committed his spirit to God. Luke xxiii, 46. So also Stephen, when slain by his enemies, said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Acts vii, 59. Your statement that one of the primary meanings of soul is the whole person, or body, amounts to nothing in this discussion, because that is not the point in dispute. Besides, to quote this text to disprove the words of Jesus, Matt. x, 28, and many other passages of Holy Writ to the same purpose, or to modify their exact and formal statements as to the nature of man, is in violation of every just rule of interpretation. If an exact and formal statement of Jesus, who made man, and certainly knew his nature—a statement made expressly to describe that nature—is to be overborne by a statement of Moses, the object of which was not to describe man's nature, but the process of divine operation in his creation, then is there an end to all effort to know the divine mind through his word! If indeed it were true, that Moses teaches the doctrine you assert, then you have him arrayed against Jesus, which would destroy his testimony, not only on this question but on all others.

To your second proposition, "Man is mortal," I answer, that before, and in this article, I have proved as I think, beyond the power of successful contradiction, that the term "mortal" refers to the body. I know that the statement is made in general terms, and in perfect agreement with the usages of all language, that man is mortal. But when, by competent authority, and in the most abundant manner, that mortality is affirmed of the "flesh" of the "body," it is not difficult to get an understanding of what is meant. Let the reader turn to Rom. vi, 12; viii, 11; 1 Cor. xv, 53; 2 Cor. iv, 11, and all will be plain. To attempt, then, to make Job affirm any more than mortality of man as a creature of the flesh, is to array him against the current testimony of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament, and also to convict him of a palpable absurdity. Why, man without any revelation from God, other than that which nature affords, have in all past ages had more consistent views of the nature of man than these. It is not only arraying Job against Jesus and his apostles, but convicting him of stupidity; for who does not know, that from all that can be seen, mortality can only be affirmed of the "flesh."

Your remarks on Rom. i, 23, are disposed of in my remarks above. I have not asserted that man is not mortal. He is. And the apostle who writes this text tells us, in 1 Cor. 15th, in his argument upon the resurrection of the body, that it (the body) is "sown in corruption, and raised in incorruption." How manifest, then, is its reference to the body.

Your third proposition is, that "Man in death has no knowledge;" and your first proof text is, "For the living know that they must die, but the dead know not anything."—Eccl. ix, 5. I will not retort upon you by quoting Job viii, 9—"We are but of yesterday, and know nothing," which, however, I think, would be as pertinent to the subject as yours from Solomon. Now, when the passage you have quoted is considered in its connections, and taken with the drift of thought then being uttered, how plain is it, that the writer is simply stating that the knowledge and the power we have must, in order to benefit us, be used here, as in the grave we have no knowledge, and therefore we cannot correct the mistakes of life after death. Solomon enlarges upon the same thought, and in verse 10th, says, "Whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might, for there is no work, nor reason, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave whither thou goest." Mark, this is in the grave where the flesh rests, not the spirit.

Your quotation from Psa. vi, 5, also points to the grave, wherein, no one contends, is the spirit of the departed.

On account of the length of this article, I have dwelt briefly on the texts you have introduced to prove your propositions, and on the propositions themselves. If need be, at a future time, I will consider them at length, if God please.

Fraternally yours.

N. V. HULL.

Casting all your Care on Jesus.

By L. E. Millne

AND wilt thou, O my Saviour, bear This weary, weary weight of care ? O may I in thy bosom rest, And with thy presence e'er be blest?

Oh refuge sweet, to me how dear, Oh what, my fainting heart would cheer, Amid my foes, who press me sore, Without my Lord whom I adore,

Though friends unkind do me oppress, Thou art, O Lord, my righteousness, In thee a refuge do I find, A solace for my fainting mind.

A kind physician to my soul, Thou mak'st my wounded spirit whole; In my afflictions thou dost share, And by thy help the cross I'll bear.

For by the cross a crown is won, That shall outshine the dazzling sun, And glorious robes all pure and bright, Shall deck us in that world of light. L. E. Millne. Shabbona, Ills.

Eld. Cottrell's Third Reply—Part II.

