Review and Herald, Vol. 25, No. 22. (5/2/1865)

Review and Herald

May 2, 1865

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 2, 1865

The Affections.

[Bro. White: Will you please publish the following article on the affections, from the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. It seems to me to be well worthy of publication, if you have room for it. We may be in danger, as a people, in our earnest desire to see the laws of our Heavenly Father obeyed, of losing sight of the equally important lessons of love and humility. The enemy meets us at every point. I have often heard it asserted that the Adventists were great sticklers for barren points of doctrine, and we want to show that we esteem practical points as well. There seems to be many good suggestions in this article, and it may do much good. E. G. Rust.] Chicago, Ills.

AFFECTIONS. With many, says Buckminster, there is, perhaps, too much of a disposition to reduce Christianity to a barren system of rational truths. They are apt to make it a mere collection of specific statutes, like a civil or criminal code, in which the precise amount of obligation, and limit of transgression may be clearly ascertained. Men of inquisitive and speculative minds are in peculiar danger of preferring the exercise of the understanding to that of the heart, and thus of rendering the light of religion little more than a cold coruscation, which imparts no warmth to the region of the affections. But, (he adds,) when we consider how important a part of our constitution the affections are, and how much they do in ultimately determining the character of the man, you cannot suppose that religion is the only subject, from which the exercise of them is to be excluded. When we consider, too, the infinite sublimity of religious truths, the influence they have on human happiness here, and on man's expectations for eternity, surely it cannot be, that he, who is impassioned on every other subject, may be always lukewarm on this; that the affections, which glow in every other sphere, must lose all their warmth, as soon as they touch the region of theology. If it were enough merely to believe, we might believe as well in a malevolent, as in a gracious being. If it were enough to know the sanctions, and admit the obligations of a law, the character of the lawgiver would be of no consideration. If it were enough to keep the commandments according to the barren letter of the moral code, surely the first commandment would have been more than superfluous—Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength. But it is not sufficient that the affections be merely admitted into religion. If they are allowed to enter it at all, they must enter it largely. If God is to be loved, he is to be loved supremely. If Jesus, though absent and invisible, is yet our Saviour and friend, he demands an attachment, on our part, stronger than death, which many waters cannot quench, nor floods drown. If the soul is worth any thing, it is inestimable; you cannot love it too dearly. If the interest of any reaches beyond this earthly scene, it spreads throughout eternal duration. It should move our feelings, as well as our thoughts. There cannot be awakened too deep a sensibility for the immortal welfare of a being, who is susceptible of innumerable gradations of bliss and wretchedness.

Let it be admitted that the Scriptures are written in the language of orientals, and abound in phrases and expressions of such passionate hyperbole, as seem, to the colder and more chastised imaginations of the western world, like the language of exaggerated feeling. But, with all this allowance, and it is great, they cannot be made to describe a religion which exists only in the head. There is not a worthy passion, which silently pervades, or tumultuously agitates the breast of man, that has not been enlisted in the cause of God, and encouraged in the Scriptures. Hope, the most animated of the affections, is, in our religion, the ruling spring of ineffable happiness. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to his abundant mercy, has begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus from the dead." The most impatient desires of religious improvement are represented, as a part of the Christian character: "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness." "Let him that is athirst come, and I will give unto him the waters of life freely." Joy enters largely into the Christian temper, "For the fruit of the Spirit is love and joy," sorrow, deep, piercing, and humiliating, is not excluded. "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted;" and the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit." Gratitude is a vital principle of religious obedience; and compassion is a sentiment so essential to religion, that it has even given a name to the righteous; and a merciful is equivalent to a good man. "I will have mercy and not sacrifice," was the passage so dear to our compassionate Saviour. Zeal, too, is not to be rejected for its abuses, if Christ, when he gave himself for us, intended, not only to redeem us from iniquity, but "to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." To these Christian affections need not be added the comprehensive one of love, for it is not only represented as the source, attendant, and result of true religion, but it is, in numerous passages, commended as the substance and epitome of duty, the fulfilling of the law, the end of the commandment. From this enumeration we may understand, that religion is not a bare comprehension of truths, not the knowledge and remembrance of facts, not the confession of a faith, or the observation of duties formally defined; but it is a celestial spirit, which mingles with and informs all our duties, in secret and in public, which agitates the mass of our intellectual and moral faculties, which discovers itself in fears and hopes, joys and sorrows, gratitude and humiliation, earnestness and all-hallowed love.

