Review and Herald, Vol. 27, No. 7. (1/16/1866)

Review and Herald

Jan 16, 1866

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 16, 1866

The Sunday in Scotland.

By Editor

OUR readers are already informed, that quite an animated discussion has been going on in Scotland, over the determination of the North British Railway to run trains on Sunday. In connection with this discussion, two letters from the pen of James A. Begg have been printed, which we copy below.

From the North British Mail, Oct. 25th.

WHICH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT?

To the Editor of the North British Daily Mail.

Sir,—Fifteen years ago I was permitted, in the columns of the Mail, to put to the Rev. Dr. James Gibson, and those then taking part with him, a question somewhat similar to that which stands above this letter. I am not aware of any answer having been attempted to be given, then or since; and as the Rev. Dr. Calderwood intimates that the late demonstration against Sunday trains, is but the commencement of a warfare intended to be continued, in the interests of truth I request your permission to call his attention to it. To me it appears that there is a very serious defect in the foundation of all the arguments maintained in the speeches made by him upon the subject, at the Presbytery and in the City Hall—a defect fatal, indeed, to the stability of the whole superstructure which he seeks to raise. And as, in his preface to the reprint of the former speech, he admits that "the true conclusion is to be reached by clear, candid, comprehensive discussion of the matter in dispute," perhaps I may be more successful in eliciting from him a response to a question which truly much concerns both his argument and his duty.

Dr. C. has assumed throughout, that Sunday has rightfully the place and authority of the Sabbath of the Lord—an assumption which, with full recognition of my responsibility, I confidently assert, the Scriptures nowhere sustain. And, surely, both the church and the world are entitled to ask satisfactory evidence, from those who imagine it can be adduced, that the sanctions divinely given to the Sabbath, apply now, not to it, but to a different day. Let, then, such evidence be produced; for it may fairly be questioned whether any zealous advocate, truly seeking the honor of its Lord in his advocacy, could, in the present day, find for himself a more important theme.

By his repeated allusions to the fact that there is in the Scriptures a divinely appointed law of the Sabbath, Dr. C. makes it all the more necessary that his hearers and his readers should be distinctly informed what and where that law really is. He acknowledges that "the only warrant for a Sabbath-day is the Bible;" and he speaks not only of "the Sabbath law," and of "the command which makes the day sacred to God," but also of the duty of "obedience to the divine law." Further, he inculcates "submission to a divine command expressed in the word of God," and states that "the authority which ordains a Sabbath, ordains a holy day of rest." All these expressions, however Dr. C. applies to what he calls "the Christian Sabbath;" not to the day which the Lord of Creation sanctified and blessed. What I ask of him, therefore, is, that he would cite for our consideration, "from the Bible," (which he acknowledges to be "the only warrant for a Sabbath-day,") the texts which contain "the divine command," "the divine law," the "authority which ordains" any change of the day, or a "command" by which the blessing originally pronounced upon the seventh-day has since been revoked, or transferred to the first.

But while such of your readers as are willing to give the subject consideration, "ponder the rule of Sabbath observance," as presented by Dr. C., I must avow my conviction, that the fourth commandment, which he truly says contains this one rule for its observance, "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy," is a commandment which expressly condemns him. It is not a commandment which leaves us at liberty to choose for ourselves, or to allow others to choose for us, which day we will keep holy. It, on the contrary, distinctly enjoins the remembrance of a day which Dr. C. wholly repudiates as the Sabbath, affirming that "what God asks is, that we consecrate to him one day in seven." But, in so saying, he not only employs words which are not in the commandment, nor anywhere else in the Bible, but he uses those words to convey a sense directly opposed to the express injunction of the commandment. The "one day in seven," which he alleges God asks us to consecrate, is the first day of the week; but, so far is this from being the case, that he has put into the commandment itself, Exod. xx, 10, the discriminating declaration, "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Not only so, indeed, but in the same commandment has the Lord of the Sabbath been pleased to assign the reason for his choice of that seventh day rather than of any other, in these words, "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." Verse 11. This is the only reason that is assigned in the commandment for the institution of the Sabbath, whatever other uses that day at the same time serves; and clearly it is a reason which does not, and can not, apply to the first day, or to any other day of the week than the seventh.