By R. F. Cottrell

ELD. N. V. HULL:

I come now to the fifth division of your article, and find you again in your strongest fort—your exposition of Matt. x, 28—and strongly entrenched with human opinions. I was aware that Dr. Clarke, Mr. Barnes, and a host of others holding your theory, would give a similar exposition of this text. Concerning the testimony of Dr. Clarke, you ask me, if it is "good in one instance, why not in the other;" and you draw this conclusion: "If he is right in the first case, he is also in the latter." This will not hold. I believe he was right in some of his opinions. Am I therefore bound to receive them all? If so, I might consider his commentaries infallible, and of equal authority with the sacred text itself. I do not rely on his testimony. But my quotation from him is entitled to more weight in this discussion than that which you quote; because the former does not favor his cherished theory, the latter does.

I have no objection to the long list of Scripture quotations you have given, showing the manner in which the terms soul and spirit are used in the Bible. I do not know but that they are all correctly quoted. But they do not touch the question at issue. I do not dispute that the Greek and Hebrew terms rendered soul and spirit are sometimes used to signify the mind and affections. But the question is, Is there a man within a man that does all the thinking, or does he do it himself? The various ways in which soul and spirit are used, do not touch this question. You speak of the "highest signification" of spirit. Does this mean the farthest removed from anything revealed in the Scriptures?

You refer to an "unguarded expression" of yours in which you used the words destroy and kill in the same sense. In our unguarded moments when we are forgetful of our theories, we are apt to use words in their common acceptation and true sense. Destroy is defined by Webster, "to kill; to slay; to extirpate; applied to men and other animals." And he illustrates this definition by the following: "Ye shall destroy all this people." Num. xxxii. "All the wicked will he destroy." Ps. cxiv.

In speaking of the outward and inward man, Paul's language is either literal or figurative. If literal, there are two literal men in one man, each of which, according to your proposition, is composed of matter and spirit. But you will not have this view. The only alternative is to agree with me, that it is figurative. I referred you to a number of passages, not because they all meant the same thing, but to illustrate Paul's manner of using figures—that when he says, old man, new man, outward man, inward man, he does not mean literally a man. When he says, "I delight in the law of God after the inward man," I understand him, that his best judgment and affections approve of and love that law. No necessity of resolving Paul into two men. "The inward man is renewed day by day." Does an immortal soul, incapable of physical corruption, need literally renewing every day? Oh, no; it is the affections of the soul, the faith, the hope, the love, that are re-animated daily, and not the essence of the soul itself. Very well. My view of man permits him to have affections, and unless you can prove that in order to have these, he must have such a soul as you contend for, the text proves nothing for you; and when you prove that, you will prove that brutes have immortal souls, for they have affections. If you admit that the affections of the man are the "inward man," we are agreed. If not, your man that is incapable of physical corruption needs literally renewing day by day, while the physical man, it is said, is only renewed once in seven years.

The context proves my position to be correct. Paul was looking, by faith and hope, away from the present affliction, by which he was liable to perish, to that eternal weight of glory which was in the unseen future. "For," says he, (we have an immortal soul? No; but) "our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen."

I shall not leave the question before us, to discuss that of the second birth. If you carefully reflect upon the hints I have given, you may be benefited, though you are "a teacher in Israel." But if you cannot regard them with sobriety, I cannot help it. It was sufficient for me to show that the text did not support your theory. This I think I did in my first reply. If you are not satisfied with it, I will try to sift it a little closer hereafter.

I have put forth three propositions, which, if sustained, are perfectly destructive of your theory of man's nature. I have sustained them, not by allusions from which we might infer the doctrine, but by positive declarations of Scripture, as clear and explicit as the propositions themselves. They are affirmed in the Scriptures as fully as I can affirm them. You try to evade the force of these testimonies by saying they refer to the body—the body was formed of dust, the body is mortal. But the testimonies say, that man was formed of dust, and "man will return again to dust." No part of man is excepted. Your argument, reduced to a syllogism stands thus: 1. Man is mortal. 2. The body is mortal. 3. Therefore some part of man is immortal. Your conclusion is not in the premises; and, very unfortunately for your theory, it is nowhere revealed in the Scriptures. Your effort reminds me of those who would make the Sabbath a Jewish institution. The argument stands thus: 1. "The Sabbath was made for man." 2. But God said to Israel, "The Lord hath given you the Sabbath." 3. Therefore the Sabbath was instituted exclusively for the Jews. If one of these arguments is sound, doubtless both are.