And why is it that in religion alone, things spiritual and invisible are to have no command over the affections? Is not this theory perpetually disproved by every observation of man's ruling passions? The metaphysician becomes extravagantly fond of his obscure and lofty speculations. The mathematician is in ruptures with the beauty of a theorem, of which the world sees nothing but the lines and angles. The artist glows with imaginations of ideal beauty. The man of taste has his fancies and his fondnesses, and discerns and loves a thousand inexpressible delicacies, impalpable to ordinary minds. And has religion nothing to elevate the soul, nothing to absorb the thoughts, to summon the passions, to make men feel? Because God cannot be seen, shall he be, therefore excluded from our affections? The single circumstance, that God is not the object of any one of our senses, is abundantly compensated by the consideration, that he is never absent from us; that he compasseth continually our path and our lying down, and that we cannot remove a step from the sphere of his presence; that every sigh which escapes us reaches his ear, and not an affectionate movement springs up in our hearts, to which he is not intuitively attentive. The faintest glow of gratitude, which lights up the countenance, shines before his eyes; and the least cloud of godly sorrow, which passes over the brow, sends its shade to the throne of God, encompassed as it is with "undiminished brightness."

That man may well be suspected, who takes an active interest in every event that transpires, is busy in every project that is ever undertaken, but in religion only is idle, inattentive, and incredulous. Such a man is not to plead that his feelings are not easily excited, or that his constitutional temperament is lukewarm; and one would think, that, if he were dead to every other sentiment, the immense interest, which he himself has at stake in eternity, and the still greater interest of a whole world of living souls, to whom religion is all important, would rouse every latent spark of passion in his breast, and suffer him not to rest in the cause of God, till the affections themselves were quenched in the flood of death.

The causes that modify the exercise of the affections in different minds, are extremely numerous, and some of them we proceed to consider. (1.) The external exhibition of a man's religious feelings depends much on his religious temperament. (2.) The religious affections are also considerably modified by the difference of the doctrines embraced. (3.) The affections also, are modified by the metaphysical direction of religious inquiries.

But there are pursuits of life, and habits of mind, which repress, and others, which utterly destroy the religious affections; which freeze the current of the soul's best feelings, and leave us but a name to live, while we are dead. Among these last must be reckoned worldly and avaricious pursuits. "If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

Another destroyer of the religious affections, is the love of pleasure. There are two classes of men that are governed by the love of pleasure: the gay and fickle, who are ever lost in the rapid succession of amusements; and the sensual, who are forever plunged in gross and criminal enjoyments. But the love of pleasure and the love of God are irreconcilable. They are at continual war; and they never can divide the empire of the same breast. "She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth."—1 Tim. v, 6.

2. In Rom. viii, 5, the apostle divides all mankind into two great classes, carnal and spiritual: "They that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the spirit, the things of the Spirit." Franck, in his Guide to the reading and study of the Scriptures, lays down the following characteristics:

CHARACTERISTICS OF SPIRITUAL AFFECTIONS.

1. A spiritual affection has for its source, the Holy Spirit, and is the fruit of His influence. 2. A spiritual affection tends to a holy end. 3. A spiritual affection is engaged on objects that are divine, eternal, spiritual, and invisible. 4. A spiritual affection, when engaged on sensible objects, is not employed on them as such; but only so far as they have relation to those which are unseen. 5. A spiritual affection is grounded on faith and love. When these do not operate, affections cease to be spiritual. 6. A spiritual affection influences the subject of it, to seek, not himself nor his personal convenience, as such, but God and his glory. 7. A spiritual overcomes a carnal affection, though the latter be otherwise very violent. 8. A spiritual affection is always connected with humility. The instant the mind is elated, affections become carnal. 9. A spiritual affection excites no perturbation in the mind, nor does it leave behind it any bitterness. It rather assists in the regulation of the soul, receiving every dispensation with complacency, and acquiescing in God with joy. 10. A spiritual affection tends to the amelioration of nature, the increase of grace, and the edification of mankind; having no object but the glory of God.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CARNAL AFFECTIONS.

