THE NATURE AND TENDENCY OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM.
By James White
They destroy all distinctions of right and wrong. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" God requires us to perfect holiness in his sight, and to purify our souls in obeying the truth; but if there is no choice of action, or no difference worthy of notice between the principles of truth and error, right and wrong, how shall we assure our hearts before God? The teachings of Spiritualism are truly destroying the foundations, by denying the distinctions of right and wrong, and affirming that no evil consequence can result from any course of action. The correspondent of the Telegraph, already noticed, who elevated "the Healing of the Nations" so far above the Bible, further says of it: "According to its teaching, no place is found in the universe for Divine wrath and vengeance. All are alike and for ever, the object of God's love, pity and tender care—the difference between the two extremes of human character on earth being as a mere atom when compared with perfect wisdom." This is not merely the sentiment of the correspondent of the paper; he characterizes truly the teachings of the book, which is a standard work of Spiritualism. That there is a wider difference between God and the very best of the human race, than there is between the two extremes of the human race, we do not deny; for God is infinite in every perfection, while man is imperfect at best. But to argue from hence that God disregards the distinctions of character, or will not vindicate his laws and punish the guilty, is but shallow reasoning, to say the best of it. Abraham passed a different judgment on the ways of God, and doubtless his perceptions of truth and justice in this matter were as acute as those of the spiritual authorities. He said, "That the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee; shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. xviii, 25. Instead of giving us an exalted view of the holiness of the Supreme Being, these spiritual teachings really place him below our estimate of a good, worthy man. We do not conclude that a man, because he is wise and good, will overlook and disregard all difference of action and character in his children or in his fellow men. He who is the lowest and most debased will least regard these distinctions. Can we respect the man who places the same estimate upon the thief that he does upon the honest man, or regards the murderer in the same light that he does the innocent and inoffensive? We cannot. Such declarations deny, not the Bible only, but every principle in reason or revelation on which the stability of the Divine government depends. The same sentiment is taught by A. J. Davis, in a lecture on the "Philosophy of Reform," from which the following is an extract: "Reformers need to understand that WAR is as natural to one stage of human development as PEACE is natural to another. My brother has the spirit of revenge. Shall I call him a demon? Is not his spirit natural to his condition? War is not evil or repulsive, except to a man of peace. Who made the warrior? Who made the non-resistant? Polygamy is as natural to one stage of development, as oranges are natural to the South. Shall I grow indignant, and because I am a monogamist, condemn my kinsman of yore? Who made them? Who made me? We both came up under the confluence of social and political circumstances; and we both represent our conditions and our teachers. The doctrine of blame and praise is natural only to an unphilosophical condition of mind. The spirit of complaint—of attributing 'evil' to this and that plane of society—is not natural; but is natural only to undeveloped minds. It is a profanation—a sort of atheism—of which I would not be guilty. And all our religions, all our schemes of reformation, operating on this superficial plane, need the very elements which are necessary to reform." Revenge, war, polygamy, and every violation of the principles of morality or the Law of God, may not be blamed. In the same lecture he says, "It will be found impossible for man to transgress a law of God." Thus according to nature, "the true and only Bible," it is impossible to do wrong! To call war, polygamy, &c. evil, is "a sort of atheism!" It is unnecessary further to pursue this point. Any further "progress" in this direction seems almost impossible: they may go further in practice than they have yet gone, but the theory of lawlessness is fully developed. They deny the resurrection of the dead. It is generally assumed that the real man does not die, and that which returns to earth never rises. A denial of the resurrection is a consequence of holding their views of the state of the dead. And we find that all those, whether Spiritualists or not, who teach the immortality of the soul and the consciousness of man in death, in a measure deny the resurrection, general judgment, &c.; for if the righteous enter into "fullness of joy" at death, a resurrection would be of little consequence; and if the wicked sink to the pains of hell when they die, a future judgment would succeed their punishment, and of course be no more than a farce. This view reduces the glorious promises of the coming of Christ, the establishment of his kingdom, and the resurrection of the dead to mere cyphers, possessing no real value in the plan of redemption. Some have endeavored to avoid this charge, by denying only a general resurrection, and construing the scriptures which speak of the