Earlier text: LifeONE of our exchanges which is conducting an earnest campaign in behalf of life in the country, contributes this paragraph to the discussion of the problem:— The large cities are a menace to the social stability and permanent uninterrupted prosperity of this nation. The centralization of trade, population, and money in those great centers stimulates political and financial corruption, and speculation makes periods of financial depression inevitable. If industrial stability and prosperity are to be maintained on a sound foundation, all legislation must tend to decentralize trade and population, and promote the growth of small cities, towns, villages, and suburban and rural communities rather than congested cities. This is a sound analysis of actual conditions and a clear statement of right principles. These last-day conditions are clearly outlined in the prophetic Scriptures. A LUTHERAN minister has written a tract with the title “Why I Am a Lutheran and not a Seventh-day Adventist.” Among the twelve reasons presented are these:— The Seventh-day Adventists forbid all tea, coffee, wine, beer, and tobacco. While it is true that many people abuse these things, and while it is praiseworthy to fight the abuse, it is not right to forbid as sinful what God does not forbid. The Bible says, “Let no man judge you in . . . drink,” Col. 2:16. The Seventh-day Adventists forbid pork, and many of them eat no meat at all. Pork was indeed forbidden to the Jews in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament we may eat anything that agrees with our stomach and purse. The Bible says, “Let no man judge you in meat.” Col. 2:16. The Seventh-day Adventists make it a religious duty to keep in good health. Herein they are right. Many of the sicknesses are due to eating and drinking wrong things, or right things at the wrong time, in the wrong manner, and in wrong quantity. This is a plain sin against the Lord’s commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Taken altogether, this is certainly an extreme case of Bible exegesis run mad—a queer mixture of sense and nonsense, with the latter predominating. We advise this Lutheran minister to learn more about both the Seventh-day Adventists and the Bible before attempting to set forth the doctrines of the one or to apply the teachings of the other. Festus would never have said to this tractarian, “Much learning doth make thee mad.” THE statistics of the annual drink bill in England, compiled by Dr. Dawson Burns, shows a total expenditure for 1907 of £167,016,200 ($813,368,894) as against £166,425,911 ($810,494,186.57) in 1906. Referring to these figures Dr. Burns says:— The nation as a whole continues to spend a sum greater than its annual revenue on drinks that not only constitute an economic waste, but are productive of many evils, for the removal of which all bodies of social reformers continue to struggle in vain. The plea that the liquor trade gives employment to a great number of persons is met by the proof that the expenditure on drink, if otherwise applied, would provide employment for a much larger number. The plea that the revenue would suffer is one that any wise chancellor of the exchequer could afford to ignore, considering that those who thus contribute to the revenue, tax themselves three times as much for the taxable liquors they consume. No economic argument can justify legalizing the sale of intoxicating liquors. Those who desire to continue this wretched business are selfishly seeking their own benefit, rather than the benefit of any other people or the nation as a whole. _Praising the Lord_
By Ellen G. White
When a sense of the loving-kindness of God is constantly refreshing the soul, it will be revealed in the countenance by an expression of peace and joy. It will be manifest in the words and works. And the generous, holy spirit of Christ, working upon the heart, will yield in the life a converting influence upon others. “I will mention the loving-kindness of the Lord,” the prophet Isaiah declared, “according to all that the Lord hath bestowed on us, and the great goodness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his loving-kindnesses. For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old.” Have we not reason to talk of God’s goodness, and to tell of his power? When friends are kind to us, we esteem it a privilege to thank them for their kindness. How much more should we count it a joy to return thanks to the Friend who has given us every good and perfect gift. Then let us, in every church, cultivate thanksgiving to God. Let us educate our lips to praise God in the family circle. Let us teach our children to offer praise and thanksgiving to God. Let our gifts and offerings declare our gratitude for the favors we daily receive. In everything we should show forth the joy of the Lord, and make known the message of God’s saving grace. In the second chapter of 1 Samuel is recorded the prayer of a consecrated woman who served and glorified God. She prayed: “My heart rejoiceth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.” Hannah’s offering of thanksgiving for the answer to her prayer is a lesson to those who to-day receive answers to their requests. Do we not neglect to return praise and thanksgiving to God for his loving-kindness? David declares, “I love the Lord, because he hath heard my voice and my supplications. Because he hath inclined his ear unto me, therefore will I call upon him as long as I live.” God’s goodness in hearing and answering prayer places us under heavy obligation to express our thanksgiving for the favors bestowed upon us. We should praise God much more than we do. The blessings received in answer to prayer should be promptly acknowledged. The record of them should be placed in our diary, that when we take the book in hand, we may remember the goodness of the Lord, and praise his holy name. We grieve the spirit of Christ by our complaints and murmurings and repinings. We should not dishonor God by the mournful relation of trials that appear grievous. All trials that are received as educators will produce joy. The whole religious life will be uplifting, elevating, ennobling, fragrant with good words and works. The enemy is well pleased to have souls depressed, downcast, mourning, and groaning; he wants such impressions made as to the effect of our faith. But God designs that the mind shall take no low level. He desires every soul to triumph in the keeping power of the Redeemer. The psalmist says: “Give unto the Lord, O ye mighty, give unto the Lord glory and strength. Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name: worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.” “I will extol thee, O Lord; for thou hast lifted me up, and hast not made my foes to rejoice over me. O Lord my God, I cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me. . . . Sing unto the Lord, O ye saints of his. Give thanks at the remembrance of his holiness.” It is Satan’s work to talk of that which concerns himself, and he is delighted to have human beings talk of his power, and of his workings through the children of men. Through indulgence in such conversation the mind becomes every gloomy and sour and disagreeable. We may become channels of communication for Satan, through which words flow that bring no sunshine to any heart. But let us decide that this shall not be. If we look constantly to Jesus and become daily learners of him, we shall become like him in character. His teachings, faithfully followed, will qualify us for membership in the heavenly family. Then let us learn to put away all in us that is unlovely, and seek to become the true children of God. All heaven is interested in our salvation. The angels of God, thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand, are commissioned to minister to them that shall be heirs of salvation. They guard us against evil, and press back the powers of darkness that are seeking our destruction. Have we not reason to be thankful every moment, thankful even when there are apparent difficulties in our pathway? The Lord himself is our helper. “Sing, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel; be glad and rejoice with all the heart, O daughter of Jerusalem. . . . The Lord thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love; he will joy over thee with singing.” This is the testimony that the Lord desires us to bear to the world. His praise shall continually be in our hearts and upon our lips. The psalmist exclaims, “O give thanks unto the Lord, for he is good: for his mercy endureth forever. Let the redeemed of the Lord say so, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy: and gathered out of the lands, from the east, and from the west, from the north, and from the south. They wandered in the wilderness in a solitary way; they found no city to dwell in. Hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted in them. Then they cried unto the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them out of their distresses. And he led them forth by the right way, that they might go to a city of habitation. O that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!” “That Which Was Lost”
By Ernest Lloyd
ONE of the most remarkable economic features of this age is the discovery of wealth in waste products, and the recovery of very valuable material from that which was formerly thrown away. In the early days of the manufacture of coal gas, no one knew what to do with the tar which was left behind in the waste receivers. The accumulation of it in great quantities became a serious difficulty. When allowed to run off into a river, it simply hurt the vegetation, harmed shipping, and poisoned the fishes. Then science came to the rescue, and to-day that waste product is saved, and the number of useful things that can be made from it is wonderful. The chemist gives from it to the silk-weaver his beautiful9 rainbow dyes, to the perfumer his rarest odors and essences, and to the druggist his saccharin, three hundred times sweeter than ever came from cane-brake, or dripped from maples in the old sugar camp. These are only some of the things which are now obtained from this once despised and obnoxious substance. That which was formerly a trouble to the gas companies to get rid of has proved a gold-mine to chemists,—a living comment on scriptural language, “O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.” Does not this brief description suggest something of the work of saving grace in the soul and life of man? They tell us that caloric, which was formerly wasted in prodigal excess through the furnace stack, is now trapped, cooled, divided, turned into power, delivered over wires, running countless wheels, and supplying many industries, so that the strength previously flung into space from the top, is worth as much as the stream of steel from the crucible’s base. “The Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” That love, that power, that honor, that manhood, that womanhood—heathenism wasted it, Christianity saves it. His servants in their service and sacrifice are gathering up “that which was lost,” to enrich the kingdom of God. “He hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.” Many around us are weak, and must be strengthened; sick, and must be healed; broken, and must be bound up; driven away, and must be brought again; lost, and must be saved. May the love of Christ constrain us, and his Spirit quicken us to “take forth the precious from the vile.” May he enlarge our sight to see it, and our hearts to love it. My Soul's Cry
By Clara E. Vester
COLD is the world, O Jesus!
