Earlier text: General ArticlesTHOUGHTS ON DANIEL.
By U. Smith
CHAPTER II.—THE GREAT IMAGE.
VERSE 41. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. THE element of weakness symbolized by the clay, pertains to the feet equally with the toes. Rome, before its division into ten kingdoms, lost that iron tenacity which it possessed to a superlative degree during the first centuries of its career. Luxury, with its accompanying effeminacy and degeneracy, the destroyer of nations as well as of individuals, began to corrode and weaken its iron sinews, and thus prepared the way for its subsequent disruption into ten kingdoms. The iron legs of the image terminate, to maintain its consistency with the ordinary operations of nature, in feet and toes. To the toes, of which there were of course just ten, our attention is called by the explicit mention of them in the prophecy; and the kingdom represented by that portion of the image to which the toes belonged, was finally divided into ten parts. The question therefore naturally arises, Do the ten toes of the image represent the ten divisions of the Roman Empire? To those who prefer what seems to be a natural and straightforward interpretation of the word of God, it is a matter of no little astonishment that any question should be raised here. To take the ten toes to represent the ten kingdoms into which Rome was divided, is so easy, consistent, and natural, that it requires a labored effort to interpret it otherwise. Yet such an effort is made by some—by Romanists universally, and by such Protestants as still cling to Romish errors. A volume by H. Cowles, D. D., may perhaps best be taken as a representative exposition on this side of the question. The writer gives every evidence of extensive erudition and great ability. It is the more to be regretted, therefore, that these powers are devoted to the propagation of error, and to misleading the anxious inquirer who wishes to know his whereabouts on the great highway of time. We can but briefly notice his positions. They are, 1. That the third kingdom was Grecia only during the lifetime of Alexander. 2. That the fourth kingdom was Alexander's successors. 3. That the latest point to which the fourth kingdom could extend, is the manifestation of the Messiah; for, 4. There the God of Heaven set up his kingdom; there the stone smote the image upon its feet, and commenced the process of grinding it up. Nor can we reply to any great length to these positions. 1. We might as well confine the Babylonian Empire to the single reign of Nebuchadnezzar, or that of Persia to the reign of Cyrus, as to confine the third kingdom, Grecia, to the reign of Alexander. 2. Alexander's successors did not constitute another kingdom, but a continuation of the same, or Grecian division of the image. For in this prophecy, the succession of kingdoms is by conquest. When Persia had conquered Babylon, we had the second empire, and when Grecia had conquered Persia, we had the third. But Alexander's successors (his four leading generals) did not conquer his empire and erect another in its place; they simply divided among themselves the empire which Alexander had conquered and left ready to their hand. “Chronologically,” says Prof. C., “the fourth empire must immediately succeed Alexander, and lie entirely between him and the birth of Christ.” Chronologically, we reply, it must do no such thing; for the birth of Christ was not the introduction of the fifth kingdom, as will in due time appear. Here he overlooks almost the entire duration of the third division of the image, confounding it with the fourth, and giving no room for the divided state of the Grecian Empire as symbolized by the four heads of the leopard of chap. 7, and the four horns of the goat of chap. 8. “Territorially,” continues Prof. C., “it [the fourth kingdom] should be sought in Western Asia, not in Europe; in general on the same territory where the first, second, and third kingdoms stood.” Why not in Europe, we ask? Each of the first three kingdoms possessed territory which was peculiarly its own. Why not the fourth? Analogy requires that it should. And was not the third kingdom a European kingdom? That is, did it not rise on European territory, and take its name from the land of its birth? Why not, then, go a degree further west for the place where the fourth great kingdom should be founded? And how did Grecia ever occupy the territory of the first and second kingdoms? Only by conquest. And Rome did the same. Hence, so far as the territorial requirements of the Professor are concerned, Rome could be the fourth kingdom as well as Grecia could be the third. “Politically,” he adds, “it should be the immediate successor of Alexander's empire, . . . changing the dynasty, but not the nations.” Analogy is against him here. Each of the first three kingdoms was distinguished by its own peculiar nationality. The Persian was not the same as the Babylonian, nor the Grecian the same as either of the two that preceded it. Now analogy requires that the fourth kingdom, instead of being composed of a fragment of this Grecian Empire, should possess a nationality of its own, distinct from the other three. And this we find in the Romans, and in them alone. But, 3. The grand fallacy which underlies this whole system of misinterpretation, is the too commonly