If, then, the commandment still be obligatory, "the seventh day," still is the Sabbath. It is mere delusion to suppose otherwise. Palpable contradictions are not to be imputed to the Divine Author. There is no principle which will admit of its being affirmed that the Sabbath has been changed to the first day of the week, which will still leave inviolate the authority of the commandment which declares "the seventh day" exclusively to be the Sabbath of the Lord. Either that seventh day is still the Sabbath, or the commandment which so enjoined, must have been divinely abrogated. The day therein named is as much and as essential a part of the commandment, as that it promulgates a Sabbath at all; just as truly and as emphatically as it speaks of the one it declares also the other. Let those who teach the opposite, consider whether they be not responsible for laying a stumbling-block in the way of their fellow-men, and be chargeable with the guilt of impairing in their eyes the beauty and significance of divine revelation.

I am, &c.,

Glasgow, Oct. 24th, 1865.

J. A. BEGG.

From the North British Mail, Nov. 4th.

WHICH DAY IS THE SABBATH OF THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT?

To the Editor of the North British Daily Mail:

Sir,—In my letter in the Mail of the 25th inst., I requested that the Rev. Dr. Calderwood would furnish us with his evidence of a "divine command" for the sacred observance of the first day of the week. I intimated, as the reason for this my request, that I did not find any injunction in the fourth commandment to that effect, as it speaks only of the seventh day as the Sabbath. Referring to my letter, the Mail of the 27th inst. contains one from a correspondent, who, under evident mistake as to the real meaning of his words, subscribes himself "An Observer of the Seventh Day." Instead, however, of furnishing me with the evidence I had asked, that the fourth commandment contains the "divine command" to observe the first day, he says quite positively, "I assert that the commandment mentions no day of the week in particular." Even if he had given proof of this, instead of assertion, it would obviously have done nothing toward supplying the desiderated evidence of a divine command for the observance of the first day, but would, on the contrary, have of itself, swept away the foundation on which all Dr. Calderwood's arguments were designed to rest. For, according to the Doctor, the first day is in some particular way in the commandment, and there too with sufficient authority, upon those who accept it, to prevent their running upon it both passenger and traffic trains

I must, however, leave it to the Doctor to defend himself in his own way from this new opponent.

Still, it is requisite that I should test, by the Scripture, the truth of this interposed assertion; for, if true, it would set aside all divine authority in the fourth commandment for any particular day, and is therefore as much opposed to my view as it is to the other. Besides, while the writer says that which implies an assertion that the commandment makes no mention of the first day in particular, he yet seems to think that, although it is without such mention, it is yet right to observe that day. I am therefore led to examine this altered ground of the argument also.

So far do I agree with Dr. Calderwood, that I regard it to be the very design of the fourth commandment, to enjoin the observance of one and only one particular day of the week. But I further believe, that the one special day so designed, is the day on which the Creator rested from His creation work, not the first day, on which that work was begun. Now, the divine resting day, the commandment itself informs us, was not merely a seventh day, but was "the seventh day" following the preceding six creation working days, for of that week alone does the commandment speak. Its work and its completion, and the Sabbath appointment on its seventh day, we are distinctly informed in the account of creation before mentioned, is not made of any other week or any other day. And before the Sabbath rest is announced, not only the creation work, but the divine rest also, had taken place. It was altogether because of the order in which these stood to each other, that the Lord chose the seventh day as his Sabbath, in memorial of his creation work, and resting from it. "God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Gen. ii, 2, 3. And accordingly, the proclamation to Israel in the fourth commandment is, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work; . . . for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it."

Looking at this connection, and at the assigned reason for blessing and hallowing the seventh day, we are not led to understand that God blessed and hallowed prospectively, in an indefinite way, any one day of the seven, which men at any time, and for any existing or arising reason, might prefer, so that in one age the seventh day, and in another age the first day, should both, and equally, be blessed and hallowed by the same commandment, while that commandment received no alterations, either in form or in substance. If indeed that writer's view, that the commandment mentions no day of the week in particular, would thus admit of its sanctifying different days to be observed in successive ages, I can see no reason why it ought not also to invest with the same sanction and blessing different days appropriated respectively by different persons at the same time, so that (for the sake of illustration) that writer himself might observe with approbation the first day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord, while Dr. Gibson observed the second day, and Dr. Calderwood the third day of the week, and this in all successive weeks, while each took the satisfaction of pleasing himself with the imagination that he faithfully observed the blessed seventh day.