resurrection so as to mean the rising of the spirit body, which, they affirm, is developed, and rises as Christ arose, on the third day after death. But this theory is contradicted by the facts or phenomena of Spiritualism, according to the following correspondence of the Telegraph. It is dated, Watertown, N. Y., July 18, 1857, and relates to the death of the daughter of the writer. "In a short time she left us but not for ever. No, in a few short hours she came, attended by a friend. Mrs. Mayo, the medium, was controlled to come to our residence at this time. She is a healing and speaking medium, and through her the spirit of Oliver Wilcox spoke to us and said our daughter was with him, and that he would aid her in arranging her own funeral. He did so. We don't mourn as those without hope; for she yet lives and communicates with us." This is a complete contrast with the hope of the Christian, as may be seen by reading 1 Thess. iv, 13-18. We trust that the testimony presented fully sustains our position in regard to the character of the spirits. By the perfect rule, the word of God, it is shown that what they teach could not be characterized better than it is by the Apostle—"doctrines of devils." In regard to their power and disposition to deceive, we have one more class of evidence to present, viz., the admission of Spiritualists. According to their own statements the testimony of the spirits cannot be relied on. In a discussion of the subject last Summer with one who claimed to have been the first Spiritualist in the State of Michigan, (Mr. Hobert of St. Joseph county,) he made the following remarks: "The spirit sometimes assumes the name of an individual belonging to the same church to induce them to hear; this is necessary with some who are so bigoted they would not believe unless a name was assumed which they respected." This was an admission that we did not suppose any intelligent Spiritualist would make; and any such assumption would avail nothing if the person spoken to believed what the Bible says, that "the dead know not anything." Eccl. ix, 5. That they often do deceive those who seek to them, is beyond all doubt; and to ward off the force of this fact, the flimsy covering of doing evil that good may come, is thrown over them. They are good, but it is our weakness and bigotry that causes them to profess to be what they are not! They are obliged to deceive us for our benefit, and lie us into the truth!66 The following appeared in the Spiritual Age last July. The points of interrogation, and remarks in brackets show that the editor considers it a deception; but we know not why these appearances and communications are not as reliable as those given in the Age to prove the truth of Spiritualism. "Alleged return of the angels. Mr. Van Deusen of this city, desires us to say that the Angels that were wont to appear to the Patriarchs have appeared to himself and wife at his house; and that they have communicated 'most important intelligence from the seventh sphere.'(?) Mr. S. insists that the divine messengers have come to him under circumstances which render it impossible that he should be mistaken, [we think a mistake is possible,] that they have revealed certain important and fundamental principles (?) of a new social order to be established on the earth, and wherein the conjugal law will be rightly understood, and the relations of the sexes properly adjusted. Mr. Van Deusen and his wife desire us to say, that they are anxious to communicate to all lovers of truth what they know of this important subject, for which they will charge nothing. [That's a popular feature.] Any well disposed person who may wish such information as they can give, is at liberty to call at 164 Taylor St., where no tests need be expected." The following remark from Dr. Hare shows that he also believes there is danger of being deceived by them: 'There was a difficulty, undoubtedly, in knowing precisely how it is, even upon the testimony of spirits, because spirits there occupying different spheres and immensely differing in their degree of development, accordingly give discrepant accounts of the matter. We must first identify the spirit and determine his trustworthiness before we could accredit the testimony. We must observe the same rules of evidence, apply the same tests, and have the same care in ascertaining their identity and veracity we do in like matters here.' But Spiritualists do not observe the same rules nor apply the same tests, neither is it possible for them to do so, though they sometimes profess to. Dr. Hare seems to consider himself safe from deception, as will appear by the following remark: 'I thought it impossible that he could have been deceived. It was not likely that any spirit would, in such a convocation, where Washington, Franklin, his father, and mother, and others were present, assume a false character and name to deceive him, any more than it was possible for any individual to assume to be and speak as some one else, at a town meeting, without being detected.' But Dr. Hare assumes that 'Washington, Franklin, his father, and mother, and others were present,' for he has not the same means of determining the identity of persons that he would have in a town meeting. We have attended many town meetings in years gone by, but we never yet knew any man to speak in such meetings in the name of his neighbor. But such things often take place in the 'circles,' if we can credit the testimony of Spiritualists. In the Spiritual Telegraph of July 11, 