Naught but thy love can show
The pathway over the deserts
And mountains where I go;
Let not thy Spirit's halo
Be hidden from my sight;
Cold is the world around me,
Loud are the storms of night. Great are the weights of anguish
The soul of man must bear;
And oft I almost perish,
In wild and sick despair.
O, when the waves of passion
Roll higher and increase,
Come thou, O loving Saviour!
Utter thy words of peace. Thou who hast borne life's sorrows
Knowest what throbs of pain
Assail my feeble spirit.
O, take away the stain,
The tarnish, give me power
That I may rise above;
Cold is the world around me,
Great is thy tender love. There is no other ransom,
There is no other way;
Thou alone canst show me
The price my soul must pay;
And when my feet are nearing
The border land of rest,
O, place thine arms around me,
And draw me to thy breast. Does It Pay?
By R. A. UNDERWOOD
SOME people say you can’t afford to be a Seventh-day Adventist; a Seventh-day Adventist is supposed to pay a tithe of his income for the support of the gospel ministry; he is asked to give ten cents a week for the support of foreign missions; and besides this, he is called upon to make donations for church expenses, the needy poor, and other benevolent enterprises. Can he afford to do all this? The Saviour has promised the life that now is, as well as the one to come, to all who sincerely love and obey the gospel of Christ. Are the requirements of the gospel an unbearable burden, a yoke of bondage the Christian is unable to carry? Let us compare the price of sin with the requirements of the gospel. In doing this, let us glance at a few items of expense the world-loving, pleasure-seeking man and woman has to meet. And remember that those who indulge in these expenses receive disappointment, and as a reward, pain, disease, and premature death; and in the end, they suffer the loss of eternal life. Look for a moment at some of these expenses. The annual average expense for each person in the United States, for alcoholic drinks, including wine and beer, is the enormous sum of $21.80. If we estimate that only one half of the population indulge in such beverages, then the average cost to all who do, is $43.60. Again, the annual average cost for each man and woman and child in this country for tobacco is twelve dollars; or, on the above basis, estimating that only one half the population indulge in the use of these articles, it costs all who do, $24 annually. So for these two articles alone, on the estimate that but one half the population use them, for each person who does, there is paid out no less than $67.60,—consumed upon the altar of perverted appetite. To this list we might add the expense of gambling, and grosser indulgences, represented by a large sum, annually sacrificed to the god of lust and worldly pleasure, which only end in everlasting shame,—and at what a price! Time, honor, position, virtue, manhood, and womanhood, health, wealth, even life itself, with the loss of heaven at last,—are all sacrificed for the indulgence of sin. Those who willingly sacrifice all this upon such an altar, actually say, “You can not afford to be a Seventh-day Adventist; it costs too much.” Now look at another list of possible lesser evils. We will make no estimate, but simply call attention to such articles as are unnecessary and harmful in their tendencies, as the use of tea and coffee, the large expense of ornamental jewelry, drugs, chewing-gum, the abnormal use of confectionery, a large outlay in attendance at shows and theaters, which all have a demoralizing effect, the expenditure of large sums of money for trashy reading, exciting novels, or other demoralizing literature. Then we might speak of the large class of individuals who are connected with some form of lodges. We do not wish to enter into the question of criticizing these various lodges; but, to say the least, it is no uncommon thing for men and women to belong to from two to six lodges. It would not be an unreasonable estimate to say that the average man who has membership in one or more of these societies, pays out at least ten dollars and upward, annually, to support these organizations. But in the list which I have given, a Seventh-day Adventist’s expenses find no place. Of course, I have not mentioned the ordinary necessaries of life, in the use of which all must alike have a share. Every one will admit that the items in the foregoing lists of expenses are unnecessary for either comfort or happiness; indeed, in most cases they are positively injurious, rendering the present life wretched, and finally taking away forever the life to come. But the true and faithful Adventist is the gainer, in happiness, in health, in the ability to enable his family to enjoy life, and to be a blessing to the world, even in this present life; while at the same time he has assurance of an unending life where every trace of the curse is removed. He lives on and on, through a never-ending eternity, as a son of God, a joint-heir to the treasures and wealth of Jesus Christ. Does it pay? Church and State in the Seventeenth Century
By J. O. CORLISS