1. A carnal affection, as it is opposed to those which are spiritual, so, it has nature for its source, and is destitute of grace. 2. A carnal affection has, for its end, the temporal preservation and amendment of nature, or, it refers all things to pleasure; and, particularly, seeks such pleasure not in mental peace, but personal convenience: and this, often under a pretext of duty. 3. A carnal affection is engaged on objects that are corporeal, local, temporal, and sensitive. 4. A carnal affection, if engaged upon spiritual objects, does not dwell on them as such; neither with righteous views, nor in a consistent manner; but only so far as they have relation to private gratification or convenience. 5. A carnal affection receives its existence and support from perverse self-love. 6. A carnal affection gives the preference to things naturally pleasing, though others may approximate more nearly to real excellence. 7. A carnal affection gradually disturbs the mind when it is at all indulged, rendering it incapable of investigating truth, or performing righteous actions; and it leaves a degree of bitterness in the mind, proportioned to the strength of the affection. Cicero justly used to term them "the perturbations of the mind." 8. A carnal affection has always a degree of pride in it, though it is oft very subtle. As long as this has place in the mind, carnal affections are not put off. 9. A carnal affection often induces a visible change of the body.

Although the carnal affections are, by these characteristics, separated from the spiritual affections, we are not thence to conclude, that they are so separated in the heart of a renewed person, as that the former never mingles with the latter. On the contrary, the believer's daily strife is to be more and more delivered from the sinful affections of carnal nature. It is according to the reigning affection, that a man is denominated carnal or spiritual. It were impious to ascribe any mixture of good and bad affections to the Holy Spirit; though we cannot deny that sacred affections show themselves in a sanctified nature, by external and natural indications.

3. That an acquaintance with the doctrine of the affections, is an essential requisite in the exposition of the Scriptures, may be proved from reason: for (1.) the affections of love, hatred, desire, hope, fear, joy, sorrow &c., are frequently to be met with in holy writ. It is evident, therefore, that were we ignorant of these affections, we should be inadequate to the exposition of no inconsiderable part of the sacred writings. (2.) When no affections are expressed, we must necessarily consider them implied; and that every sentence is of their dictation. (3.) Without a knowledge of these emotions, who can inspect the abyss of the human heart, and the depth of those feelings by which it is agitated? And without forming correct ideas of the affections which it is proposed to imitate, how shall man, who is carnal, "put them on?" (4.) The nature of discourse confirms the position. The words of Christ in Matt. xii, 34, 35, decidedly evidence, that unless some affection influenced the heart, language would not be uttered; so that a man's words are, in fact, the index of his feelings or affections.

Since then the affections are so intimately connected with all language, none will suppose that they are banished from the writings of the inspired penmen; and, because they are closely united with the language of inspiration, it follows that the sacred records cannot be adequately expounded, by those who are satisfied with the mere shell, and contemn the precious kernel of Scripture; who watch the lips, but never enter into the feelings of the inspired penmen.

It forms no solid objection to our views of the subject, that many commentators neglect this point of exposition, and pass it over in silence. This consideration is abundantly overruled, by opposing to it the high authorities that have advocated the study of the affections. Luther, for example, says, "Whoever adopts it, will, I am satisfied, learn more of himself, than he can gather from all commentaries united." An expositor should, as it were, invest himself with the author's mind, in order that he may interpret him as another self. It might be added, that those persons are usually but indifferent examiners of the Scriptures, who, in searching into their meaning, depend, partially, or entirely, on authority. It evidences, as Bernard has observed, that they do not read the Word in the Spirit, under whose influence it was written.

Besides, a consequence deduced from the ignorance or negligence of commentators, can avail nothing against the doctrine. It is indeed to be lamented, that very few are solicitous to ascertain the spiritual meaning of the sacred writings; but are anxious rather to be diffuse on critical, controverted, and difficult points, where there is a wider field for the range of natural intellect. This inattention to the affections is a main reason, why some commentaries are so meagre and unsatisfactory to spiritual readers, who, with a view to personal edification, search after the mind of the Spirit, and the revelation of the divine image. A comment, written without adverting to the affections, is so only in name and form.

