Punctuality in Attending and Taking Part in Religious Meetings
Page 1
Review and Herald
Jun 14, 1870
Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 14, 1870
Punctuality in Attending and Taking Part in Religious Meetings.
By D. T. Bourdeau
(Continued.)
In order that religious meetings may be carried on aright and to profit, it is not only necessary that all who attend them should come together with a spirit of reverence for sacred things, that all should come to labor, to labor to the point, to improve every moment, and that the singing should be appropriate and well conducted; but,
6. Quiet and general order should be promoted. Order is Heaven's first law, and we see it exhibited in all with which God has anything to do. We read that “God is not the author of confusion (tumult, or unquietness. Greek), but of peace.” 1 Cor. 14: 33. And those who would be “followers of God as dear children,” should try to imitate him in this excellent qualification; hence it is enjoined in the same chapter that “all things be done decently and in order.” Verse 40.
We cannot here point out all the causes of unquietness and disorder in meetings, and the evils growing out of them. Suffice it to say that the benefits of many a meeting have been either partly or entirely lost to many by disturbances of various kinds. For instance, how can we enjoy the preaching, praying, exhortation, or singing, or other religious exercises, when the mind is diverted from worship by the bad behaviour of some present, such as speaking, whispering, stamping with the feet, some one snoring, children playing, walking across the house, etc., etc. The angels must be grieved at such things, and how can those who love order, and wish to worship undisturbed, help feeling deeply over them? If we were indifferent at such disturbances, we should show a great lack of refinement, and that we have not a realizing sense of the honor that we owe to the Majesty of Heaven.
Disturbance in meetings may come from those from without, or from those belonging to, or having their interest with, the church. In the case of outsiders, a few words to them from the preacher, or from the elder or leader, addressed in a good spirit, yet with decision and an even hand, appealing to their respect, showing that we are glad to see them, yet we have rights, and desire to have them treat us as well as we treat them, etc.,—a few remarks of this kind are generally sufficient to secure quiet. At least they are the kind that should generally be used first.
As to promoting order and quiet among believers and their children, we would say that the desired end may be easily gained if all will manifest an interest in the matter. If all will bear in mind the sacredness of the house and worship of God, they will not walk in the church as roughly as they would in a barn, and they will teach their children the difference between the house of God and their own dwellings. If all will cultivate temperate habits in labor and eating, and are careful to not overload their stomachs before going to meeting, and are sure to keep awake to their eternal interests, I think we are safe in saying that the church will not be annoyed by any one snoring while their brethren are worshiping, and God, Christ and angels, are looking on.
In regard to the children we would say, that while we should not expect so much from them as we would from grown people, and should all be prepared to make allowance for exceptions and small deviations in their course on account of weariness, etc., yet it is a sad fact that there is in this age an increasing tendency on the part of parents to let their children come up without order and discipline, go hither and thither, and do about as they please; and the results of this almost unbounded liberty and slackness are felt terribly in the church. These things were seldom witnessed in the church years ago. If the children were taken to church, it was expected that they would keep quiet. In those times parents would discipline their children at home, teaching them to be quiet a number of times every day through the week, especially morning and evening when the family engaged in their devotions. Then their little knees were gently and patiently bent at the age of eighteen months or two years; and habits thus established were a great help to the children at the house of God, and would greatly help in forming right mental habits; for the mind will naturally run where the body does. One great difficulty in the way of some children's serving the Lord is that their wrong physical habits are a terrible barrier in the way. If the body is developed first, of course it is that it may be properly cultivated and trained first. But these things are generally overlooked. Does the farmer thus neglect to train and break his beasts of burden until they are highly developed intellectually? No; he has an interest of his own to serve. So God wants the service of the children. One great trouble is, the work is not commenced early enough. Parents wait until their children have grown out of their reach.
We are aware that this subject is a nice one to handle. It is like touching the apple of the eye, and some are likely to resent. But here is a duty, and where duty leads, by the grace and strength of God we can go; else God enjoins an impossibility, and he has not provided means whereby we can obey him. We cannot thus dishonor God. If we fail, the fault is our own, and the truth holds good. What we want is, to see the magnitude of the work, do all that we can, leaning upon God, who has promised his aid.