taught theory that the kingdom of God was set up at the first advent of Christ. It can easily be seen how fatal to this theory is the admission that the fourth empire is Rome. For it was to be subsequently to the division of that empire that the God of Heaven should set up his kingdom. But the division of the Roman Empire into ten parts was not accomplished until A. D. 483; consequently the kingdom of God could not have been set up nearly five hundred years before. Rome must not, therefore, from their stand-point, though it answers admirably to the prophecy in every particular, be allowed to be the kingdom in question. The position that the kingdom of God was set up in the days when Christ was upon the earth, must be maintained at all hazards. Such is the ground on which our opponents seem, at least, to reason. And it is for the purpose of maintaining this theory, that our author dwindles down the third great empire of the world to the insignificant period of about eight years! For this, he endeavors to prove that the fourth empire was bearing full sway during a period when the providence of God was simply filling up the outlines of the third! For this, he presumes to fix the points of time between which we must look for the fourth, though the prophecy does not deal in dates at all, and then whatever kingdom he finds within his specified time, that he sets down as the fourth kingdom, and endeavors to bend the prophecy to fit it, utterly regardless of how much better material he might find outside of his little inclosure, to answer to a fulfillment of the prophetic record. Is such a course logical? Is the time, the point to be first established? No; the kingdoms are the great features of the prophecy; and we are to look for them; and when we find them, take them where they are. Let them govern the time, not the time govern them. But that view, which is the cause of all this misapplication and confusion, is sheer assumption. Christ did not smite the image at his first advent. Look at it. When the stone smites the image upon its feet, it is dashed in pieces. Violence is used. The effect is immediate. The image becomes as chaff. And then what? Is it absorbed by the stone, and gradually incorporated with it? Nothing of the kind. It is blown off, removed away, as incompatible and unavailable material; and no place is found for it. The territory is entirely cleared; and then the stone becomes a mountain, and fills the whole earth. Now what idea shall we attach to this work of smiting and breaking in pieces? Is it a gentle, peaceful, and quiet work? or is it a manifestation of vengeance and violence? How did the kingdoms of the prophecy succeed the one to the other? It was through the violence and din of war, the shock of armies, and the roar of battle. “Confused noise, and garments rolled in blood,” told of the force and violence with which one nation had been brought into subjection to another. Yet all this is not called smiting or breaking in pieces. When Persia conquered Babylon, and Greece Persia, neither of the conquered empires is said to have been broken in pieces, though crushed beneath the overwhelming power of a hostile nation. But when we reach the introduction of the fifth kingdom, the image is smitten with violence; it is dashed to pieces, and so scattered and obliterated that no place is found for it. And now what shall we understand by this? We must understand that here a scene transpires of so much more violence and force and power than the overthrow of one nation by another through the strife of war, that the latter is not worthy even of mention in connection with it. The subjugation of one nation by another by war, is a scene of peace and quietude, in comparison with that which transpires when the image is dashed in pieces by the stone cut out of the mountain without hands. Yet what is this smiting of the image made to mean by the theory under notice? Oh, the peaceful introduction of the gospel of Christ! the quiet spreading abroad of the light of truth! the gathering out of a few from the nations of the earth, to be made ready through obedience to the truth for his second coming, and reign! the calm and unpretending formation of a Christian church—a church that has been domineered over, persecuted, and oppressed, by the arrogant and triumphant powers of earth, from that day to this! And this is the smiting of the image! this is the breaking of it into pieces, and violently removing the shattered fragments from the face of the earth! Was ever absurdity more absurd? Were ever two events more unlike? Had the object been to find two scenes the exact opposites of each other, it would have been fully met in the comparison of these two events; but that any one should seriously contend that these are one and the same thing, is one of the anomalies of human reasoning; or, rather, it is one of the unpardonable inconsistencies to which men will sometimes resort, to save a theory. From this digression we return to the inquiry, Do the toes represent the ten divisions of the Roman Empire? We answer, Yes; because 1. The image of chapter 2, is exactly parallel with the vision of the four beasts of chapter 7. The fourth beast of chapter 7 represents the same as the iron legs of the image. The ten horns on the beast of course correspond very naturally, to the ten toes of the image; and these horns are plainly declared to be ten kings which should arise; and they are just as much independent kingdoms as the beasts themselves; for the beasts are spoken of in precisely the same manner; namely, as “four kings which should arise.” Verse 17. They do not denote a line of successive kings, but kings or kingdoms which exist contemporaneously; for three of them were plucked up by the little horn. The ten horns, beyond controversy, represent the ten kingdoms into which Rome was at last divided. 