You give the right exposition of Eccl. xii, 7—that the spirit that returns to God who gave it, is "that which God breathed into man, when he became a living soul." I will sustain it by some scriptures. Job xxvii, 3—"All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils." Margin, "That is, the breath which God gave him." Gen. ii, 7. Job xxiv, 14, 15—"If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust." Ps. civ, 29—"Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust." James ii, 26—"The body without the spirit [margin, breath] is dead." You say, "But that which God breathed into man, when he became a living soul, was not 'dust,' and therefore cannot return to dust, but on the death of the body, returns to God." I reply, That which God breathed into man was not man, but simply the breath of life; and this is common to man and beast. See Gen. vii, 21, 22. "As the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath, [spirit;] so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast, [in death;] for all is vanity. All go unto one place, [when they die;] all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Eccl. iii, 19, 20. Man was made of dust, and man returns to dust. Do you believe it?

When Jesus died, he committed his life to God, and it was restored the third day—"God raised him from the dead." When Stephen died, he committed his life to Him who will restore it at his coming. I have quoted no text to "disprove the words of Jesus" in Matt. x, 28. And I deny that this text contains an "exact and formal statement, as to the nature of man." It was not given to teach the nature of man; but to encourage Christians to part with their present life, if need be, by the hope of a life "in the world to come." I have not arrayed "Job against Jesus," but, like a consistent believer, have labored to show the harmony of the whole Bible. When I recommended a thorough and impartial investigation of the whole tenor of Bible teaching, you exclaimed, "How like the talk of the Spiritualist!" My brother, do Spiritualists contend for the whole Bible? Had I been urging my exposition of a single text, which was not given to teach man's nature, but by way of exhortation, against the great number which speak to the point and expressly declare the contrary, I should not have wondered at your exclamation.

I shall not fall back upon the ancient heathen for "consistent views of the nature of man." If Job was stupid, so am I; for I believe his testimony.

To offset against the testimony, "The dead know not anything," you quote, "We are but of yesterday, and know nothing." This you claim is "as pertinent to the subject" as that. Think a little. When a living man is told that he has lived but a little while, and knows nothing, all understand, it is comparatively nothing; all that it teaches of human nature is, "Live and learn." But when we are told that "the living know" one thing, "but" that "the dead know not anything," it is a positive declaration of man's nature—of his state in death. Are you willing to admit that the dead know comparatively nothing—that they know less than the living? Not at all. Nothing is left, then, but a positive denial of the text. If your interpretation of Matt. x, 28, is sustained, this text, and Ps. vi, 5—"In death there is no remembrance of thee"—and other texts, fall. But let soul, in Matt. x, 28, mean life; as it certainly does in other passages I have quoted, which speak of the very same subject; and understand it in an accommodated sense agreeing with these passages; and all is harmony. "He that loveth his soul for my sake shall find it."—Verse 39. "He that loveth his soul shall lose it; and he that hateth his soul in this world, shall keep it unto life [zoe] eternal."—John xii, 25.

This course violates no text, nor any principle of interpretation, and leads to the inevitable conclusion, that the immaterial, immortal soul of popular theology, is merely a creature of the imagination—a thing not revealed in the word of God.

With best wishes and the kindest feelings, I am, as ever, yours, R. F. COTTRELL.

Looking to Jesus

I Looked to the world for enjoyment; it failed me. I looked to a prosperous business for wealth, balanced loss and profit, and I had nothing. I looked to my sons, for comfort and support; they died. I looked to Jesus, and found comfort, support, enjoyment, riches, redemption, everything. "Looking to Jesus," I expect to reach Heaven for my last home, where I shall see him in his glory.

Short Paragraphs.

By E. Goodrich

OF THE EARTH EARTHY.

For a man that is made of the dust of the ground, that is of the earth, earthy, who was made to enjoy the earth, and whose every visible relation and means of subsistence is of, and whose destiny is with, and back to earth again, for such an one so to transfer his thoughts, his affections and object of desire as to be properly called a child of Heaven, is no small matter. It is no work of an hour or day. Neither do the Scriptures teach that it is an easy thing to serve the Lord with undivided affections and with a pure heart fervently.

OUR OWN WAY.