If, again, the commandment mentions no day in particular as the day it blesses and hallows, but merely blesses and hallows in an indefinite way, we may extend our illustration, and suppose that besides the three individuals already specified to have a right of selection—a right which one of them seems to claim in virtue of the very terms of the commandment, and a right which all of them exercise—suppose every one else also to have the right of selection, and the will to exercise it likewise, might not the result be, that in the same city, or even in the same house, there might be persons beginning when they pleased to "work six days and rest every seventh," with such varied will and purpose of preference in selecting, and with such varied result, that each day of the whole week would require to be regarded as sanctified, and that by the commandment, which yet says expressly, "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God."

In point of fact, according to the theory put before us, we must suppose that in order to the high purpose being accomplished for which "the Sabbath was made for man," the God of creation, the Author of the commandment, has blessed and hallowed not only the day on which he himself rested, but must have blessed and hallowed, at the time of the creation of the world, whatever day it was possible for man to prefer as a day of rest—that is, all the days of God's working days, as well as that of his rest. We, however, learn from his word, that he neither blessed and hallowed every day, nor the first day, but only the seventh day, and that because that on it alone he rested from his work.

But if indeed the commandment mentions, and therefore means, "No day of the week in particular as the Sabbath of the Lord," but leaves us to choose according to our several preferences, then must that commandment at all times have given that discretionary power. The commandment, as we have it, is still the same as when it was proclaimed from Sinai in the hearing of the Israelites, and when it was written on a tablet of stone for future reference. It was made known as the divine law on the subject, by which they were to guide themselves, and as such, they were enjoined to "remember" it. If, then, the terms in which it is expressed give to us in present times a right of choice as to which day of the week we will observe and on what others we will work, those same terms must have left to the Israelites the same right of choice, so that any one of them might, without rebuke or penalty, have observed the first day or any other, rather than the seventh, as under such a view of the law as that supposed, they would be violating none of its injunctions, no day of the week being named in the commandment.

Let us then compare this with the actual facts in a recorded case. After Israel had heard the voice of the Divine Lawgiver saying, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," in circumstances, in short, when a rebellious spirit alone seems sufficient to account for such a violation of the law among them, a man was found daringly setting the commandment at naught, by presumptuously gathering sticks upon the Sabbath day. His case was referred for decision to the Lawgiver himself, by whom he was commanded to be stoned to death. Numb. xv, 32. No exemption of punishment was made for his working on the Sabbath on the ground that "the commandment mentions no day of the week in particular" as the Sabbath. It would not have availed him that he chose to sanctify another day as the Sabbath, even if he had offered to take the first day of the ensuing week. We thus find, that in the eye of the Lawgiver, the Sabbath of the commandment is a definite day. It was so in the age in which it was proclaimed to Israel. The commandment remains the same; none of its provisions or terms have been altered. Are we then at liberty to read and interpret those terms in such a manner as would have rendered the decision to which I have referred absolutely impossible? Do not we rather require to interpret the commandment as still determining definitely which day is the Sabbath, when it says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God?" The commandment itself, in its reason for the blessing and hallowing of the Sabbath, refers us back to the creation week. That week was no arbitrary or artificial assortment of days. It consisted of the first seven days; and those days followed each other in a natural and proper sequence. Consequently, the seventh day was necessarily the last day of the week; and the commandment declares that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord." The second week also necessarily began with the first day, and as necessarily ended with the seventh, which seventh day was again "the Sabbath of the Lord." And so the week and its Sabbath must ever stand in the same relation till the Lawgiver otherwise appoint. God's creation week formed to that extent a true and not a fictitious calendar of time, as respects man, and the world in its condition of relation to him. To him, the first seven days formed his first week, and every subsequent week corresponds with it, having, like its predecessor, its own first and its own seventh day, which days are to it the first and the seventh days respectively.

But the man who, in disregard of the divine arrangement and appointment, arbitrarily devises a weekly calendar for himself, and by his collocation of days of work and rest excludes the real seventh day from its proper place, instead of sanctifying "every seventh" day in the sense of God's commandment, would, on the contrary, never observe its sanctified and blessed Sabbath day at all. The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God, only when that seventh day is reckoned in God's own way.

I am, &c.,

Glasgow, Oct. 31st, 1865.

J. A. BEGG.

Along the Way.

By Etta Booth

WHEN on delectable mountains, Sipping at earth's purest fountains, Pleasant streams crossing, teeming with life, Passing amid the gay hurrying throng, Witnessing pleasures, and jargon and strife, Watch thy frail bark, that it bear thee along, Watch! that thy frail bark sink not with the tide, Watch! that it steady the tempest doth ride.