POLITICAL parties, as a rule, have been the offspring of religious controversy. This was particularly the case in Europe during the Reformation period. The bitter hatred generated between the Jesuits and the followers of Luther, became so tense by the opening of the seventeenth century that, because of a fancied insult given an adherent of one party by the followers of the opposite school, in one of the free cities of Germany, the Protestants of those parts formed an organization for mutual protection, which was known as the Protestant Union. The following year (1609), the Catholics formed a similar combination, which they called the Holy League. Upon the formation of these two hostile camps, both parties were ready to take the field against each other as soon as an occasion presented itself. Bohemia soon furnished the opportunity. The doctrines of Luther having penetrated that kingdom, the emperor attempted to overthrow them, but finding them too well-rooted to drive out, he professedly accepted them. The charter of the government practically established freedom of worship for Bohemia; but Rudolph, and especially his successor, Matthias, becoming wearied of tolerating the Protestants, cast contempt upon that faith, until the Protestants, angered beyond endurance, rose in revolt. Going to the castle in Prague, they threw out the emperor’s representatives, and set up a government of their own. Thus the gauntlet being thrown down, the bloody Thirty Years’ War was begun, which involved the entire north of Europe, and the loss of many prominent statesmen. The peace of Westphalia closed this religious war, and established a basis upon which both Catholics and Protestants might put up with each other, that is to say, those of the upper and cultured classes. In the course of a century or more after, however, the principle of toleration, such as it was, did extend to the lower classes of subjects. It simply amounted to this, as expressed by the well-known phrase of that time: “He who rules the country may settle its religion.” Of course, when the religion of the country was settled by its ruler, toleration meant little more than an uncertain sufferance to all known or suspected heretics. The year following the restoration of Charles II of England, there assembled in London a party of lawmakers, which history has denominated the Cavalier10 Parliament. But one religious opinion was held in that body, and that one was for the maintenance of the Church of England. So religiously radical was this Parliament, that it quickly promulgated what is known as the Corporation Act of 1661. This provided that in order to hold office in any municipal corporation, one must “take the oath of non-resistance to the king, and receive the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England.” This, of course, deprived every non-Anglican of holding office in city government. And as if this Act was not sweeping enough, the next year (1662) witnessed the passage of a new enactment, entitled the Act of Uniformity, by which “every clergyman and schoolmaster who did not accept every prescription of the Book of Common Prayer was expelled from his living.” Hundreds of the clergy, among whom were Presbyterians, Puritans, Baptists, and a few Quakers, gave up their charges, and with their adherents were classed under the common term of Dissenters. From henceforth all these proscribed ones were left to formulate their own modes of worship. The Puritans especially sought to acquire an act of toleration for their own distinct forms of church service. For this effort they received just what might have been expected. Parliament directed that the proper way to treat Dissenters was to suppress them entirely. Accordingly it passed the Conventicle Act in 1664, which prohibited all meetings for religious purposes, except those allowed under the Corporation and Uniformity Acts. Penalties for the violation of this act ranged from low to high fines, and from these to transportation, according to the heinousness of the violation. This was followed in 1665 by the Five Mile Act, the terms of which forbade any Dissenting minister to reside within five miles of a borough town, or any place where he had once ministered to a flock. All this seems very severe upon those who would think for themselves, but it was only the natural outgrowth of the theory that the state may legislate in behalf of the church. Men were made to suffer whose characters were above reproach, simply because religion and politics were permitted to enter a common field of pursuit. So strong had hatred become between Episcopalians and Catholics that when the former would deprive the latter of political preferment, all Dissenters from religious forms prescribed by law must be put under interdict, so as not to leave any loop-hole through which Catholics might climb to equal honor with Episcopalians. Charles II, having secretly embraced Catholicism, desired to see the Catholics freed from their religious disabilities, and so in 1672 he published a decree of indulgence, overriding the statutes of Parliament, which set Catholics and all Dissenters free. When Parliament met, it obliged the king to withdraw his declaration of indulgence. Parliament then passed the Test Act, which excluded from every office whatever, those who refused to take the sacrament as prescribed by the Church of England. By this act, the king’s own