Review and Herald, Vol. 25, No. 12. (2/14/1865)

Review and Herald

Feb 14, 1865

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 14, 1865

NATURE AND DESTINY OF MAN.

By N. V. Hull

DISCUSSION BETWEEN ELD. N. V. HULL, SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST, AND ELD. R. F. COTTRELL, SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST.

(Continued from Review Vol. xxiv, No. 16.)

Elder Hull's Fourth Article.

Eld. R. F. Cottrell:

Dear Brother,—Perpetual and exacting labors have caused upon my part a long intermission in our correspondence.

In this article I hope to be reasonably concise and perspicuous, thereby freeing you from the duty of reproving me in the interest of the editor who prints our productions.

1. I repeat, "I used the term spirit to describe that principle or power in man, which is the seat of thought, emotion, feeling, passion, and affection." Please do not confound the seat of thought, emotion, &c., with thought, emotion, &c., making them identical; and then your criticisms may be more logical.

2. My opinion is, that all animal passions and emotions die with the animal itself, whether man or horse, and that this death is perpetual in both. I think that man, therefore, will not be raised with animal passions and emotions.

3. I reluctantly return to Matthew x, 28, because I think your objections to the translation of the passage are unreasonable. The historic evidence in favor of our translation is so overwhelming, that I see not how any man who has given the subject an unselfish examination, can doubt. Tyndal in 1534, as well as Wickliff in 1580, Cranmer in 1539, Genevan in 1557, two at Rheims in 1582, and every recent translation, so far as I have seen, without exception, emphatically justifies the authorized version of 1611. Now, with the weight of this testimony before us, who can doubt? But if you yield the translation, you give up your doctrine; for the text is so pointed, that except subjected to the most merciless torture and violent wrestling, it forever settles the question, that though the body may die, nevertheless the soul lives. Indeed, it would seem impossible to state the doctrine in stronger terms. But observe further, as I have said above, when the body dies, the animal life and all animal propensities forever cease with it, of necessity, unless indeed you maintain that the animal body, with its functions, is to be restored in the resurrection. To say, then, that our animal life is to return to God until the resurrection, is a palpable inconsistency. But there is no contradiction in supposing that the spirit of man returns to God, awaiting the advent of the spiritual body as its eternal abode. When, therefore, Stephen committed his spirit to God, it was not his animal life, for that was never to be returned to him.

4. You represent me as saying, that the Bible is silent concerning the immortality of the soul, but you mistake me. I do not suppose the Bible silent on this subject. The Bible, especially the New Testament, would be without meaning, were we to remove this doctrine from it. What I say is, that the term immortality is not in the Scriptures applied to the soul, but that the idea is abundantly found there. This is what I meant by saying that we should attend to the ideas presented, although a particular word may not be found there. And now as you have made yourself merry over what you seem to think my awkwardness on this point; let me ask you, if the continued existence of the soul after the death of the body be taught, does not the idea of immortality appear, although the particular word is not found?

5. You say, "I do not deny that the body is corruptible. I have proved that man, the entire being, is corruptible—Rom. i, 23." Your reasoning here is sophistical. Whoever turns to this text, and reads it in connection with its context, will see that the apostle represents the moral state of the heathen world, in showing that they had likened God to corrupt and sinful men. If the idea of physical corruption at all inheres in the text, it is in a secondary sense, for that which constituted the essence of idolatry was, that it ascribed to God the sinful passions of men.

6. Your criticism on the use of philosophical terms, is weak if not puerile. Is not the question of the nature of man a philosophical one? May I not use philosophical terms in discussing it, provided I do not oppose to the teaching of the Bible, philosophy falsely so called. But why reprove me, when you yourself do the same thing; for a little further on, you say that the thoughts and affections are "corrupt in a moral sense."

7. As I do not use the terms soul or spirit in the sense of thoughts, affections, &c., but only as their seat or source, I will not reply to your misconceptions on this point.