When baubles lie at thy feet, And joys and hilarity meet Fair temptation at the door of thy heart, And wanton pleasure with syren-like song, Pledges her haunts pure joys to impart, Ah! then guide thy bark prayerfully along, So watch that thy bark sink not 'neath the tide, But that bravely it may the tempest outride.

When Jesus our helper is near, The tempter none need ever fear; Then tempest-tost pilgrim on life's boisterous way, Raise the voice of thanksgiving in rapturous song. Our Lord will bring home to the city that day, All those who have faithfully journeyed along, O'er the treacherous waves to that haven of rest, Which he has prepared for the good and the blest. Etta Booth.

One Spirit in Them.

ThE following interesting remarks on the "spirit in man," are from the notes in Geo. R. Noyes' translation of Eccl. iii, 19. They contain truth that all Bible students should know. These remarks are more valuable, because coming from an able Hebrew scholar who believes in the immortality of the soul. He very sagely remarks in his notes, "It ought not to appear strange to any one, that the writer (Solomon) did not believe in doctrines which had never been revealed to him, or to his countrymen." But we may well say it would be very strange that the Lord should withhold all evidence of the immortality of the soul or spirit, from his people, and from Solomon so noted for his wisdom, and leave them to learn the doctrine from the heathen.

When speaking of the meaning of the word rendered spirit in Eccl. iii, 19, Dr. Noyes says:

"One spirit in them: i. e. the spirit of life. Compare chap. viii, 8; xii, 7; Judges xv, 19; 1 Sam. xxx, 12; Ezek. xxxvii, 8; Hab. ii, 19. Sometimes this vital spirit is called the spirit or breath of God, as having been imparted by him, breathed by him into the nostrils of men, and as returning to him again. See Job xxvii, 3. In Job xxxiv, 14, he is said to take back his spirit when men die. Compare Psa. civ, 29, 39. From a comparison of the preceding references, it will appear that, according to Hebrew usage, the return of the spirit to God denotes simply death, and not a return to a happy existence with God.

Whether it goes upward, etc. This is the rendering of the Septuagint and all the ancient versions, as also of Luther, and appears to agree better with the ancient idiom, and with the connection, than that of the common version. The term spirit in this verse, is the same in the original as in verse 19, where it is said that one spirit is in men and brutes. In both cases I understand it as denoting the animal or vital spirit. It seems to me improbable, that, in a sentence so closely connected with verse 19, there should be any change in the meaning of the term spirit, especially as it is here applied to brutes as well as to men, and as the spirit of all mankind, the bad as well as the good, seems to be spoken of in comparison with that of brutes. The preacher seems to me to express a doubt whether man, whom he represents to be like the brutes in many respects, differs from them in this, that the spirit of man ascends upward, or returns to God, and that of brutes goes downward, or mingles with the dust. I do not understand him to refer to the personal, conscious immortality of either; for in verse 19, he says, 'One lot befalls both. As the one dies, so dies the other. Yea, there is one spirit

in them, and a man has no pre-eminence above a beast.' The doubt is whether the vital spirit of man is more honorably disposed of after death than that of a brute. In chap. xii, 7, it is true, he positively affirms that the spirit of man 'returns to God.' But it is not very probable that he doubts here what he affirms there. The doubt is, whether any different disposition is made of the soul of a man and that of a brute; whether the latter may not go upward as well as the former. The foregoing exposition of the passage seems to be confirmed by the inference which is drawn from it in verse 22. If the writer had believed that man was distinguished from beasts by a destiny to an immortal conscious existence, and to a state of righteous retribution, and had, as many suppose, intended to express his surprise that so few regarded, as the writer did, the different destiny of the spirits of men and brutes, would his inference from the passage have been exactly what it is in verse 22? Is not this inference rather drawn from what the writer considers as the resemblance of men and brutes in all the points in which he compares them? It ought not to appear strange to any one, that the writer did not believe in doctrines which had never been revealed to him, or to his countrymen."

Conscience.