2. We have seen that in Daniel's interpretation of the image he uses the words king and kingdom, interchangeably, the former denoting the same as the latter. In verse 44, he says that “in the days of these kings, the God of Heaven shall set up a kingdom.” This shows that at the time the kingdom of God is set up there will be a plurality of kings existing contemporaneously. It cannot refer to the four preceding kingdoms; for it would be absurd to use such language in reference to a line of successive kings, since it would be in the days of the last king only, not in the days of any of the preceding, that the kingdom of God would be set up. Here, then, is a division represented, and what have we in the symbol to indicate it? Nothing but the toes of the image. Unless they do it, we are left utterly in the dark as to the nature and extent of the division which the prophecy shows did exist. As the view that we are left in such uncertainty would cast a serious imputation upon the prophecy, we are held to the conclusion that the ten toes of the image denote the ten parts into which the Roman Empire was divided, between the years A. D. 356 and A. D. 483. These divisions were established respectively by the Huns, A. D. 356; Ostrogoths, 377; Visigoths, 378; Franks, 407; Vandals, 407; Suevi, 407; Burgundians, 407; Heruli, 470; Anglo-Saxons, 476; and Lombards, 483. This enumeration of the ten kingdoms is that given by Machiavel, in his History of Florence, lib. i, who is, says Dr. Hales, “the best, because the most unprejudiced, authority.” The dates are furnished by Bishop Lloyd; and the whole is approved by Bishop Newton, Faber, and Dr. Hales. Truth in Different Hearts
In an orchard of young growing trees we see also stakes fast in the ground. The same sunshine and rain impart growth to the trees and give rottenness and decay to the stakes. And so it is with truth on hearts differently inclined. LESSON FOR PACIFIC COAST.—AUGUST 27.
AFTER Jesus had performed the miracle of feeding the five thousand, the multitude endeavored to seize Jesus and make him king. To prevent this, Jesus commanded his disciples to take the ship and cross to the opposite side of the sea, while he sent the multitude away. The following graphic description of what followed is from the pen of Mrs. E. G. White:— “Jesus looked upon the retreating multitude with yearning compassion. He felt that they were as scattered sheep without a shepherd. The priests, who should have been teachers in Israel, were but machines for performing unmeaning ceremonies and repeating the law they did not themselves understand nor practice. When he was left alone he went up into the mountain, and, for many hours, bent in supplication before the Father with bitter agony and tears. Not for himself were those earnest prayers, but for man, depraved and lost but for redeeming grace. It was for man that the Son of God wrestled with his Father, asking that the poor sinful creature might turn from his guilt to the light of salvation. “The Saviour knew that his days of personal effort for men upon earth were numbered. He who read the hearts of men knew that comparatively few would accept him as their Redeemer, acknowledging themselves lost without his divine aid. The Jews were rejecting the very help that God had sent to save them from utter ruin. They were fastening the chains that bound them in hopeless night. They were bringing upon themselves the certain wrath of God for their blind and obstinate wickedness. Hence the grief of Jesus, and his tears and strong cries for his mistaken people, who spurned his love that would shelter them, and his mercy that would save them from the retribution of their sins. Deep emotion shakes that noble form as he keenly realizes the doom of the people he has come to save. In every trial and emergency, Jesus went to his Heavenly Father for help, and, in those secret interviews, received strength for the work that lay before him. Christians should follow the example of their Saviour, and seek in prayer the strength that will enable them to endure the trials and duties of life. Prayer is the Christian’s defense, the safeguard of his integrity and virtue. “Meanwhile, the disciples were in trouble. A storm had arisen, and the lake was lashed into fury. Hour after hour they labored at the oars, being driven hither and thither by the resistless force of the waves. All night they were tossed upon the raging billows, feeling liable at any moment to be engulfed beneath them. It was but a few hours’ work, in ordinary weather, to reach the opposite shore, from the place they had left; but their frail bark was driven farther and farther from the port they sought, the plaything of the angry tempest. They had left Jesus with dissatisfied hearts. They had set out, murmuring among themselves