Some are constantly embracing the truth who have had no chance to give their children a religious education. With such we would bear patiently as the Lord has borne with us, and we would encourage them as they try to redeem the past. We make an allowance for them. God strengthen them and give them wisdom. We would not lash them. But those who have been years in the truth, and whose children are unruly in the church, and a by-word with unbelievers, are less excusable. God help such to arouse, that their children may not counteract all the good they might do.
But let not the good, conscientious mothers who are doing the best they can, keep away from meetings. Let them under ordinary circumstances, come, and bring their little ones with them. Yet a little caution and care are necessary. If their young children are likely to be noisy, they can take a more retired place in the congregation, that they may step out if necessary, and that the young orators may not drown the voice of the speaker. It would also greatly help parents to have their children sit with them in meeting. Often the children are suffered to sit with other children, which opens the way for temptations. We have seen good parents take their children out during service and correct them properly. This is far better than to have them annoying the entire congregation. Such parents have our esteem. Also it will be found beneficial for parents to have their children understand that they will have to render an account to them at home for their ill behavior in meeting. And children should also be approbated for their good behavior in meeting.
7. The meetings should close when the interest is good. Then a good impression will be left, and there will be an attraction toward the next meeting; otherwise the opposite results will follow. But
8. The best rule is to previously live out the truth, that we may have a living experience; to live out our prayers, singing, exhortation and preaching, and practice these duties in secret, and with reference to ourselves. To worship properly in public, we must first worship in a more private capacity. To illustrate: Those only are prepared to pray in public, who daily commune with God in secret. Such bring God with them in their public prayers. Again, those alone are prepared to exhort and preach to others who have previously exhorted and preached to themselves. Then they are prepared to adapt the truth to others as they have to themselves, and their testimonies will be timely and in place, they having obeyed and experienced the things they enjoin upon others. Such can meet in Jesus' name, expecting his presence and blessing in worshiping acceptably. D. T. BOURDEAU.
'Tis seed-time now; sow while you may,
'Tis no time now to sleep;
And if you sow good seed to-day,
Good you will surely reap.
'Tis seed-time now; what kind of seeds
The harvest will proclaim,
If you sow nought but tares and weeds,
Reaping you'll find the same.
'Tis seed-time now; your hope is vain,
While sowing sin and strife,
That you will reap the golden grain
Of everlasting life.
'Tis seed-time now; 'twill soon be o'er,
The reaping soon will come;
Prepare to reap life evermore,
And shout the harvest home.
R. F. Cottrell.
Good Breeding at Home
Good breeding is a guard upon the tongue; the misfortune is, that we put it off and on with our fine clothes and visiting manners, and do not wear it where it is most wanted—at home!
Verse 6. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 7. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away. 8. how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? 9. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 10. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. 11. For if that which was done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
What does the text assert “is done away”?
“That which was glorious.” Verse 11.
What is the subject of “was glorious,” in verse 7?
“Ministration.” It cannot be “death;” for that is in the objective case, governed by the preposition of. Ministration, and not death, was glorious.
What is the meaning of ministration?
“The act of performing service.”—Webster.
The Greek word here rendered ministration, is, in other places in the New Testament, rendered serving, ministry, ministering, service, administration, &c. The apostle contrasts the service of Moses, who was the leading minister of that dispensation, with that of the ministers of the gospel of Christ, claiming that, though that was attended with glory, this is more glorious. The former ministration he represents in a figure, as ministering death; the latter as ministering the spirit, which is another term for life; for whether it refers merely to the animating principle without which the body is dead (James 2: 26), or to the Holy Spirit, it is the same; it is that which in some sense gives life, and thus contrasts with death. The thing administered by the former was death, by the latter, life. Then varying the figure, the former administers condemnation, the latter righteousness, or, as Campbell renders it, justification, the consequence of righteousness. Thus the contrast is perfect.
What was written on the stones?