We all want to go to Heaven, and we are all ready and willing to serve God. The only difficulty is, we want our own way about it, the very thing that we cannot have.

LOVING SIN.

The danger of following a bad habit consists in the fact that he that follows will soon learn to love; and a single corrupt habit that has clothed itself about with all the sacredness of love, will do more to fasten the chains of iniquity about us, than the mere commission of crime without love for it. Indeed the man who loves a sin has within him all the necessary elements of a sinner. And herein the school of Christ is superior to, and differs from, every other school, in that it begins by training the affections. If the heart is all right the rest is easily righted.

It is just as much a moral fact that he that consents to commit sin, is the servant of sin, and cannot purchase his own freedom there-from, as it is a fact in natural philosophy that he that fully and fairly loses his balance is destined unassisted to fall.

NOW IS THE DAY OF SALVATION.

We have both in the Scriptures and in practical life many exhortations and examples concerning the importance of improving the present moment. And the truth that now is the accepted time, and now is the day of salvation, may be learned of nature, and in every day's experience, as well as in the Scriptures. The past may leave its impressions behind it, and coming events may cast their shadows before them, yet upon the present moment hangs all the weight of interest and the burden of sacrifice. And in making promises of reformation for the future, we ought always to bear in mind that it will cost as much or more to-morrow than it will to-day.

BORROWED TROUBLE.

A great proportion of life's trials and troubles are borrowed. Being seen at a distance they not only look much larger than they really are, but they have the appearance of one unbroken cloud. Whereas when we approach them day by day we find them broken into fragments and easily overcome or endured. And not only is this the case, but borrowed trouble is the worst kind of trouble; because there is no real remedy that can reach or be applied to an imaginary disease.

WHERE IS OUR INTEREST?

A man's interest in any design or corporation is indicated by, and is generally proportionate to, the amount of actual capital invested in said corporation. The man who is a partner, or who has money deposited in a certain bank, is interested in the welfare of that bank, as the farmer is interested in every tree or stalk of grain that grows upon his farm. The Saviour expressed this same great truth when he said, "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." And how can a man expect to be particularly interested in divine things whose thoughts are almost entirely taken up with the things of this world, and whose sacrifices are all for the pleasures and comforts of this life? If we would be interested in divine things we should take an interest in them. We should follow up all our convictions of truth and duty. And then there will be no lack of heart-felt interest.

OUR TRIALS.

The trials of the Christian are of two kinds. He is called upon not only to do, but to suffer, the will of God. And there are some temptations that may be resisted and overcome, while there are others (like a thorn in the flesh) that are to be endured by sustaining grace. And the trials that come to us in suffering the will of God are ten-fold greater than those we experience in doing the will of God, as is fully evinced by the lives of all the wise men and prophets of past ages. It certainly requires more courage to suffer an injury patiently, than to resist an enemy on equal ground. For the man of passion may act, while it is only the man of principle that endures. "Endure to the end."

A FAST AGE.

A prolonged youth gives good earnest of ripe old age. And there is scarcely any thing more to be regretted than the premature development of mind and body that is everywhere to be witnessed in girls and boys of this fast age. For whenever the mind or body hardens into maturity, it can never again recover either its elasticity or buoyancy. And to see girls at eighteen and boys at twenty, walking about the streets apparently as old as their fathers and mothers, we can but regard it as a curse, a great calamity. Youth should be kept sweet as long as it can be.

HOW TO TREAT CHILDREN.

If we wish to know how to treat little children, if we would know what kind of words and influences are best calculated to produce good and lasting impressions upon the minds of little boys and girls, we have only to call up all the little incidents in our own childhood. Did we ever love our parents for speaking harsh and angry words to us, and for turning us away with a scowl and a frown when we came confidingly to them for their sympathy in our troubles? Certainly not. Do we even now remember with pleasure the instances in which false motives were placed before us, and we were told for instance, to go to bed and be still, or the black man would carry us off, or great bears would come out of the dark woods and bite us? No. We love them for none of those things! but we love them for their kind words and loving looks, and for their patience in teaching us to be good, and for their charity to all our petty, unintentional wrongs. Yes, kind words live forever. And their is no outcast of humanity so utterly debased and degraded, and lost to every feeling of sympathy and sense of gratitude, as not to remember with grateful pleasure those acts of kindness that impressed themselves upon their youthful and innocent minds. How often do we hear men old in iniquity and steeped in sin, say, Oh! I had as good a mother as ever lived. How she used to pray for and admonish me with tears and earnest entreaty! How I wish I had obeyed her voice.