because their wishes had not been gratified in the matter of exalting their Lord to be the King of Israel. They had blamed themselves for being so easily turned from their purpose, and yielding so readily to the commands of Jesus. They reasoned that if they had remained and persisted in their intention, they might have finally gained the point. “When the storm arose they still more deeply regretted having left Jesus. Had they remained this peril would have been avoided. This was a severe trial of their faith. In the darkness and tempest they sought to gain the point where he had promised to meet them, but the driving wind forced them from their course and made all their efforts futile. They were strong men and accustomed to the water, but now their hearts failed them with terror; they longed for the calm commanding presence of the Master, and felt that were he with them they would be secure. But Jesus had not forgotten his disciples. From the distant shore, his eye pierced the darkness, saw their danger, and read their thoughts. He would not suffer one of them to perish. As a fond mother watches the child she has in kindness corrected, so the compassionate Master watched his disciples; and when their hearts were subdued, their unholy ambition quelled, and they humbly prayed for help, it was given them. At the very moment they believed themselves lost, a flash of lightning revealed the figure of a man walking toward them upon the water. An unspeakable terror seized them. The hands that had grasped the oars with muscles like iron, relaxed their hold, and fell powerless by their sides. The boat rocked at the will of the waves, while their eyes were riveted upon this vision of a man stepping firmly upon the white-capped billows. “They thought it must be a spirit, which omened their immediate destruction. Jesus calmly advanced as though he would pass them, but they recognize his form, and feel that he will not leave them in their distress. They cry out, supplicating his help! The figure turns! It is their beloved Master, whose well-known voice speaks, silencing their fear, ‘Be of good cheer. It is I. be not afraid.’ Were ever words so welcome, so reassuring as these! The disciples are speechless with joy. Their apprehensions are gone. The storm is forgotten. They hail Jesus as their Deliverer! “Ardent Peter is nearly beside himself with delight. He sees his Master boldly treading the foam-wreathed waves, coming to save his followers, and he loves his Lord as never before. He yearns to embrace and worship him. He longs to meet him and walk by his side upon the stormy water. He cries, ‘Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.’ Jesus granted his request; but Peter had taken only a step upon the surface of the boiling deep, when he looked back proudly toward his companions to see if they were watching his movements, and admiring the ease with which he trod upon the yielding water. “In taking his eyes from Jesus, they fell upon the boisterous waves that seemed greedily threatening to swallow him; their roaring filled his ears, his head swam, his heart failed him with fear. As he is sinking, he recovers presence of mind sufficient to remember that there is One near who can rescue him. He stretches out his arms toward Jesus, crying, ‘Lord, save me, or I perish!’ The pitying Saviour grasps the trembling hands that are reached toward him, and lifts the sinking form beside his own. Never does that kindly face and that arm of strength turn from the supplicating hands that are stretched out for mercy. Peter clings to his Lord with humble trust, while Jesus mildly reproaches him: ‘O thou of little faith! wherefore didst thou doubt?’ “The trembling disciple now clings firmly to the hand of the Master till they are both safely seated in the boat among their joyful companions. But Peter was subdued and silent; he had no reason to boast over his fellows, for he had very nearly lost his life through exaltation and unbelief. When he took his eyes from Jesus in order to note the admiration of others, he lost guidance, and doubt and fear seized upon him. So it is in the Christian life; nothing but an eye firmly fixed upon the Saviour will enable us to tread the stormy billows of the world. Immediately upon Jesus taking his place in the boat they were at the land. The tempest had ceased, and the night of horror was succeeded by the light of dawn. The disciples, and others who were also on board, bowed at the feet of Jesus with thankful hearts, saying, ‘Of a truth thou art the Son of God!’” “While Jesus was teaching, many of those who had left him on the other side of the lake came to the synagogue, and were surprised to see Jesus and his disciples there before them, knowing that there was no boat by which he could pass to the other side. They began to inquire how and when he had crossed the sea. They were astonished when the disciples related to them the events of the preceding night. The fury of the storm and the many hours of fruitless rowing against the fury of adverse winds, the appearance of Christ walking upon the water, the fears thus aroused, his reassuring words, the adventure of Peter and its result, with the sudden stilling of the tempest and landing of the boat, were all faithfully recounted to the wondering crowd, amid frequent interruptions and exclamations of