1857, the leading editorial is 'On the Identification of Spirits.' The following is the commencement of the article: 'The question is continually being asked, especially by novitiates in spiritual investigations, How shall we know that the spirits who communicate with us are really the ones whom they purport to be? and for want of a satisfactory answer many minds are thrown into perplexity, and even doubt as to whether the so-called spiritual manifestations are really such. In giving the results of our own experience and observation upon this subject, we would premise that spirits unquestionably can, and often do, personate other spirits, and that, too, often with such perfection as, for the time being, to defy every effort to detect the deception. Not only can they represent the leading personal characteristics of the spirits whom they purport to be, but they can relate such facts in the history of said spirits, as may be known to the inquirer, or to some one else with whom the communicating spirit is or has been en rapport. And this, in our opinion, is done so often as to very materially diminish the value of any specific tests that may be designedly instituted by the enquirer for the purpose of proving identity: and if direct tests are demanded at all, we would recommend that they be asked for the purpose of proving that the manifesting influence is that of a spirit, rather than to prove what particular spirit is the agent of its production.' So it appears that all their talk about 'tests' and 'test mediums' is not to be depended upon. The 'experience and observation' of the editor of the Telegraph entitles his testimony to as much credit as that of any Spiritualist in the country. According to his testimony we can only assure ourselves 'that the manifesting influence is that of a spirit,' which we would not deny, but we cannot ascertain 'what particular spirit' is communicating, as they 'personate with such perfection' as to 'defy every effort to detect the deception.' This is all that we have ever claimed, or could claim, to prove the fulfillment of the prophecy; they are seducing spirits. The following from the same article is equally expressive of their characters and actions: 'From much experience and observation, however, we are satisfied that if after having received, in all good faith, such messages directly from the spirit friend whom it purports to be, we proceed to inquiries about matters of theological faith or speculative philosophy, or even about such practical concerns of human life as may involve the ambition, conceits or prejudices of other spirits than the one with whom up to that moment we have been talking, then other spirits who may be more nearly related to, and who may have more perfect control over, the medium, will most probably assume instantly the name and position of our friend, pushing the latter aside, and will set forth his own theories, fancies, and probably falsities, using the name of our friend, and all the confidence we may have gained in the latter's identity, by way of enforcing what he would have us believe. And we receive the communication perhaps with the utmost surprise that our friend, in passing into the spirit world should have so soon changed his opinion on that particular subject!' All questions of 'theological faith,' 'speculative philosophy,' or even of 'such practical concerns of human life as may involve the ambition, conceits, or prejudices,' of some wicked spirit, will cause such ambitious, conceited and prejudiced spirit to push the other aside, take his name and send his falsities and forgeries abroad to be devoured as 'divine revelations.' We need not carry our investigation of this point any further. We feel assured that there is a test which will 'detect the deception.' It is 'the Law and Testimony' of God's word. 'If they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them.' We have shown that they do not speak according to this word, and that by their own admissions too, there is neither light nor truth to be expected from them. Probably ninety-nine one hundredths of all the tests of faith upon which Spiritualists profess to be convinced of its truthfulness, would be proved fallacious by the above observation of the Telegraph. Professing to be led by 'the most enlightened reason,' they daily receive and credit what is most unreasonable. They would overthrow the word of God, and introduce as a substitute the caprices and fancies of some unknown evil spirit. They would dethrone God as 'the Judge of all,' and arrogate to themselves the prerogatives of that office. They would bring the Saviour from his Father's throne, where he sits a Priest to intercede for man, and be their own redeemers—their own saviours. They destroy the distinctions of right and wrong. They cast off moral restraint in the name of freedom, and make no difference between licentiousness and liberty. The word of the Lord is fulfilled. We are in perilous times; iniquity abounds; the power of godliness is seldom seen; men are even now in perplexity; the nations are angry and becoming distressed. Soon will the judgments of God be manifest, and destruction sweep as a whirlwind over the earth, swallowing up the ungodly in everlasting ruin. How good is the Lord to mark out our path and set up waymarks so plain that we need not be mistaken! One of the plainest of these is the work of Satan now manifested in Spiritualism. May the Lord set home the truth to our hearts, that we may truly 'discern the signs of the times.'