Who Shall Wear the Crown?

'Tis not the mighty ones of earth, That proudly boast of noble birth, Whose chief delight is wine and mirth, Ambitious for the applause of earth— The crown, they 'll never wear it.

Nor yet the thoughtless and the gay Who love to walk in folly's way, Regardless what they do or say, Baubles that sparkle for a day, They too will never wear it.

Those saints (by name) who lightly tread Beneath their feet that holy Word, At fashion's shrine who meekly nod Lovers of pleasure, more than God— How can they hope to wear it ?

But those who choose the narrow road, That once their Saviour's footsteps trod, Nor faint beneath the chastening rod, Their rule of life, the word of God, They, they alone, shall wear it.

Poor pilgrim, weary sad and worn, Faithful the ills of life thou'st borne, Patiently waited His return, The Master hastens with thy crown— Take cheer, thou soon shalt wear it.

Oh drowsy Christian, why delay ! Up, to thy labor, watch and pray ; No sleep, no slumber, by the way ; For fear thy coming Judge shall say The crown—thou ne'er shalt wear it.

"The Sealed Book of Daniel Opened."

By WM. C. GAGE.

SUCH is the title of a work on the prophecies, by Wm. C. Thurman, professing to give new light on the prophetic periods, and aiming especially to establish a new system of chronology. The work has already been noticed in the Review, and some of its errors pointed out; but as I have lately been examining the book with considerable interest, I take the liberty of criticising what may be considered some of its weak points. And in the first place we might inquire whether the author had not undertaken a big job in endeavoring to accomplish all which the book professes to do, viz.: to remove the seals from the book of Daniel (which he claims was sealed up until 1864), and to establish a new system of chronology which shall supersede all others, and form a basis for calculation by which we may know the definite time of the coming of Christ. The book is more commonly known as "Thurman's Chronology," and we think fairly entitled to the name, for, while we respect the learning and ability displayed in the argument, we must protest against being compelled to receive "my tables," and "my calculations," in preference to those of experienced astronomers whose accuracy has never before been questioned.

The first step of Elder Thurman is to demolish the canon of Ptolemy. As all students of prophecy are aware, our commonly-received Bible chronology has this canon for its foundation where the Bible itself does not give a datum, so that to invalidate the chronology so long in use and so generally accepted it will first be necessary to unsettle Ptolemy's canon; hence Elder T.'s effort in this direction. Perhaps it may not be amiss to give, in this connection, a short extract from an article in the Advent Herald: "This canon places the seventh year of Artaxerxes in the year B. C. 457; and the accuracy of this canon is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty eclipses. This date we cannot change from B. C. 457, without first demonstrating the inaccuracy of Ptolemy's canon. To do this it would be necessary to show that the large number of eclipses by which its accuracy has been repeatedly demonstrated, have not been correctly computed; and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave the settlement of epochs and the adjustment of eras entirely at the mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more value than mere guess-work."

From the foregoing it is evident that any attempt to destroy this canon must be made by endeavoring to prove the eclipses incorrectly computed. This attempt is made by Elder Thurman, and so, to be able to follow him, a knowledge of astronomy is requisite; we will only notice his manner of dealing with one or two points. If we understand the matter rightly the canon is not absolutely dependent on every one of these eclipses for its accuracy, but their concurrent agreement is considered as powerful evidence in its favor, so that if one or two of these eclipses be considered doubtful, or not clearly established, it would not necessarily follow that the canon is destroyed. An effort is made to prove that two of these eclipses cannot be found, and at the close of his argument he admits that had they been found he would frankly acknowledge that Ptolemy's canon was correct. Now if the removal of these two eclipses invalidates the canon, it is of the utmost importance that it should be fairly and clearly done, so that none may doubt. We give an extract to show his method of dealing with one of them: "The next eclipse of the sun as offered in support of Ptolemy's canon is in S. Bliss's catalogue dated thus: 'B. C. 547, October 22, Aft. 6, 35; total; when Cyrus took Larissa in Media.' He gives Xenophon as authority, who says: 'At the time the Persians were wrestling the empire from the Medes, the King of Persia could not make himself master of the city Larissa until it happened that the sun, obscured by a cloud, disappeared, and the darkness continued till the inhabitants being seized with consternation, the town was taken.' (See his 'Expedition of Cyrus' b. iii, s. 4.) From the language of Xenophon, we may conclude this was not an eclipse of the sun, but what we call a dark day, caused by a thick cloud passing over the sun. This, therefore, proves nothing. We will,