8. As you do not take issue with me as to my criticisms on the Hebrew and Greek terms under examination in my last article, I will take no notice of your very-well-conducted retreat from their evidently unwelcome presence.

9. Your attempted definition of the word destroy, staggers me, as it looks like an attempt to mislead untaught men. Besides, your reference to Webster would deceive one not having the means of knowing just what he does say. Had you said such was his fifth definition, you would have put the reader on his guard. Webster assigns nine separate definitions to the word, the fifth of which you give; but, judging from your language, one would suppose that was all. But to show how weak is your effort to make the word destroy the synonym of kill, I ask the reader to consult both Webster and Worcester, and look at Rom. xiv, 15—"Destroy not with thy food him for whom Christ died." Verse 20—"For food destroy not the work of God." 1 Cor. viii, 11—"And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish [be destroyed], for whom Christ died." In these passages, does the word destroy mean kill? That in many instances it means to kill in the ordinary sense of that term, I readily admit. I also admit, that temporal death as a judgment for particular offences, is often by God inflicted on the wicked. But this is far from proving that death, in this sense, is inflicted upon the wicked in the future state. I know the phrase "second death" may have reference to the punishment of the wicked in the future state; but I deny that it necessarily means the cessation of conscious being. If you can prove that it does, your cause will be gained. But this, perhaps, will more properly be introduced in another place.

10. I am not dull enough to suppose that when Paul spoke of an outward and an inward man, he meant two corporeal beings. That the outward man is corporeal, is easy enough to be seen; but precisely what may be the essence of the inward man, who can tell? Still Paul calls it the inward man, and I do not feel called upon to attempt an improvement upon his language. Besides, this form of expression is in keeping with the opinion of the Jews at that time, except the sect of the Sadducees, and would therefore be well-understood by them. It certainly was in conformity with the sentiments of the Pharisees, of whom Paul was one. Did not Paul evidently mean, by the "inward man," what in another place he calls "the spirit of man?"

11. I now come to your "three propositions," which, you say, if sustained, are "perfectly destructive of my theory." Your first proposition is, "Man was formed of the dust of the ground." The second one is, "Man is mortal." And the third, "that man in death has no knowledge."

(1.) "Man is formed of the dust of the ground." Your "proof" is, "And the Lord God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." On this text you say, that before the breath of life was breathed into him he was a man. In a certain qualified sense, he was; that is, dust was formed into the shape and substance of the human body. Up to this point, then, man is dust, and nothing more. Now, only that which was dust could return to dust. This dust so organized, is often in the Scriptures called man. But this is not exact or scientific language, but optical and accommodative, which you know is the common form of Scripture expression, as when it says the sun rises and sets. But suppose I should assert, that on this subject the true Bible doctrine was, that the sun did really rise and set, and so quote Scripture to prove it, would you accept my doctrine? Surely not. Let us go on then. The term man, then, is applied to this thing (not being, for it has not life) which God has made. This thing, then, is organized dust, but not living matter. In this state, it is incapable of thought, emotion, or feeling. For want of organization? No; for in this regard it is complete. Now God breathes into it the breath of life, and it becomes a living being—a living man.

Observe, then, God adds to this man of dust life; and this life is not dust. In the death of the body, God takes away the life which he added to the dust. The body is now dead, and dissolves into its original elements—dust to dust. Now, brother, when you make the term man, as you do in this discussion, cover not only the body, but also what God added to it, and then say that this man in death returns to dust, including the added essence, do you not palpably err?

(2.) Your second proposition is, "Man is mortal." Who disputes it? But I will examine your first proof text, Job iv, 17—"Shall mortal man be more just than God?" On this you say, "Here man as a whole is called mortal." If by the "whole" man you mean the perfect organization, which God formed out of the dust of the ground, I agree with you. But if you include that which God added, when he breathed into man the breath of life, I deny it, and call for proof. Numerous, indeed, are the passages in which mortality is affirmed of that which was made of the dust. See Rom. vi, 12, and viii, 11; 1 Cor. xv, 35; 2 Cor. iv, 11, &c. Now, if you can show that that which God breathed into man, as formed of the dust, was also mortal, you will gain your point. Give us the text!