By Wm. Mc Kearnin

"My conscience does not condemn me." This has, in almost every case, been the excuse of those whom the Lord has led me to reprove for indulging in things that his word forbids. They say "my conscience does not condemn; so I am all right." But are you sure that your consciences are enlightened by the Holy Ghost? If they are not, they cannot be a sure guide. Saul said, "verily I believed I must do things contrary to Jesus," so he followed the leadings of his conscience to deeds of persecution, yet he felt free in all this, till the Spirit of God shone on his heart. Then, and not till then, was it safe for him to follow his conscience. The conscience that will allow us to indulge in anything God's word does not permit, must be wrong. Who professes religion and does not profess to take the Bible for his rule of action? Yet many do things it forbids. Sister in Christ, thou that fostereth pride by putting on things that God's word forbids, how readest thou? 1 Pet. iii, 3; 1 Tim. ii, 9; Isa. iii, 16–25. In putting on these things, you are advertising the world in characters as visible as if they were written in large capitals, "I am living in disobedience to the claims of God."

Brother, thou that makest hard bargains with thy neighbors, you know you have property in your possession that honestly belongs to your neighbor, but you say, "my conscience does not condemn me." The command from the lips of your Redeemer is, "as you would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them." Then do not allow your conscience to remain quiet when God condemns you. Like a true man, be honest with yourself. Would you be willing to stand at the judgment bar this day, with one dollar in your pocket that you know does not belong to you? Rest assured that it would shut you out of Heaven! Is not that saying of the prophet true, "as with the buyer so with the seller," are they not both guilty before God? Then repent, and restore, if it be in your power to do so, if not four-fold, make that good wherein you have wronged by mistakes or otherwise. Does not indulgence in superfluous ornaments in dress, or on your carriages, or harness, cost money for which you will have to give an account when the master settles with you? Then be not deceived either by conscience or otherwise, for God is not mocked.

God's holy word must be the chart by which we steer to Heaven. Then bring your life to this rule. Do not let your conscience lead you where the holy word will not go with you. "For he that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."—Wm. Mc Kearnin.

Reprove not with Anger.

Be ever gentle with the children God has given you; watch them constantly; reprove them earnestly, but not in anger. In the forcible language of scripture, "Be not bitter against them." "Yes, they are good boys," I once heard a kind father say; "I talk to them pretty much, but I do not like to beat my children; the world will beat them." It was a beautiful thought, though not elegantly expressed. Yes, there is not one child in the circle round the table, healthy and happy as they look now, on whose head, if long spared, the storm will not beat. Adversity may wither them, sickness fade, a cold world frown on them; but, amid all, let memory call them back to a home where a law of kindness reigned, where the mother's reproving eye was moistened with a tear, and the father frowned "more in sorrow than in anger."

The Fenians in Ireland.

FENIANISM is showing itself pretty strong in Ireland, which fact is creating considerable astonishment and alarm among the nobility. The following figures show the number of Fenians in the several counties mentioned: Limerick, 6,000; Kerry, 1,500; Cork, 11,000; Waterford, 1,000; Tipperary, 7,000; Kilkenny, 800; Wexford, 12,000; Wicklow, 1,000; Clare, 500; Kildare, 500; Dublin, 8,000. This makes a total of nearly forty thousand men, and if we estimate it for the northern counties, where Fenianism is yet weak, and the government has more partisans, half as many, we shall conclude that there is at present a force of conspirators in Ireland nearly as great as the army with which Lee invaded the North in 1863.

Giving, Losing.

By Editor

"I SHOULD have been a thousand dollars better off to-day, if I had pledged last winter or spring to give five hundred dollars for your free church in St. Louis." So said a brother not long since. "How so?" we replied. "Because we should have been obliged to sell our farm products to pay it, but having no immediate use for money, we neglected to market our grain, wool, etc., and now they will not bring as much into fifteen hundred dollars as they would then."