TRUE VALUE.

The value of a thing which we possess depends upon the amount of trust that we can place in the thing. A horse that cannot be trusted with a load of precious freight, for fear that at the very point and place where we want him to draw faithfully he will either stand stalk still or else run away and dash every thing to pieces, is utterly worthless. And so it is with every object that we may possess. We want something that we can trust. And neither service, testimony, nor friendship, is worth any thing unless it can be trusted.

Now the object of all moral training is to school men, little boys and every body, so that they can be trusted. And in this respect moral training is to the mind what the balance-wheel is to machinery, and what the rudder is to the ship, and what the steam-gauge is to the boiler. It is calculated to direct, regulate and render certain all the actions of the entire man. And God has given an assurance in the Scriptures, that all who are faithful in temporal things, to them, he will render the certain and eternal riches of his kingdom. E. GOODRICH. Edinboro, Pa.

The Proof of Love.

THE King of Armenia not fulfilling his engagement, Cyrus entered the country, and having taken him and all his family prisoners, ordered them instantly before him.

'Armenius,' said he, 'you are free; for you are now sensible of your error. And what will you give me if I restore your wife to you?'

'All that I am able.'

'What if I restore your children?'

'All that I am able.'

'And you, Tigranes,' said he, turning to the son, 'What would you do to save your wife from servitude?'

Now Tigranes was but lately married, and had great love for his wife. 'Cyrus,' he replied, 'to save her from servitude, I would willingly lay down my life.'

'Let each have his own again,' said Cyrus; and when he departed, one spoke of his clemency, another of his valor, another of his beauty and the graces of his person; upon which Tigranes asked his wife 'if she thought him handsome?'

'Really,' said she, 'I did not look at him.'

'At whom, then, did you look?'

'At him who offered to lay down his life for me!'

Greater love hath no man than this, that he should lay down his life for his friends. Tigranes was willing to die for his wife. But while we were yet enemies, Christ died for us. How far this love all earthly love excels!

The wife of Tigranes did not look at the king in his beauty. She could only look on him who was willing to die for her. What shall we desire in Heaven more than to look on the face of Him who did die for us? There is beauty, glory, infinitely resplendent glory in Heaven, and eye hath not seen, nor heart conceived it, but nothing there will so attract the believer's gaze, as the face of Him who gave His life for sinners. Wonderful love! Unspeakable love! And we may look on Him and love forever.

A young man who had lost his mother, to whom he was most tenderly attached, had often expressed a strong desire to go to Heaven that he might once more meet his beloved mother. As he had no interest in religion, his desire for Heaven had no higher object than this. Some time afterward, he became a Christian, and when asked about the anticipations of meeting his mother in Heaven, he said, 'It seems to me as if I should want to gaze upon my Saviour a thousand years, before thinking of any one else.'

Christ had laid down his life for him. He would not look at another.

Eye-Sight.

Milton's blindness was in consequence of overwork and dyspepsia.

Multitudes of men and women have made their eyes weak for life by the too free use of their eye-sight reading small print and doing fine sewing. In doing those things it is well to observe the following rules in the use of the eyes:

Avoid all sudden changes between light and darkness.

Never read by twilight, or moon-light or on a cloudy day.

Never read or sew directly in front of a light, window, or door.

Never begin to read, or write, or sew for several minutes after coming from darkness to a bright light.

It is better to have the light from above obliquely over the left shoulder.

Never sleep so that on the first waking, the eyes shall open on the light of a window.

Do not use the eye-sight by a light so scant that it requires an effort to discriminate.

The moment that you are instinctively prompted to rub the eyes, that moment cease using them.

[Hall's Journal of Health.]

Repentance

By Venn

REPENTANCE.—False repentance has grief of mind and humiliation only for great and glaring offences, until it supposes pardon for these obtained. True repentance is a continued war against sin a permanent inward shame for its defilements, till Death sounds a retreat.—Venn.

Filling God's Bottle With Tears

O, sinner you have filled the book of God with your sins, and will you not fill the bottle of God with your tears.

Continue reading: Not" Yet "Satisfactory