(3.) But you proceed to say, "My third proposition is, 'Man in death has no knowledge.'" Proof—"For the living know that they must die, but the dead know not anything." Very well, who asserts that dead men have knowledge? Surely I do not. Let me ask you, Was this passage, Eccl. ix, 5, and Psa. vi, 5, "For in death there is no remembrance of thee; in the grave, who shall give thee thanks," written to meet the question we are debating? You will not assert it! Why, then, should you quote it for that purpose? It is useless to quote such texts in this controversy, because they do not reach the case. What is wanted, is to show that the spirits of the departed know nothing. Now, brother, don't talk any more about dead men's carcasses in the grave! The dust formed into man knew nothing, until God breathed into it the breath of life. So, therefore, when the breath of life is taken from it again, it knows nothing. The dust returns to dust.

Very truly yours, N. V. HULL

Eld. Cottrell's Fourth Reply.

By R. F. Cottrell

ELD. N. V. HULL:

Dear Brother,—Your fourth article is received. I am glad to resume our correspondence. I, too, will aim at brevity in what I have to reply.

I did not confound thought, emotion, &c., with their seat. I distinguished between them, and showed that there is no more difficulty in the view that immaterial thought is immediately connected with a material organization, than there is in the theory that it can be the product only of an immaterial soul, and still that immaterial soul itself is immediately connected with a material body. To get in an immaterial link between mind and matter, does not avoid the supposed difficulty; because that immaterial link must still be joined to the material body. We have in brutes the proof that mental operations result from living organized matter, unless they too have an immaterial soul to form the connection. To this argument you did not see fit to reply.

You have given your "opinion," that animal life forever ceases with the death of the body—that it is "never to be returned" to man. If, by animal life, you mean a brutish manner of living, I should hope it might cease even before that event. I should fear that death would fail to purify from this. But if you mean simply life—that principle which belongs to all animated existence—your opinion is a denial of the resurrection. Our Saviour laid down his life, not his animal propensities, when he said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit;" and he received it again. Said he, "I lay down my life, that I might take it again." And after he had risen, as the "first fruits of them that slept," he said, "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore." The resurrection consists in living again. Of those that had died in the Lord, we read that "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." Now, if this last class are raised free from "animal passions and emotions," or "animal propensities," as you say, how can they be tormented? and for what cause will their misery (if they are capable of it) be protracted to eternity? It would seem that, in such a state, they could not add anything to the debt already due for the "deeds done in the body."

With pleasure I return to Matt. x, 28, not only because it is the only passage upon which you have made a fair show of argument for consciousness in death, but because I have not yet done with its testimony. I do not desire to spike your guns in this your strongest fort, for I have use for them.

The view that I have given of the meaning of this passage would, I think, be satisfactory to all, were it not for the existence of a crumbling theory, which is in perishing need of a prop. I do not so much object to the translation of the passage, as to the unscriptural idea which is attached to the word soul—the idea that the soul lives when separated from the body—an idea that is not even hinted in any other passage in the Bible, and is not intended to be hinted in this.

In the latter clause of this text—"But rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell"—the word destroy evidently means no less than the word kill in the first clause. But this would destroy your theory; therefore you will not admit that destroy means to kill. I could hold my ground on this, however, unless you could find some theological definition of the term—a definition invented to sustain your theory; but, to avoid a windy strife about words, I retreat, and take position upon the first clause: "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul." You will not dispute that, in this clause, kill means kill. I proceed then. 1. We are not to fear those who are not able to kill the soul. 2. But we are expressly taught to fear God. 3. Therefore God is able to kill the soul. Will he do it? Let us see. 1. Our Saviour used no false motive. 2. But he did present God's ability to kill the soul as a powerful motive. 3. Therefore God will kill the souls of some, i. e. the souls of the wicked. Now, that which is liable to be killed, or, in other words, subject to death, is not immortal, but mortal; therefore the soul of man is mortal. Now, brother, if there is any leak in this logic, will you be so kind as to point out the very place where it is. If you do not find any real fault in the argument, I shall still think this "text is so pointed, that except subjected to the most merciless torture and violent wrestling, it forever settles the question," that the soul of man is mortal.