J. H. W.
(To be Continued.) WATCH AND PRAY.
By S. M. Swan
O WATCH! dark is the night, and fierce the storm,
Loud howls the blast which beats upon thy way:
Watch for the tokens of the coming morn,
The dreary night is passing fast away. Watch! for temptation gathers round thy way,
While strangers in an adversary's land.
O watch! for ye are children of the day,
The night is passing: morning is at hand. Watch! for your King is in a distant land,
And bids his servants watch for his return.
Watch! for his coming is e'en now at hand,
Let hope thy bosom cheer, so long forlorn. O watch and pray! for thou hast foes to fight,
Foes which alone thou canst not overcome:
Watching and prayer will keep thine armor bright,
Soon will thy toils be o'er, thy victory won. O watch and pray! the Judge is at the door,
Before his flaming bar thou soon must stand:
O watch! and keep thy garments spotless, pure,
And thou shalt then be found at his right hand.
S. M. SWAN.
Orwell, Ohio, Dec 21st, 1857. ADDRESS TO A FRIEND.
By H. C. Crumb
BY H. C. CRUMB.
(Concluded.) But the objector says, John said that he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and First-day is the Lord's day, hence it must be the Sabbath-day. I would ask, Where in the Bible is the first day called the Lord's day, in distinction from the other days of the week? Nowhere. Is any one day called the Lord's day in distinction from the other days of the week? Yes. God calls the Sabbath his holy day. Isa. lviii, 13. "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Ex. xvi, 23. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. xx, 10. "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Gen. ii, 3. In other words, he made a Sabbath of it, and said Christ, "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark ii, 27. "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark ii, 28. From these facts we may know which day is the Lord's day. The seventh day, the Sabbath-day. And those that use these scriptures, [Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2; Rev. i, 10,] or any other scripture to prove Sunday the Sabbath, do they not wrest them from their true meaning? and is there not danger of their wresting them unto their own destruction? 2 Pet. iii, 16. I would here refer the reader to 2 Tim. iv, 16. Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine, &c. 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine," &c., that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Now can Sunday-keeping be called a good work, when we are not taught it in the word of God? Do not those who teach that God's law is done away, or that the Sabbath has been changed, or that First-day has been instituted, handle the word of God deceitfully? Let us renounce this, and by manifestation of the truth, commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 2 Cor. iv, 2. Now let us see if Christ and the apostles kept the first day, or the Sabbath. Jesus said that he kept his Father's commandments. John xv, 10. And one of them required the keeping of the Sabbath. Jesus came to Nazareth where he had been brought up, and as his custom was he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read. This is declared to be Christ's custom. Luke iv, 16. And Jesus came to Capernaum and taught them on the Sabbath-days. And we believe that was his custom; for so Luke testifies in chap. iv, 16, as quoted above. Did the apostles follow Christ in this practice? Well, the apostles have told us to follow them as much as they followed Christ. Acts xvii, 2. And Paul, as his manner (custom) was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath-days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures. But we have no account of his telling them that the Sabbath was done away, or about its being changed, although Paul has told that he had not shunned to declare the whole counsel of God. Acts xx, 27. And Paul came to Corinth where he reasoned every Sabbath for a year and six months. Acts xviii, 1-11. In Acts xiii, 14, we have the account of Paul's preaching at Antioch on the Sabbath-day, both to the Jews and Gentiles. Which day is the Sabbath-day? God says, The seventh day. What say you? Verse 42. "And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. What a good opportunity for Paul to have told them that they need not wait until the next Sabbath; (Jewish Sabbath;) to-morrow is the Christian Sabbath; come then, and if the Jews will not let us have the synagogue we can go out by the river-side where prayer is wont to be made. Yet Paul did not tell them so. Would it not have been profitable for them to know that the Sabbath had been changed? Yet, after this, Paul tells us in Acts xx, 20, that he had kept back nothing that was profitable unto them; hence Paul did not consider it profitable for them, neither for you; if he had he would have written it for our instruction. Can any one believe that Paul taught publicly,67 and from house to house, that the first day was the Sabbath, and we know nothing about it? But says one, Paul preached publicly and from house to house repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. But what did Paul tell them to repent of? Sin. What is sin? The