brother, the duke of York, being a Catholic, was “forced to resign his post of High Lord Admiral.” Then followed the celebrated “Popish Plot” of 1678. Upon this, Parliament added a paragraph to the Test Act by which Catholics were barred from the House of Lords, the only place where they had not before been disturbed. Before the death of Charles, which occurred in 1685, the question of toleration became so acute that Parliament split into two well-defined parties known as the Whigs and Tories. These were terms of reproach, applied to each party, as significant of their attitude on this burning question, as is evident by the derivation of the names. “Whig” came from whiggum, a word which, it is said, Scotch peasants used when hurrying their horses. As a party name, it was intended to mean a “sneaking Covenanter.” Tory is derived from the Irish, and signifies “robber.” These last were country members, and stood for no toleration to Dissenters. The Whigs were largely from the upper classes, and stood for toleration as an act of justice. But strange to say, they, equally with the Tories, were against toleration to the Catholics. Looking back from our time, it seems strange that men’s minds ran in such a peculiar mold. Theirs was, however, but the inevitable experience of all who act upon the basis that civil power has the responsibility of regulating religious customs. While the Whigs of that day contended for religious liberty, as applied to some forms of religion, they were as intolerant as the Tories regarding those things which were no part of their own religious faith. It could not be otherwise under a church-and-state government, because no one can enable himself to legislate in behalf of a religious system which he believes to be gross error, and subversive of the orthodoxy of the unwary. In other words, those who are positive that all outside of their creed must be eternally lost, can not possibly be tolerant. Religious legislation must, therefore, ever be class legislation. To avoid this great evil, let the church and the state be kept forever separate. David a Man after God's Heart
QUESTION 10 in The Bible Record for December is: How are we to understand the words of Acts 13:22, “David . . . a man after my heart,” in the light of David’s sin? 1. We are not to understand the words as indorsing or in any way approving David’s sin. In 2 Sam. 11:27 we read, “The thing that David had done displeased Jehovah.” In the next chapter we read also: “Wherefore hast thou [David] despised the word of Jehovah, who to do that which is evil in his sight? . . . Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house. . . . I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house.” 2. The quotation is taken from 1 Samuel, and the statement was based upon the contrast between Saul and David as it is brought out in 1 Samuel. There Saul is wilful and persists in his refusal to follow God’s direction through his prophet Samuel. In contrast with Saul, David manifests in every situation a disposition to be true to God as his overlord. This statement must never be thought of apart from this contrast between Saul and David. 3. Not only in the early part of David’s life was it his general disposition to be true to God. All through to the end of his life did he show it to be his sorrow when he failed to meet God’s expectations. This comes out in his great sin. His treatment of the prophets Nathan and Gad is in striking contrast with Saul’s treatment of the prophet Samuel. David was truly sorry for his sin, and brought forth fruit meet for repentance, while Saul was not sorry for his rejection of God. Here was the fundamental difference between the two men on which is based the expression, “A man after my heart.” David was a man after God’s heart even in his confession and repentance.—The Bible Record, January, 1908. Historical quotations and extracts from various writers which may assist the thoughtful student of the Scriptures. The chief works expressly ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar by the ancient writers are the following: He built the great wall of Babylon, which, according to the lowest estimate, must have contained more than five hundred million square feet of solid masonry, and must have required three or four times that number of bricks. He constructed a new and magnificent palace in the neighborhood of the ancient residence of the kings. He made the celebrated “hanging gardens” for the gratification of his wife, Amyitis. He dug the huge reservoir near Sippara, said to have been one hundred forty miles in circumference, and one hundred eighty feet deep, furnishing it with flood-gates, through which its water could be drawn off for the purposes of irrigation. He constructed a number of canals, among them the Nahr-Malcha, or “Royal River,” a broad and deep channel which connected the Euphrates with the Tigris. He built quays and breakwaters along the shores of the Persian Gulf, and he at the same time founded the city of Diridotis, or Teredon, in the vicinity of that sea. To these constructions may be added,11 on the authority either of Nebuchadnezzar’s own inscriptions or of the existing remains, the Birs-i-Nimrud, or great temple of Nebo at Borsippa; a vast reservoir in