however, give it a passing notice. According to Ferguson's tables there were about 10½ digits eclipsed; but my tables make about 8 digits." Now mark the language "we may conclude this was not an eclipse of the sun;" and again, "according to Ferguson's tables there were about 10½ digits eclipsed; but my tables make about 8 digits." Now must we believe, upon such evidence as this, that no eclipse occurred at that time? Is it not rather quite good argument that the eclipse really did occur?

As we cannot follow him in all his astronomy we will simply notice a point which he tries to establish, which must weaken his argument in the estimation of the candid reader. He gives it as the opinion of one or two practical astronomers that in order to be noticeable, an eclipse should be at least three digits in magnitude, and then, upon this, endeavors to establish as a principle that all eclipses of less than three digits were, at that age, invisible. What he means by "that age" we are unable to say, unless people's eyes were poorer in that age than in this, for if memory serves us rightly we have distinctly seen eclipses of 2½ digits. Now if his arguments is all based upon this assumption we may readily see where it will lead us. If his tables fix an eclipse of less than three digits at a certain point of time, it will not require history to corroborate it, for it was, "invisible!" Again, if history fixes a visible eclipse at a certain point and the tables make it less than three digits, of course the history is unreliable. So much for his astronomy.

Perhaps it will look like presumption for one so ignorant of the science of astronomy to criticize an author so conversant with it, but if we are not allowed to criticize on account of ignorance we certainly must not accept it for the same reason. We have, however, simply endeavored to show wherein his astronomy did not accord with common sense, for even great men may err. Other errors I leave for practical astronomers to point out, satisfied that sufficient evidence has not yet been presented to shake my confidence in the long-established chronology which has stood the test of so many efforts to shake or remove it.

In commenting upon the "going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem," he interprets the "commandment" as given by the Lord to Cyrus before he became king or had power to execute it, and then dates the sixty-nine weeks from the time when he came into power, or the first year of his reign, whereas the scriptures date them from the going forth of the commandment, and not from the time when, in after years, it might go into execution. He argues also that this period could not commence at the seventh year of Artaxerxes, because that date had been fixed upon previous to 1864, the time when the sealed book of Daniel was opened! and declares this to be a sufficient reason for rejecting all the dates previously fixed upon, even if there were no other reason. If this argument holds good we ought to reject all expositions of Daniel's prophecy made previous to that time, for it was not asserted simply of the periods, but of the "words" and "the book" that they were sealed to the "time of the end." Acting by this rule we must give up all our old positions in regard to the symbols, &c., which even Elder T. is not willing to do.

But perhaps enough has been said to show the fallacy of the reasoning upon which this new chronology is based. While we have endeavored to show the weakness of the position taken by its author, we have a better one to offer in its stead, for the position of Seventh-day Adventists on the question of the sanctuary is one which sheds a glorious flood of light upon the great advent movement of 1840-4, and indeed upon the whole plan of salvation. Admitting that the twenty-three hundred days can be shown to end at a point of time yet in the future we are no better off in regard to the definite time of the second advent, for those days extend to the cleansing of the sanctuary which is neither the earth nor the church. For a full exposition of our views on this subject, the reader is referred to the work entitled "The Sanctuary and Twenty-three Hundred Days," published at the Review office.

How extensively this new time movement may prevail remains to be seen; but certain it is that the progress of the third angel's message does not depend upon definite time, nor will it be hindered by it from accomplishing its work in preparing a people for the coming of Christ. May the Lord help us to become established in the truth and made ready to stand in the day of his coming.

WM. C. GAGE.

Manchester, N. H.

Are We Under the Law?

By Eliza A. Baker

[THE following article was sent to the World's Crisis, shortly after the publication of the article to which it alludes, but was declined. The reader can examine it, in the light of God's word, and judge whether or not, according to that standard, there is anything objectionable in the position taken.—Ed.]