The Bible "is silent concerning the immortality of the soul" in its present state, or until it shall put on immortality at the resurrection of the just. But you claim that though "the term immortality is not in the Scriptures applied to the soul, that the idea is abundantly found there." You claim "that the Bible, especially the New Testament, would be without meaning, were we to remove this doctrine from it." I reply, Words are used in the Bible as signs of ideas; if the idea is abundantly there, you can point out the word or words which express it. I ask you to do so. I do not ask for any particular word, as immortal, but for any word which expresses the idea. If I desired to "remove this doctrine" from the Bible, as perhaps you think I do, what words should I be obliged to expunge? If the "continued existence of the soul after the death of the body" were proved, it would no more prove its immortality, than for a person in this life to say, "I live to-day, therefore I shall live forever." The wicked will have a future life; but is this affirmation a denial of the truth that that life will terminate with the second death?

Greenfield defines the words rendered incorruptible and corruptible, in Rom. i, 23, as follows: Aphthartou, incorruptible, immortal, imperishable, undying, enduring. Phthartou, corruptible, perishable, liable to decay, mortal. And he refers to Rom. i, 23; 1 Cor. ix, 25; and xv, 52. With this evidence before you, can you believe that the text designs to speak of God as sinless, and of man as sinful? Is it not clear, that it speaks of God as immortal, and of man as mortal?

I had no thought of misleading the people, or concealing the truth, when I gave Webster's fifth definition only, of the word destroy. I wish to avoid long quotations; but your insinuation of my attempting to deceive, by withholding an important part of the truth, together with the fact that few comparatively have Webster Unabridged, compels me to give those nine definitions entire. They are as follows:

1. To demolish; to pull down; to separate the parts of an edifice, the union of which is necessary to constitute the thing; as, to destroy a house or temple; to destroy a fortification.

2. To ruin; to annihilate a thing by demolishing or by burning; as, to destroy a city.

3. To ruin; to bring to naught; to annihilate; as, to destroy a theory or scheme; to destroy a government; to destroy influence.

4. To lay waste; to make desolate. Go up against this land, and destroy it.—Isa. xxxvi.

5. To kill; to slay, to extirpate; applied to men or other animals. Ye shall destroy all this people.—Num. xxxii. All the wicked will he destroy.—Psa. cxiv.

6. To take away; to cause to cease; to put an end to; as, pain destroys happiness. That the body of sin might be destroyed.—Rom. vi.

7. To kill; to eat; to devour; to consume. Birds destroy insects. Hawks destroy chickens.

8. In general, to put an end to; to annihilate a thing, or the form in which it exists. An army is destroyed by slaughter, capture or dispersion; a forest, by the ax, or by fire; towns, by fire, inundation, &c.

9. In chemistry, to resolve a body into its parts or elements.

Here, my friend, are the nine definitions. Which will you have? Which will you take to prove that, to destroy both soul and body means to preserve them eternally? The discerning reader will see, that the reason why I selected the fifth definition, is because it touches the subject in debate; it is the meaning of the word when "applied to men." You ask me whether destroy means to kill in the Scriptures you quote: "Destroy not with thy food him for whom Christ died," &c. It does in a secondary, but in no mystical sense. If we cause a brother to fall, we cause him to be destroyed; for that will be his final punishment. In this sense we kill him.

I see no occasion for saying more concerning the inward man. I refer the reader to what has been already said.