Babylon itself, called the Yapur-Shapu; an extensive embankment along the course of the Tigris, near Bagdad; and almost innumerable temples, walls, and other public buildings at Cutha, Sippara, Borsippa, Babylon, Chilmad, Bit-Dilga, etc. The indefatigable monarch seems to have either rebuilt, or at least repaired, almost every city and temple throughout the entire country. There are said to be at least one hundred sites in the tract immediately about Babylon, which give evidence, by inscribed bricks bearing his legend, of the marvelous activity and energy of this king. We may suspect that among the constructions of Nebuchadnezzar was another great work, a work second in utility to none of those mentioned above, and requiring for its completion an enormous amount of labor. This is the canal called by the Arabs the Kerek Saideh, or canal of Saideh, which they ascribe to a wife of Nebuchadnezzar, a cutting four hundred miles in length which commenced at Hit on the Euphrates, and was carried along the extreme western edge of the alluvium close to the Arabian frontier, finally falling into the sea at the head of the Bubian Creek, about twenty miles to the west of Shat-el-Arab. The terraces of this canal which still remain indicate a work of such magnitude and difficulty that we can scarcely ascribe it with probability to any monarch who has held the country since Nebuchadnezzar. The Pallacopas, or canal of Opa (Palga Opa), which left the Euphrates at Sippara (Mosaib), and ran into a great lake in the neighborhood of Borsippa, whence the lands in the neighborhood were irrigated, may also have been one of Nebuchadnezzar’s constructions. It was an old canal, much out of repair, in the time of Alexander, and was certainly the work, not of the Persian conquerors, but of some native monarch anterior to Cyrus. The Arabs, who call it the Nahr Abba, regard it as the oldest canal in the country. Some glimpses into the private life and personal character of Nebuchadnezzar are afforded us by certain of the Old Testament writers. We see him in the book of Daniel at the head of a magnificent court, surrounded by “princes, governors, and captains, judges, treasurers, councilors, and sheriffs;” waited on by eunuchs selected with the greatest care, “well-favored” and carefully educated; attended, whenever he requires it, by a multitude of astrologers and other “wise men,” who seek to interpret to him the will of heaven. He is an absolute monarch, disposing with a word of the lives and properties of his subjects, even the highest. All offices are in his gift. He can raise a foreigner to the second place in the kingdom, and even set him over the entire priestly order. His wealth is enormous; for he makes of pure gold an image, or obelisk, ninety feet high and nine feet broad. He is religious after a sort, but wavers in faith, sometimes acknowledging the God of the Jews as the only real deity, sometimes relapsing into an idolatrous worship, and forcing all his subjects to follow his example. Even then, however, his polytheism is of a kind which admits of a special devotion to a particular deity, who is called emphatically “his god.” In temper he is hasty and violent, but not obstinate; his fierce resolves are taken suddenly and as suddenly repented of; he is, moreover, capable of bursts of gratitude and devotion, no less than of accesses of fury; like most Orientals, he is vain-glorious; but he can humble himself before the chastening hand of the Almighty; in his better moods he shows a spirit astonishing in one of his country and time,—a spirit of real piety, self-condemnation, and self-abasement,—which renders him one of the most remarkable characters in Scripture. A few touches of a darker hue must be added to this portrait of the great Babylonian king from the statements of another contemporary, the prophet Jeremiah. The execution of Jehoiakim, and the putting out of Zedekiah’s eyes, though acts of considerable severity, may perhaps be regarded as justified by the general practise of the age, and therefore as not indicating in Nebuchadnezzar any special ferocity of disposition. But the ill-treatment of Jehoiakim’s body, the barbarity of murdering Zedekiah’s sons before his eyes, and the prolonged imprisonment both of Zedekiah and of Jehoiachin, though the latter had only contemplated rebellion, can not be thus excused. They were unusual and unnecessary acts, which tell against the monarch who authorized them, and must be considered to imply a real cruelty of disposition, such as is observable in Sargon and Asshur-banipal. Nebuchadnezzar, it is plain, was not content with such a measure of severity as was needed to secure his own interests, but took a pleasure in the wanton infliction of suffering on those who had provoked his resentment. On the other hand, we obtain from the native writer, Berosus, one amiable trait which deserves a cursory mention. Nebuchadnezzar was fondly attached to the Median princess who had been chosen for him as a wife by his father from political motives. Not content with ordinary tokens of affection, he erected, solely for her gratification, the remarkable structures which the Greeks called the “hanging gardens.” A native of a mountainous country, Amylitis disliked the tiresome