In the Crisis of Oct. 25th, is an article under the above head, in which the writer tried to prove, that God's holy law, written and engraven on stone, is abolished; and I wish briefly to notice a few thoughts that occurred to my mind, while reading that article in connection with several passages of scripture, not for controversy, but for the truth's sake, as the Crisis is said to be devoted to the exposition of all Bible truth.

It is evident that the believer who is justified by faith in Christ is not under the law; and so long as he keeps the law and exercises faith in Christ, it can have no demand against him; consequently Paul could say truly, when addressing his Roman brethren, "Ye are not under the law, but under grace."

If the governor of this State should pardon a criminal who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to prison for life, would he by granting the man his liberty abolish the law respecting murder? Certainly not.

The law remains unchanged, and should he commit the same crime the second time, he would find he was under the penalty of the law. But when he was pardoned, he was not under the law but under grace or favor. So it is with the Christian, whose sins have been pardoned. He has become dead to the law by the body of Christ.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, &c., against such there is no law." Does this prove the law abolished? If so then there are no sinners. "For where no law is there is no transgression." Rom. iv, 15. "For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law." Rom. v, 13. "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead, (margin, being dead to that) wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." Rom. vii, 6.

The writer of the article referred to, said she could see no difference whether the law was dead, or a person dead to the law; but I can see a vast difference. If the law is dead it can have no demand against any one, but a person by becoming dead to the law simply becomes free himself from the law through obedience and faith. Yet the law will hold a claim on others who transgress it.

The law that many are trying to do away, was evidently Paul's rule of right. "What shall we say then," says he, "is the law sin? God forbid. Nay I had not known sin except the law had said thou shalt not covet." Rom. vii, 7. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid, yea we establish the law." Rom. iii, 31. He adds also, "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Why should the great apostle to the Gentiles lay such stress upon a law that was done away years before? Paul did not believe the moral law abolished, if he had he would have taught it plainly; for he says that he did not shun to declare the whole counsel of God. Consequently the abolition of the law is not a part of God's counsel.

The writer after trying in vain to prove the law no longer binding, quotes Paul's language in reference to his wretched condition, when convicted of sin by the law. How could the law convict him of sin when it was abolished at the crucifixion?

Says Jesus, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill; for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled."

There was a law which was added on account of transgression till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made. When the seed came, this added law was no longer necessary; consequently it was blotted out. But the moral law could not have been blotted out as it was engraven by the finger of God in stone. Christ fulfilled it by rendering perfect obedience to its righteous mandates, therefore "he magnified it and made it honorable." "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." "If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself ye do well."

My object is to get the truth; for we are to be purified by obeying the truth through the Spirit. ELIZA A. BAKER. Cornville, Maine.

God's Commanded Covenant.

By R. F. Cottrell

This is not the old covenant nor the new, but it comprehends the duty of all men at all times, and is a perpetual or everlasting covenant. "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. iv, 13. The old covenant was a mutual agreement, or treaty, between God and Israel, and it had, connected with it, "ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary;" Heb. ix, 1; and it continued as long as this typical system was in force. But the covenant commanded, which the Lord claims as his covenant, was commanded to a thousand generations; an expression that comprehends all the generations of men that would ever exist upon the earth. "Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations." 1 Chron. xvi, 15.

The perpetuity of this covenant and of each of its commandments is declared in the following text. "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. He sent redemption unto his people; he hath commanded his covenant for ever; holy and reverend is his name. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do his commandments; his praise endureth for ever." Ps. cxi, 7-10.

1. There can be no reasonable doubt as to what covenant, or commandments are referred to in this text. They are those of the first text quoted above. All these ten commandments are sure; they stand fast for ever and ever.

2. The for ever in this text is unlimited; unless the duration of God's praise is limited; for the text says, "His praise endureth forever." These commandments "stand fast," and "he hath commanded his covenant," during this same for ever and ever.

3. But it is claimed that the work of redemption is greater than the work of creation, and consequently one, at least, of the commandments was forced to give way when Christ died to redeem us. If these commandments were the old covenant, and were to pass away at the death of the Redeemer, the text should read, "He sent redemption unto his people and abolished his covenant;" but instead of this he says, "He sent redemption to his people; he hath commanded his covenant for ever." Accordingly when the Redeemer came, he confirmed every jot and tittle of this covenant to the end of time. Matt. v, 17-19.