Not the ministration, but the thing administered—not the acts performed by Moses in bringing the tables of the law from God to the people, but the law of God, written by his own finger, the ten commandments. The ministration, which was glorious, so that the minister’s face shone, was not written upon the stones, but the death which he administered was written there.
Is the law of God death, then?
In a figure it is. It was “ordained to life”—this was the intention—but Paul says he found it to be unto death. Not that there was any fault in the law; for that is holy, just, and good; but sin deceived him and, by thus turning the law against him, wielded it to slay him. Rom. 7: 9–13.
“Sin is the transgression of the law,” and “the wages of sin is death.” Therefore the law is death to all; for “all have sinned.” The law cannot give life to its transgressor; because it condemns him to death. It is Christ alone that can give pardon and life. Hence the ministration of the law is only the ministration of condemnation and death, while the ministration of the gospel of Christ, is the ministration of pardon and righteousness, of spirit and life.
Was not the law abolished with its ministration?
No; for if the law were abolished, there would be no sin; for “where no law is, there is no transgression,” which is sin; and where no sin is, there is no death, which is “the wages of sin.” Hence, had the law perished when Christ died, there would have been no need of the ministration that Paul had afterward received, to call men to righteousness, and thus deliver them from condemnation and death. Our text says, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Both declarations are in the present tense. He does not say, Once the law killed every one, and the gospel restored no one to life; but now the gospel restores men to life, because there is no law to condemn any one to death. This would be equal to pardoning a sinner, because he has no sin, and remitting the penalty, because no penalty is due. This same apostle, who was converted some years after to the cross, and sent to preach “forgiveness of sins” to the Gentiles, says in another place, “I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” And he found no deliverance “from the body of this death,” till he found it in Christ. When in Christ, he could say there is “now no condemnation.” The law that slew Saul, in the present dispensation, was the law which said, “Thou shalt not covet,” the same that was written in the tables of stone. This is the letter which killed him; but the “Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” made him alive, and free from condemnation. Rom. 7: 7–25; 8: 1–5.
But is it not because the law is abolished, that it is called a dead letter?
Who calls it a dead letter? Paul says, The letter killeth. Dead men do not commit manslaughter. It is the living that deal death-blows. It is a living law only that can slay its transgressor. It was a living law, and one that the apostle says is holy, just, good and spiritual, that slew him. To him it was condemnation and death, till in Christ he found “life from the dead.” Abolish the moral law, and the sinner is alive without the pardon offered by the gospel. If the letter no longer kills, there is no need of the spirit to restore to life.
But I understand that the old covenant was God’s ancient plan of saving men, but now he has a new system of salvation—the new covenant.
What you understand, is an absurdity. The old covenant, with its ordinances of divine service and its worldly sanctuary, could not, with all the blood of slain beasts, take away one sin—could not give life to one sinner. But those sacrifices pointed them to the blood of the new covenant, which could remove their sins. All that are saved of the ancients are saved by the blood of the new covenant alone. They had both the law and the gospel; both the letter that killeth, and the spirit that giveth life. Without Christ to give them life, not one of them could live—all must finally be condemned. The law to kill, and no Saviour to give them life! This would be universal damnation to the ancients. And if the gospel has superseded the moral law, so that the moderns have not the law to condemn them to death, and besides this, have a mighty Saviour who has life in himself to give them, they must be sure of salvation, whether they come to Christ or not.
The new covenant was to write the law of God in the heart. And it will be found that holy men of old that could say in truth, “Oh, how love I thy law? it is my meditation all the day,” are heirs of the “better promises” of the new covenant, namely, the law in the heart, the forgiveness of sins, and an “eternal inheritance,” and that “God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city.” See Heb. 8: 6, 10, 12; 9: 12; 11: 16.
Now why is it that the perpetuity of the moral law, written by the finger of God, is called in question? No Christian doubts the obligation of any one of its commandments except the fourth. But for the “Sabbath question,” our text would never have been supposed to teach the abolition of a jot or tittle of this holy law. But the text does not single out this commandment. It does not mention the Sabbath. If it prove one precept of the code abolished, it proves that all are. And if nine of them, though abolished, are still binding, who knows that the other is not? There must be something peculiar about the Sabbath, that it should be the ground of so much controversy, and that it should be deemed advisable to abolish the whole moral code to get rid of it.