uniformity of the level alluvium, and pined for the woods and hills of Media. It was to satisfy this longing by the best substitute which circumstances allowed that the celebrated gardens were made. Art strove to emulate nature with a certain measure of success, and the lofty rocks and various trees of this wonderful paradise, if they were not a very close imitation of Median mountain scenery, were at any rate a pleasant change from the natural monotony of the Babylonian plain, and must have formed a grateful retreat for the Babylonian queen, whom they reminded at once of her husband’s love and of the beauty of her native country. The most remarkable circumstance in Nebuchadnezzar’s life remains to be noticed. Toward the close of his reign, when his conquests and probably most of his great works were completed, in the midst of complete tranquillity and prosperity, a sudden warning was sent him. He dreamed a strange dream; and when he sought to know its meaning, the prophet Daniel was inspired to tell him that it portended his removal from the kingly office for the space of seven years, in consequence of a curious and very unusual kind of madness. This malady, which is not unknown to physicians, has been termed “lycanthropy.” It consists in the belief that one is not a man but a beast, in the disuse of language, the rejection of all ordinary human food, and sometimes in the loss of the erect posture and a preference for walking on all fours. Within a year of the time that he received the warning, Nebuchadnezzar was smitten. The great king became a wretched maniac. Allowed to indulge in his distempered fancy, he eschewed human habitations, lived in the open air night and day, fed on herbs, disused clothing, and became covered with a rough coat of hair. His subjects generally, it is probable, were not allowed to know of his condition, although they could not but be aware that he was suffering from some terrible malady. The queen most likely held the reins of power, and carried on the government in his name. The dream had been interpreted to mean that the lycanthropy would not be permanent; and even the date of recovery had been announced, only with a certain ambiguity. The Babylonians were thereby encouraged to await events, without taking any steps that would have involved them in difficulties if the malady ceased. And their faith and patience met with a reward. After suffering obscuration for the space of seven years, suddenly the king’s intellect returned to him. His recovery was received with joy by his court. Lords and councilors gathered about him. He once more took the government into his own hands, issued his proclamations, and performed the other functions of royalty. He was now an old man, and his reign does not seem to have been much prolonged; but “the glory of his kingdom,” his “honor and brightness,” returned; his last days were as brilliant as his first: his sun set in an unclouded sky, shorn of none of the rays that had given splendor to its noonday. Nebuchadnezzar expired at Babylon in the forty-fourth year of his reign, B. C. 561, after an illness of no long duration. He was probably little short of eighty years old at his death. — “Seven Great Monarchies,” by George Rawlinson, M. A., Three Volume Edition, Volume II, pages 246-249. Do not reprimand or punish the children late in the day; never just before bedtime. Send them off to their beds happy. Commend them for the good they have done, forgetting, for the time at least, anything that has been remiss in their conduct. Tell them a story when there is time—there should always be time—and let it be a bright and cheerful one. Kiss and tuck them in, leaving them happy, to the sweet repose that is the inalienable right of childhood. If you ever heard a little child crying and sobbing in its sleep, you would never, never chide or punish one again just before bedtime. Take any other time than that. Seal their closing eyelids with a kiss and a blessing. The time will come all too soon when they will lay their heads upon their pillows, lacking both. Let them, then, at least have the memory of a happy childhood, of which no future sorrow or trouble can rob them. I well remember being reprimanded by my mother on several occasions, for some misdemeanor committed early in the day, and being told to think over my conduct, with the promise that at bedtime she would “settle with me.” I did think it over, you may be sure; over and over again. The day seemed interminable. I passed it with a heavy heart, unable to join in the merry-making of my playmates, because of the impending “settlement.” The thought of it hung over me like a pall, obscuring the brightness and beauty of what might otherwise have been a happy day. Sometimes I tried to be unusually obedient and good in the vain hope that the offense might be condoned. How I hoped she would forget! But did she?—Never! The “settlement” was as sure to come as the sun was to set. The punishment was duly administered; conscientiously, I do not doubt. Many a time I went sobbing off to sleep—a troubled sleep where ogres, gnomes, and bad stepmothers vied with one another in their attempts to torture and make me miserable. She meant it for my good; but there is a better way.—Good Housekeeping.