To test the strength of your argument by which you attempt to set aside the force of the testimony which I quoted to sustain my first proposition, perhaps I can do no better than to try its force upon a horse, or some other of the inferior animals. Do not think I am disposed to trifle; I am engaged in sober argument, upon a solemn and momentous subject, and I would disdain to descend to ridicule. I am laboring not to deprive men of immortal souls, but to convince them that they are in need of immortality, and to induce them to seek for it by well doing. Rom. ii, 7. If it is thus attainable, as the Scriptures assure us it is, it is worth just as much as though we already possessed it. But I proceed to try the force of your argument. All animals that breathe have, according to Bible teaching, the breath of life, and are living souls. Up to the time that God gave life to the horse, it could be nothing more than organized dust, and not living matter. God adds to this horse of dust life; and this life is not dust. In the death of the horse, God takes away the life which he added to the dust. "He taketh away their breath; they die, and return to their dust." Psa. civ, 29. To say that the horse in death returns to dust, including the added essence, is a palpable error. Neither the breath of life, nor life itself, is included in that which returns to dust, in man or beast. Now, brother, all that is wanting on your part, is to prove, not that life was given to man, but that an immortal soul was communicated to him.

Concerning my proposition that man is mortal, you ask, "Who disputes it." I reply, every one disputes it that says that the all-important part of man is immortal. I see no argument here which demands any reply that has not already been given. I have no need of a text to prove that that which God breathed into man is mortal, until you prove that it was something besides the breath of life—something not named in the record. How inconsistent to hold that, in the account of man's creation, given by inspiration of God, infinitely the most important part is not mentioned at all!

It is extremely difficult to evade the testimony that the dead know not anything. You ask, "Who asserts that dead men have knowledge?" Every one who asserts that man has an immortal soul, asserts, either that dead men have knowledge, or, that there are no dead men. The Scriptures speak of man in a state called death. You assume that that state is merely

a separation of the conscious soul from the unconscious body. According to this theory, knowledge is not diminished, but actually increased by death; for the soul now knows, in addition to its former knowledge, what death is, or what it is to be separated from the body. But the Holy Spirit has condescended to inform us, that in the state called death, "there is no remembrance" even of God—that "the living know" some things, "but the dead know not anything." But you ask whether these Scriptures were "written to meet the question we are debating." I presume they were not written for the express occasion of our debate; but they speak decidedly to the question under discussion. This is the reason I quote them. Matt. x, 28, was not written expressly to meet this question, but as an exhortation to faithfulness even to death. It does not speak to the question of man's knowledge in death, but merely represents that man cannot kill the soul, which, as I have shown, is to deprive them of their existence in the world to come. The texts I have quoted affirm positively, that in death there is no knowledge—no remembrance. It is not for me to show "that the spirits of the departed know nothing," till you show that the spirit of man is an entity, or being, separate from the body. Was the breath of life a conscious being added to man, or was it given simply to make man alive? It is the Saviour that talks about men in the graves. He says, "The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth."

It is not for the want of language to express the idea, that the immortality of the soul is not affirmed in the Scriptures. We are taught that God is immortal. "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God," &c.—1 Tim. i, 17. This is the only place where the word immortal is found in our common English version. No word having the meaning of immortal is anywhere applied to the human soul. The word immortality is used five times. Speaking of God it is said, "Who only hath immortality."—1 Tim. vi, 16. God is the only fountain of immortality. But there is a future immortality for man brought to light or revealed in the gospel. Speaking of Christ, it is said, "Who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."—2 Tim. i, 10. This immortality is presented as an object of hope—a thing to be sought for. God "will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life."—Rom. ii, 6, 7. Those who seek for it, are not in possession of it; but will receive it at the resurrection. "For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."—1 Cor. xv, 52-54.

Such is the Bible teaching on the immortality of the soul. God has immortality, and can impart it to whom he will. His willingness to impart, even to those who had lost their life through disobedience, is brought to light through the gospel; not through the New Testament only, but through the whole gospel scheme, from the first promise concerning the seed of the woman, down to the last dispensation. Christ has demonstrated the abolition of death to those who receive him, by his own death and triumphant resurrection. Those who seek for immortality, by patient continuance in well doing will obtain it. It will be given at the resurrection of the just—the first resurrection. Then the glorious victory over death and the grave will be consummated, and the saying that "is written" be a glorious reality. Then this mortal person or soul will put on immortality.