amazement. “As soon as the discourse of Jesus was ended, they gathered around the Saviour, questioning him, hoping to receive from his own lips a fuller account of his mighty work of the previous night. But Jesus did not gratify their idle curiosity. He was also beset by the Pharisees, to show them a sign from Heaven that he was the Son of God. They asked an evidence of his miraculous power, such as had been given on the other side of the sea. They importuned him to repeat his wonderful works before them. “Jesus declared to them that they did not seek him from any worthy motive; that they did not desire to learn how to please God in their daily lives; but they asked him to work miracles, sometimes in a spirit of unbelief, and sometimes because they hoped to be benefited by temporal favors which he might thus bestow upon them. He bade them not to labor for the meat which perishes, but to seek for spiritual food, that wisdom which endures unto everlasting life. This the Son of God alone could give, for he has the seal of the Father. With solemn earnestness he sought to impress upon them that temporal favors are of little consequence compared with the heavenly grace offered by the Son of God. “‘Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign showest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ It was Christ himself who conducted the Hebrews in their travels through the wilderness. It was he who had daily fed them manna from heaven; yet they blindly referred him to this miracle, wrought for their fathers, in a spirit of caviling unbelief. Jesus declared to them that as God had given them manna to preserve their lives, so he had sent to them this gift of his Son, that through him they might eat of the bread of life and become immortal. “‘Then said Jesus unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from Heaven. For the bread of God is He which cometh down from Heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.’ Jesus used bread as a figure to illustrate the vitalizing power of his Spirit. The one sustains physical life, while the other satisfies the heart, and strengthens the moral powers. Said he, ‘I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not.’ Those who experience the spiritual union with Christ never hunger for higher enjoyment. All uncertainty is gone, the weary soul finds continual refreshment in the Saviour. The feverish thirst for wealth and honor is gone. He is in them a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” GIVE no countenance to the idea that the Sabbath-school effort is an outside affair, to be managed and conducted apart from the church. It is rather the church, the people of God, exercising their Christian activity in that particular mode. The church has its Sabbath-school, as one of the means of training its own children in the doctrines and duties of religion. The children of the church attend the school, and then as a matter of course remain with their parents to attend public worship. This fact is a good basis of operations for inducing the other children of the school to attend. Let the teachers, and let the church authorities, keep this aim ever before their eyes. There is no way by which an irreligious family can be so surely and effectually benefited, as by inducing them to become connected with a Christian congregation and to attend statedly religious worship. Next to a house to shelter their bodies, a family should have some religious home, a place in some house of worship which they consider theirs, and in which they appear statedly on the Sabbath. There is no means so effectual for securing this end, as an efficient, well-ordered Sabbath-school. Teachers and superintendents should accustom themselves more than they now do, to regard this as an important, indeed a leading part of their work. The Sabbath-school is an immense network of influences, and it should be continually putting out its feelers in every direction, to see what can be done towards reaching and bringing in those families which are without any church connections.—Hart on Sabbath-schools. Buying Truth and Keeping the Heart
"Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding." "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." THE word things, when used otherwise than to denote actions or events, signifies, according to Webster, "any substance, that which is created, any particular article or commodity." A thing, then, is something which has substance; it has length, breadth, and thickness; it occupies space; it can be measured, seen, felt, and handled. It is matter, and possesses all the properties of matter. Among every people on the earth, thing means something material and tangible; and in every book on the face of the globe when the reader meets with this word, he attaches to it, and correctly, too, a similar meaning. I said every book; perhaps one must be excepted; for there is a book which in common with all others uses this word, and in which it is made to mean something entirely different, or rather, nothing. That book is the Bible; and whether it is lawful to thus change the meaning of this word, when found in this book, from that which is given to it in all other books, and under all other circumstances, is the point in question.379 To illustrate, see Col. 3:1: "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Things