4. This being the case, it still remains a fact, that "a good understanding have all they that do his commandments."

R. F. COTTRELL.

String of Pearls.

ThE memory of good and worthy actions gives a quicker relish to the soul than ever it could possibly take in the highest enjoyments of youth.

ThErE are men whose presence infuses trust and reverence; there are others to whom we have need to carry our trust and reverence ready made.

How all of us would hate and despise the man who should misuse our gifts as we misuse those of Heaven.

If you let trouble sit upon your soul like a hen upon her nest, you may expect the hatching of a large brood.

Celebration at Battle Creek.

Pen pictures of scenes and events of real life are necessarily limited and imperfect. The feelings, the enjoyment, the impressions, attendant on pleasant occasions, find a poor medium through which to convey themselves to the outside world, in pen and ink or type and paper. To be appreciated they must be a part of a person's own experience. This is especially true of the good season enjoyed by the church at Battle Creek, Sabbath, April 29. The meeting was the second of the series of appointments lately given for Calhoun County, and there were a good number of brethren in from surrounding towns, considering the unfavorable weather.

After a hymn of praise, appropriate for the Sabbath morning, Bro. White arose and remarked, in substance, that we had met to celebrate one of the grandest events known in our world's history—the rest of God after the six days' work of creation; an institution that had its origin in Eden, when man was in his primeval innocence, when the world fresh from the hand of its Maker, was pronounced good, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. But, he said, there was another institution co-eval with the Sabbath, originating at the same time and place, the institution of marriage. To the complete surprise of the congregation, he informed them that it was proposed also to celebrate that institution on this occasion. To do this he remarked that it would be necessary to call on Eld. Isaac D. Van Horn and sister Adelia P. Patten. The parties were thereupon joined together by Bro. W., in those holy bonds which God in the beginning ordained for the union of man and wife.

Thus were celebrated at once, both the institutions of the Sabbath and marriage, twin children of Eden, which, when Eden itself could no longer remain in this revolted world, but was translated to Heaven, God left upon earth, to mitigate somewhat the evils of the curse, and to bless mankind through all the checkered scenes of their fallen history.

The order of the meeting having been resumed by prayer and singing, Bro. W. spoke with much freedom from Psa. cxix, 9: "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed thereto, according to thy word." We would that we could lay before the reader, a verbatim report of his discourse. As it is, we hesitate to do it the injustice that would necessarily attend any attempt to give a synopsis of it. Suffice it to say, that all the young should have heard it, especially those who by getting a little smattering of the sciences to which their parents had not access, imagine that that takes the place of the sterling common sense of older and wiser heads, and that they are thus qualified to manage the affairs of life, not only for themselves but for their parents also.

There is too much of that spirit with the rising generation which was manifested, as the report goes, by a certain Geo. Brown, who, when his father took him in as partner in his mercantile business, proposed that their sign should read, "Geo. Brown and Father!" More especially still, should Bro. W.'s remarks have been heard by those who, thinking, as above, that they are capable of managing their own affairs full as well, if not better than their parents, suffer themselves to manifest inconsiderate partialities for the opposite sex, and who before they have formed a character for themselves, or wrought out a foundation upon which they can start in life, recklessly presume to enter into a life-long union with the objects of their childish and shallow fancies. This course was shown to be in vivid contrast with those who on this occasion, had taken upon themselves the solemn obligations of married life, at the ripe ages of thirty-one and twenty-five, after having established a reputation that life with them is a success.

In the afternoon we listened to an excellent discourse from Elder Van Horn on the subject of faith and works. While multitudes can be found who are ready to plead for faith, not so many seem to understand the place that works are to occupy in our Christian life. He showed that the two are inseparable; that while without faith it is impossible to please God, without works faith is no faith; for it is dead being alone.

At the close of the meetings, the countenances of the congregation seemed to say,—nor were words wanting in many instances,—that the day and the meetings had been pleasant, profitable, and good.

Continue reading: Wisdom. No. 1.