There is something remarkable, if not peculiar, about this commandment, which makes it extremely hard to be disposed of. It is the only one of the ten which points us back to the creation of the world for its origin, to the time when the Sabbath was blessed and sanctified for sinless man in Eden. This it does 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.” It is also the only commandment of the ten singled out in prophecy and its observance predicted in the world to come, in Eden restored. Says the evangelical prophet, “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” Isa. 66: 22, 23. Now, whether the new heavens and earth refer to the present dispensation, as some suppose, or to a state still future, as we have assumed, it is certain that the Sabbath is not yet abolished. And since we see not yet all flesh observing it from week to week, we are strongly inclined to the opinion that the prophecy will be fulfilled in the future, the immortal state.
It is truly wonderful that an institution so good, so divine, and which extends from Paradise before the fall to Paradise restored, should be the cause of so much trouble among men, and induce such desperate and insane struggling to get it abolished. Would it not be better to cease from the vain struggle, and let truth be truth?
It is certain that Paul does not teach in the clearest manner possible in 2 Cor. 3. that the law of God written in tables of stone is abolished. It is possible that the ministration of Moses and those who succeeded him was the thing declared to be abolished. Those who are inclined to think that the apostle meant here to teach the abolition of the law, will do well to hear his testimony when he speaks directly to the point. Do you wish to know what he would say to the question when directly stated? You can be gratified by reading Rom. 3: 31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid! yea, we establish the law.” The Greek word here rendered “make void,” is the same that in 2 Cor. 3, is rendered “done away” and “abolished.” Hence the apostle raises the very question at issue, and then gives it the most direct and decisive answer in the negative. Those who really wish to know what he meant to teach on this question, here have his testimony directly to the point, and as plain as words can make it.
R. F. COTTRELL.
The Two Theories.
By John Matteson
1. The righteous and the wicked shall be rewarded and punished in the day of Judgment. The day of Judgment begins where probation ends, and ends with the lake of fire beyond the thousand years.
2. The righteous go to Heaven as soon as they die, and the soul, or real man, enjoys immortal glory in the presence of God. But the wicked go immediately after death into hell fire and receive their punishment.
Now let us look upon these two theories in the light of Matt. 25: 31-41.
1. The Son of man has not yet come in his glory, with all the holy angels. The second coming of Christ is still in the future. So far we agree.
2. The nations spoken of which shall be gathered, and then separated one from another, include all the righteous and all the wicked that ever lived upon the earth. For when he says to them on his right hand, “Come ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom!” this must embrace all the righteous; otherwise some would be left out of the kingdom. And when he says to those on the left hand, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,” it must refer to all the wicked who receive their final punishment in the lake of fire. On this we must also agree.
3. Now then, upon the principles of the second theory we have:
1. All the righteous and wicked once separated, and placed respectively in Heaven and hell. Then in the Judgment they are all taken out, mixed together, and then separated the second time. There is no avoiding this; for it is plainly stated, that when Christ comes, he shall separate the righteous and wicked “one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.” Does it look reasonable or scriptural that Christ will do this work of separation twice; first at death, and then in the Judgment have them all mixed together again and try the work of separation once more?
2. Christ is represented as saying in the last day to all the righteous, Come, inherit the kingdom. Whereas by far the greater part of them had inherited203that kingdom a long time ago. Then righteous Abel might well say, Lord, why do you tell me to come and inherit the kingdom? Have you forgotten that I have been with you in the kingdom these six thousand years? And so the whole host of patriarchs, apostles, and martyrs. They have been with Christ hundreds and thousands of years in glory. Why, then, does he tell them to come, and to inherit the kingdom. There must be a mistake in that theory.