above! What! are there things above? No, says the rarefied theology of the present day; there is immateriality above and nothing more. There is an immaterial heaven, an immaterial God and Christ, immaterial angels, and immaterial spirits of dead people. But the text speaks of things above. Can these things by any process be evaporated into the immateriality which the popular belief attaches to them? It cannot certainly be done by the definition of the word; for that signifies any substance, something actual and real, and it cannot be done by its use as applied to any object on this earth; for here it always means something material, something that has body and parts. There seems then to be no reason for the meaning that is attached to the word things when applied to objects above, save the mysterious belief that substance and reality are incompatible with the state of the blessed; and no reason can be given for this belief except the fact of its own existence; but behind this fact it thus entrenches itself; and while it forbids all questioning as to the right of its existence, it holds the theological world in slavery to its mystical demands. Perhaps, however, this theory is wrong, and the Bible right. Perhaps the word things, when found in that book, with no conceivable reason to affect its signification, may mean the same as in any other book. The arbitrary claim of the popular view is set forth still more strikingly in the following verse, which reads: "Set your affections on things above, not on things on the earth." Things above and things on the earth. What do we understand by things on the earth? Anything immaterial and invisible? None will so claim; but things real and tangible. By what principle, therefore, can things above, in the antithetical portion of the sentence, be construed to mean just the reverse? When things means something in one place, how can it in just three words from where it is so used, mean nothing at all. Let every lover of consistency who is troubled with the mysticism that has been thrown over the word of God, consider this point. Other scriptures bear testimony to the reality of heavenly things. Peter, in his first epistle, 1:4, speaks of an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, reserved in Heaven for us. In Heb. 10:34, Paul says, "For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves, that ye have in heaven, a better and an enduring substance." This language is unmistakable: we have in Heaven not immateriality and nonentity, but a substance. And when Paul would set before us the hope that inspired the worthies of old, he speaks of it in contrast with this earth, as "a country," a "better country," a "heavenly country." Strange language if this earth is the only real and substantial thing of the two. He also tells us that they looked for, not an airy nothing, but a tangible city; not founded on nothing, but one which had foundations, whose builder and maker was God. Yes, there are things above. We can rejoice in the glorious hope of something real, something upon which a scriptural, sober, and intelligent faith can lay hold, an inheritance as literal as the earth upon which we now tread, glorified as infinite power, exerted in infinite wisdom can alone do it, where we shall know as we are known, and with the fine-strung sensibilities of the redeemed, be enabled to appreciate the exquisite joys that dwell in the presence of God, and at his right hand forevermore. Things above. But perhaps some one may ask, May there not be things somewhere above, and yet Heaven itself be the intangible, spiritual place it is commonly supposed? Let the apostle answer. He tells us in the very text under notice, the definite location of these things; he tells us just where they are: "Seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." That is sufficient. The things above are just where God and Christ have their glorious abode. There is the holy city, New Jerusalem, with its rainbow of precious foundation stones underlying its jasper wall; there are its gates of pearl, and its streets of gold; there is the tree of life, and the river of the water of life; there is the true tabernacle, pitched not by man, but by the living God, where our great High Priest is now ministering; there is the great original of the ark, the mercy-seat, and the tables of testimony, inscribed with the great law of Jehovah; there is the throne of God and the Lamb, and there the many mansions of the Father's house, made ready for those who are found prepared when the Lord shall return, to be taken with him. It is the things above that we are to seek. How shall we seek them? The next verse explains: Set your affection, your mind, your earnest desire, upon things above. And is it necessary for the apostle to exhort us to do this? Must a people so prone as we are to set our affections upon the blighted and perishing things of this earth, when we have revealed to us the incorruptible, the surpassing, and unfading glories of Heaven, which may be had by seeking—must such a people be exhorted before we will turn our attention to them? Not when faith in the reality and certainty of these things is lively and strong. Lord, increase our faith, and give us an earnest of the inheritance prepared for thy faithful followers. Uriah Smith