Let all who would enjoy immortality, accept of it through Christ. Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory over death and the grave, through our Lord Jesus Christ!

As ever yours, R. F. COTTRELL.

Christ Made Like Us

Christ made himself like to us, that he might make us like to himself.

The Christian and his Saviour.

By M. Wells

Christian. I AM weary, O my Saviour, And I cannot see the way, And the path seems very rugged, While I hear sweet voices say, Come where flowers are blooming brightly, Where sweet perfumes fill the air; Come where joys shall be thy portion, And the heart is free from care.

Saviour. But these pleasures which are promised, All will turn to nothingness; They will lure thy feet from glory, They will surely fail to bless.

Christian. I am lonely, O my Saviour, All the friends I loved of yore, Coldly turn their eyes upon me, I can clasp their hands no more, As I could in former seasons; Ere I trod this narrow path; And they mock me, and deride me, Crying strange, and foolish faith.

Saviour. I do promise by my greatness, I who do thy steps behold; In this life thou'lt have thy portion, In the next a thousand fold.

Christian. But my weakness! O my Saviour, Surely I can never stand, All the toilings of the journey, To the bright the better land. I shall faint ere 'tis accomplished, I so weak a one and frail, Cannot battle with the torrents, With the storm and with the hail.

Saviour. But my strength is all sufficient, I am strong while thou art weak; I'll impart my strength unto thee, If aright for it thou'lt seek.

Christian. Thou hast promised! I believe Thee, Nevermore will I complain, Though my feet be torn and bleeding, Thou wilt heal them all again. Thou hast trod this path before me, And it leads to endless bliss, In the next life thou'lt receive me, Angels pure shall guard in this.

Saviour. Be thou faithful through the journey, Often watching unto prayer; Then when I select my jewels, Thou shalt come my joys to share. M. WELLS. Homer, Calhoun Co., Mich.

Revival Preaching.

Preaching to promote revivals should be scriptural. One plain text proves more than a dozen arguments. Logic can be met with logic, but from the word of God there is no appeal. Your opinion will convict nobody; your say-so's possess no authority; your thoughts may be profound, but no one will expect to be damned for not receiving them; but a Thus saith the Lord will arrest the attention, disarm logic and, if anything, will bring the sinner to his knees. Metaphysical dissertations may confound the intellect; historical disquisitions may instruct; rhetorical flourishes may captivate the imagination, but the conscience will remain untouched. Give the people the simple word of God. Explain it clearly, apply it faithfully and with the authority of Heaven, and with the unction of the Holy Ghost, and men will quail and tremble before you. If you are an ambassador of God, talk like one. Your business is not to give currency to your own views, but to make known the requirements of your Master. Tell us the nature of his demands and the consequences of non-compliance. You cannot coax men to become saints. You may induce them to come to church by flattering their pride, in giving, for a suitable consideration, a prominent pew, where, Sabbath after Sabbath, the gay attire of the family may be displayed for admiration. You may induce them to assume the profession of a Christian by persuading them that little or no self-denial is required; and that such a step will be, in every respect, greatly for their advantage, but what has the cause of Christ gained by your seeming success? You have deceived souls—it may be to their eternal ruin. You have made hypocrites, and not Christians. You have betrayed Jesus into the hands of his enemies. For whosoever will be the friend of the world is the enemy of God, and you have filled the church with those whose friendship for the world has never abated one jot or tittle. And yet you report a glorious revival! Such revivals have made the Romish church what she is, and are in a fair way of bringing the Protestant churches into a state of formalism far less respectable than hers, and equally damning.—Earnest Christian.

Help Your Mother.