This brother who made this statement, is in the habit of giving. But he is not the only one who has failed to give as large an amount as would have been pleasing to the Lord, and who has suffered in consequence. We know of a man who was convicted to give us two hundred dollars for the Free Church in Buffalo. He had the money on hand and could pay it. But he endeavored to hold on to it. But he could not keep the Devil out of his pocket as easily as he could the Lord. Going to a neighboring city, his pocket was picked, and this money that he ought to have paid for the church was irrecoverably stolen. He grieved the Holy Spirit by refusing to give, and so was left without his wonted strength to struggle against temptation. He had formerly been in the habit of drinking, and grief for the loss of his money, and the loss of grace already sustained, led him to taste again the intoxicating cup, and he never, that we heard of, recovered out of the snare of the Devil. Men may rob God with apparent impunity, but the curse is certain to follow. Mal. iii, 8-11. If there is hope of saving their souls by taking their property to which they cling, then will God, by some of the numberless agencies at his command, sweep away the false supports upon which they lean, and call upon them in thunder tones to "set their affections on things above, and not on things on the earth." If a person prospers temporally while continuing to keep back from God the offerings for which he calls, it is at a still greater deprivation of the grace that saves, and should be regarded as a warning that he is about to lapse into that fearful state in which God will say, He is joined to his idols, let him alone. He may hold on to the form of religion, but he will be worldly or fretful at home; and at religious meetings when the dews of grace are falling all around, his soul will be dry, like Gideon's fleece, and from his unblessed lips there will never escape any expression of holy triumph. Let men of means employ their money where it will be really doing good, and neither lay up for themselves treasures on earth, nor use their money in building fine churches which have a tendency to make the proud prouder, and to shut out the poor from the means of grace, and they will see that they have as great a capacity for spiritual blessings as those of a lowly condition of life. You need not pray and cry for a blessing until you are hoarse, and then go away with only its semblance; try the method that God ordains; bring your tithes and your offerings into his storehouse, and prove him herewith; if He will not open the windows of Heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Thousands in this land have lost their grace, and are now on their way to hell, because they did not use their means as God commands; and many who have kept their grace, are in comparatively destitute circumstances, because they failed to honor God with their substance, and with the first fruits of all their increase. "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; there is that withholdeth more than is meet, and it tendeth to poverty."

Tired of Life.

OH! there are moments when I long to go, When this life's burdens seem too great to bear; My feet are weary of this hard, rough way, And disappointment meets me everywhere.

Oh! for that land where tears may never fall, Where earthly sorrows seem as dreams all past; Where grief and disappointment may not come, And weary hands and feet may rest at last!

But stop! What right have I to this sweet rest? May laborers ask their hire ere they have earned, Or cry for rest when for themselves they've wrought, And earnest labor for the Master shunned?

What is it makes my feet so tired and sore? Is it from running swift to do his will? Or from a long, hard chase for glittering drops, That I my cherished treasure-cup might fill?

Hands weary! Is it from the tears they've wiped, Or pointing many to the living way? Or are they weary gathering flowers that fade, Or grasping joys and hopes which will not stay?

Whence doth this grief and disappointment come? Is it that men will put my Lord to shame, Or has proud self been overthrown and balked In some dear plan for ease, or love, or fame?

Oh! self has been my end, my aim, my god! No wonder that I cry for rest and peace! But dare I hope the heavenly rest to gain, When wearied out in such a cause as this?

Oh! let me turn, and learn to prize my life, Because for Jesus I may spend it all; And count the longest, hardest life but short, And all my grief and sorrow light and small!

That when I've labored through the heat and cold, And brought my sheaves in patience to his feet, Then may I lay my head upon his breast, And know the laborer's rest so full and sweet.

How to be Happy.

"Some time since," says Dr. Payson, in a letter to a young clergyman, "I took up a little work purporting to be the lives of sundry characters as related by themselves. Two of these characters agreed in remarking that they were never happy until they ceased striving to be great men. This remark struck me, as you know the most simple remarks will strike us when Heaven pleases. It occurred to me at once that the most of my sufferings and sorrows were occasioned by an unwillingness to be nothing, which I am, and by consequent struggles to be something. I saw if I would but cease struggling, and consent to be anything or nothing, just as God pleases, I might be happy. You will think it strange that I mention this as a new discovery. In one sense it was not new; I had known it for years. But I now saw it in a new light. My heart saw it, and consented to it; I am comparatively happy. My dear brother, if you can give up all desire to be great, and feel heartily willing to be nothing, you will be happy too."

Modern Improvements in Palestine

THE Sublime Porte has lately issued an order to widen and pave the streets of Jerusalem; and this is accepted by the Jews as a sign of the coming of the Messiah, fulfilling the prophetic command to "make broad the ways, and gather out the stones." Modern improvements are making material changes in the face of Palestine. There is a telegraph at Jaffa, which connects Egypt with Beirut; and a branch line to Jerusalem is in contemplation. Preparations are being made to construct a carriage-road to Jaffa. There is soon to be a light-house on Mt. Carmel, and two or three on the Syrian coast. Two lines of English steamers touch at Jaffa monthly.

Christian Neatness

A CHRISTIAN should never plead spirituality for being a sloven; if he be but a shoe-cleaner he should be the best in the parish.

Continue reading: The Discussion in Portland, Me