3. Christ is represented as saying to the wicked in the Judgment day, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. Whereas millions of these poor men, according to said theory, have come right out of hell fire, and some have been burning there for six thousand years. You might imagine them rising up scorched, and singed, half crippled, with distorted faces, gnashing their teeth, blaspheming and cursing, saying, Good heaven! we have been tormented in this terrible fire these five thousand years. And now do you bid us return? What do you do that for? We are well acquainted with that horrible place. (If any take the position that the fire is not literal, it does not better their theory any, for if they have been in torment, whether by fire or any other means, it does not alter the argument.)
Surely theory number two is terribly lame, and contrary to the Bible and common sense.
Now let us examine theory No. 1.
1. The righteous and wicked all go to one place when they die. “Because man goeth to his long home. . . . Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” Eccl. 12: 5-7. Surely man means the whole human race. And the body of every man goes back to the earth; and the spirit of those bodies returns unto God who gave it. If the dust means the bodies of all, wicked and righteous, then the spirit does also embrace the spirit of all, righteous and wicked. There is no getting away from this.
2. Then in the great Judgment day the King shall resurrect every man, and cause spirit or breath to enter into them again. Eze. 37: 5. And they shall live. Then the Lord will separate the righteous from the wicked, as he calls forth the righteous in the first resurrection unto life, and the wicked in the second resurrection unto damnation. John 5: 28, 29. This is all consistent and scriptural.
3. Then shall the king for the first time extend the gracious invitation to his glorified saints, “Come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” And the righteous, robed in honor and glory, enter upon the possessions of the heavenly kingdom. Then for the first time does he also bid the wicked to depart into everlasting fire. They must die the second death. May the Lord help us to prepare for the solemn decision.
Farlinville, Kan., April 19, 1870.
JOHN MATTESON.
How Much Owest Thou unto My Lord?
By Emily L. Canright
SHOULD we take all things into consideration, it would be impossible for us to set the bounds of our indebtedness to God; and yet were we called to give an account of our stewardship, I am afraid that some of us would be found wanting. As a general thing, we are apt to be very delinquent in discharging this great debt. Reason teaches us that we owe everything to God, and inspiration tells us that “we are not our own,” we “are bought with a price,” and that price is the blood of Christ. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s. “For ye are not your own.” What weighty words are these! With what power they go home to our hearts! God help us, that we may fully realize them. It is a great thing to make a full consecration, to lay all upon the altar, to be in the world, and yet not be of the world, and to dedicate ourselves, our time, and talents, and all that we have and are, to God and to his service. And why should we not do this? Where could we make a more profitable investment? It is an old and trite saying, concerning the pleasures of this world, and it is none the less true because trite, that “you cannot pluck a rose, and not be pricked by the thorn imbedded in its leaves.” But here is a blessing from the Lord “which maketh rich and addeth no sorrow therewith,” and that blessing is peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Perhaps of all the sacrifices that God claims at our hands, money is given by some the most grudgingly. “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.” “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of Heaven, and pour you out a blessing that there shall not be room enough to receive it. “Is not this the fast that I have chosen?” “Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked that thou cover him?” “Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee; and the glory of the Lord shall be thy rere-ward.” “Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am.”
How very near is God to those who willingly divide their substance, and how severe his denunciations against those who are hoarding their gold. “Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasures together for the last days.” How many of us are laying up treasures in Heaven, and making sacrifices here for that priceless boon that shall be ours hereafter? In generations past when parents felt it to be a sacred duty to lay up for their children, it was more excusable; but what a lame apology have we to offer “on whom the ends of the world are come.” There will be no lots in the celestial city that we can buy to speculate on; no mill-power on that stream of water that floweth clear as crystal, from the throne of God. And when we are called to give up our account, it will not be asked whether we are rich or poor, but, Is the world any better for our having lived in it?
EMILY L. CANRIGHT.
Another Sign of the End.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
AMONG the signs Christ gives of his second coming is that of “the sea and the waves roaring.” Luke 21 : 25: This indicates frequent and terrible storms; and that such has been remarkably the case of late is noticed on all hands. Says the Union Hand Book, 1870, “The frequency and violence of thundergusts and the many catastrophes that have attended them have of late excited general apprehension.”