"GEORGIA, come and make some yeast," said Mrs. Grey to her daughter. It was Saturday morning, and there was a great deal to be done; for Mrs. Grey's family was large, and she kept no servant. Georgia made the yeast, and then left the kitchen and went to her chamber, to read in a new novel which had been lent her.

"Georgia! Georgia!" called her busy mother several times; but there was no Georgia to be found. She then tried Jane. "Here, Jane, come and see to the fire; my hands are in the dough. I wish you wouldn't all get off out of sight and hearing, when there is so much to do. What is Agnes about?"

"Finishing the hook-mark," was the reply.

"Go and tell her to put that right away, and sweep the parlor, and set it to rights. Find Georgia, and tell her to do up the chamber-work, and do you stay here to help me."

"Yes, mother," was the obedient reply.

The girls all obeyed their mother's orders. They never thought of doing otherwise; but they never thought of doing anything without orders. The whole care of everything rested on their mother, quite as much now when she was fifty years of age, feeble and very weary, and the mother of three healthy, full grown daughters, as it did when she was in her prime, with a hand of little ones around her. Perhaps the first fault had been her own; perhaps she had not rightly trained her girls; but they were old enough now to amend their mother's mistake. They knew very well, how miserable her health was; but they did not seem to realize, as everybody else did, that unless she could be quite relieved from care and labor, her life would soon be over. Every day she groaned with weariness, and at night, and in the morning her limbs were so stiff she could hardly bend them.

"Mother, why in the world don't you make the girls do more?" asked her husband almost every day of his life; and as often Mrs. Grey replied, "O, they do a great deal! They are always willing to do all I ask them. They are a great help to me." Just like a mother! She can always be woefully imposed upon, if her children are thoughtless and mean enough to do it, and she will never own that she is imposed on. She will shield her children to the last.

The Grey girls were always willing to do what their mother bade; but they were not always ready.

"Come, Jennie, 'tis your turn to build the fire for supper to-night. Run out and do it, 'tis almost six o'clock," Mrs. Grey would say.

"Yes, in a minute." In ten, fifteen, or twenty minutes, Mrs. Grey would speak again.

"Yes, mother, I'm just going."

But it would be sometimes nearly dark before there would be any actual move, and the father and brothers would be home from their day's work, hungry, and of course, cross, when they saw that supper was behind-hand. It is vain to deny, Parson Chaplain Quint, that as a general thing, a hungry man is a cross one. All woman-kind can testify to this serious and suggestive fact. Poor Mrs. Grey was so tired of perpetually repeating directions, and of the effort of causing them to be seasonably and properly carried out, that she often and often did the work herself, when she felt hardly able to crawl, rather than to try to get the girls to do it. Oh, how thoughtless and unfeeling these daughters were! They quietly allowed the mother to do all that she would; but they were rewarded. They loved their mother, and they were not really very cruel or wicked girls. Could they have had one glance a few months forward, how utterly changed would have been their conduct. But not one of us can see a moment before us.

Suddenly the devoted mother was missing from her post in the kitchen. She was to be waiter and drudge no more. She died; but had she been cared for and cherished as she should have been, she might have been the companion and comforter of her husband and her children for many happy years. When they saw the tired feet at rest, the worn hands folded, the dim eyes closed at last, self-reproach took hold upon them, and they wept. They felt that they might have kept her. They remembered all their lazy, careless ways, and how worn out with care and toil, they had allowed their mother to become. Every groan they had heard her utter came back to them, and they were filled with remorse for all that they had failed to do. The weeks and months only showed them more and more plainly, what they had lost, and how guilty they had been. But it was too late to make atonement. All they could do was to lay the lesson to heart, and try to improve by it. This they all did, and they cherished the memory of their dead mother as they never had cherished her.

If any girls who are walking in the ways of the Grey girls, will but take warning by their punishment, they may perhaps, escape a similar one. There are few agonies more hard to bear, than to look on a dead face, most near and dear, and feel that our treatment has hastened the parting hour. God save us all from that!—Springfield Republican.

Continue reading: The Rest that Remaineth. Heb. iv