Let us see in this a herald of the coming One.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
Christ the Way, Truth, and Life
Out of Christ as the Way, there is nothing but wandering; out of Christ as the Truth, nothing but error; out of Christ as the Life, nothing but eternal death.
Numerous instances in Scripture show that God, by his Spirit, warns and invites men, and entreats them to flee from the storm of wrath which impends over a guilty world.
With wonderful faithfulness, the Spirit of God strives with man; at one time, showing him the sinfulness of his nature and the corruptions of his heart; at another, showing him the reward of the righteous and the fate of the unrighteous. Again it points out the way of life and the way of death; intreating him to shun the one and win the other, by every noble and lawful means. God endeavors to save the race of man; but poor, puny worms of the dust, children of Adam, cursed by sin, are bent on ruin; and the Spirit of God, after years and years of fruitless toil, gives over the deluded soul to ruin. No one can say that God has been slack or neglectful in warning men. “Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; but ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof; I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh.” Prov. 1: 24-26. Because he has done all that omnipotence could do for man, as a free agent; he has done this kindly, thoroughly, perseveringly, therefore, when he ceases longer to strive with man, destruction is sure.
Dear people of God, let us cease to grieve the Spirit of God. Let us rise by deep repentance and humility, to perfection of life.
Let us wash our garments, by obtaining a full pardon of all our sins; and let us hourly, constantly, watch, lest our garments be defiled again by sin. Thus let us cherish the good Spirit of God, instead of grieving it. Jos. Clarke.
Geology Again at Fault.
It seems impossible for geology, or rather geologists, or rather those skeptics who attempt to use geology as a breastwork from behind which to attack the Scriptures—it seems impossible for such to come to any sensible conclusion. They never seem to feel contented and at home till they have reared upon nothing a huge superstructure of as wild and preposterous guesses, as language can be made to express. And when a fact comes to light which scatters to the four winds their baseless theories, nothing abashed, they proceed to erect others equally silly, on foundations equally unsubstantial. The bubbles which they blow, they persist in declaring to be solid spheres, till one after another they collapse and show themselves to be nothing but air. The following is a late instance of this kind:
“A learned paper in the London Quarterly insists that there is abundant evidence to prove that a large part of the megalithic structures of England and of Europe, which have been supposed to date back far into prehistoric times, are really more modern than the Christian era. These rude structures may be classified into, 1st, Tumuli or Barrows; 2d, Dolmens, often called cromlechs; 3d, Circles; 4th, Avenues or Alignments; 5th, Menhirs or Peulvens. The Barrows are round or oblong mounds of earth, called topes in India, and erected generally for sepulchral purposes, though occasionally they are simply the memorial of some important event. The Dolmens are covered stone chambers, often inside of the mounds, and often entirely disconnected from them, and occasionally built on their summit. They are almost exclusively sepulchral. The Circle is an enclosure of upright stones surrounding the Dolmen, and is a burying place. The Alignments are a later form of megalithic structure. They are sometimes attached to circles, in which case they are avenues corresponding to the passages which lead to the sepulchral chambers in the Tumuli. When not so attached, their object is more obscure. The Menhirs are simple stone columns, like the pillars set up by Jacob and Laban, and are memorial stones. In Brittany they passed into Christian crosses. In Brittany and in Narbonne there are thousands of these monuments, and in Algeria they are almost innumerable. The mythical Druids had nothing to do with their construction; but they are referred by our author to the ancient Aquitanians, Tyrrhenians, Cimbri, and kindred races, which he regards as Aboriginal and Turanian—that is, as being Tartar in their character, or what is called Dravidian in India, where in Sylhet an aboriginal tribe still builds all the varieties of megalithic structure. There seems to be abundant proof that a large number of these European structures are quite modern, being the tombs of historical men or the monuments of historical battles; and that the stone implements found in them are no more proof that they belong to a distant Stone Age than is the fact that Zipporah used a stone circumcising knife a proof that Moses did not know iron, or than the fact which the Septuagint asserts, that with Joshua were buried the stone knives used when he circumcised the people, proves that the Canaanites with whom he fought did not have iron scythes on their chariots.”