transgression of the law. Whose law? God's law. And is not the fourth commandment a part of God's law? And if we have broken it, let us repent of it, forsake our sin of breaking a holy law, which is just and good, and yield obedience to it. But to return to Acts xiii, 44. And the next Sabbath-day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. I wish people were as anxious to hear the word of God now as they were then. Read verse 46 of Acts xiii, and ask yourself the question, Do I not put the word of God from me when I reject his holy Sabbath? But it is urged, the apostles preached on the Sabbath for the sake of preaching in the synagogue. But in Acts xvi, 12, 13, we see that Paul, when he came to Philippi, the chief city in Macedonia, abode there certain days. And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river-side where prayer was wont to be made. Here they did not meet on the Sabbath for the sake of meeting in the synagogue, neither are we informed that that was their object in meeting on the Sabbath at any time, or in any place; and what right have we to infer any such thing from any scripture? Are we safe in refusing to keep God's Sabbath on the pretence that we are following the example of the apostles in keeping Sunday, from anything that can rightly be inferred from the Scriptures? Most certainly not. Read Acts 28, 17. Here Paul says to the chief of the Jews, that he had done nothing against the people, or customs of their fathers. Did Paul speak the truth here? I believe that he did. Do you believe that Paul neglected to keep the Sabbath? If he had neglected to keep the Sabbath would that not have been something against the customs of their fathers? Again: If Paul had kept the first day would that not have been something against the customs of their fathers? Most certainly it would. 1 Pet. iii, 15. Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear. I would ask you what hope you have of heaven in disobeying any one of God's commandments, even the fourth command, which requires you to keep his holy seventh-day Sabbath. Does it strengthen your hope of heaven any to keep First day? If it does, just look and see if you have got a well-grounded hope. See if it is built on the word of God. Again: Do we not corrupt the word of God when we make it teach his holy Sabbath done away, and a First-day Sabbath instituted? O let us be like Paul who said that he was not as many who corrupt the word of God. 2 Cor. ii, 17. Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? And now we have examined the New Testament and we cannot find that either Christ or the apostles kept the first day for the Sabbath, or that they neglected to keep God's Sabbath, or that they taught us that God's law of ten commandments is done away, or any one of them, or that the Sabbath has been changed; and if you were to come to Christ, and ask him why he and his disciples transgressed the tradition of the fathers in not keeping the first day of the week for the Sabbath, would not Christ say unto you, Why do ye transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? for God commanded, saying, "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy." The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, &c. But ye say whosoever will keep Sunday (First-day) shall be free from the law. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Please read Matt. xv; and is not this in accordance with the language of the first six verses? Read also verses 7-9, 13. Did God plant this First-day keeping? If he did, can it not be shown? If he did not plant it, and Christ's words be true, it will be rooted up. See to it that you are not rooted up with it; for Christ will send his angels to gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them that do iniquity; and iniquity is the transgression of God's law. Matt. xiii, 41; 1 John iii, 4. Extract Spiritual Instruction from Everything
Endeavor to extract some spiritual instruction from every thing that occurs. SIN AND FOLLY OF SCOLDING.
1. It is a sin against God. It is evil and only evil, and that continually. David understood both human nature and the Law of God. He says, "Fret not thyself in any wise to do evil." That is, never fret nor scold, for it is always a sin. If you cannot speak without fretting or scolding, keep silence. 2. It destroys affection. No one ever did, ever can, or ever will, love an habitual fretter, fault-finder, or scolder. Husbands, wives, children, relatives or domestics, have no affection for peevish, fretful fault-finders. Few tears are shed over the graves of such. Persons of high moral principle may tolerate them, may bear them. But they cannot love them more than the sting of nettles, or the noise of mosquitoes. Many a man has been driven to the tavern and to dissipation, by a peevish, fretful wife. Many a wife has been made miserable by a peevish, fretful husband. 3. It is the bane of domestic happiness. A fretful, peevish, complaining fault-finder in a family is like the continual chafing of an inflamed sore. Woe to the man, woman or child, who is exposed to the influence of such a temper in another. Nine tenths of all domestic trials and unhappiness, spring from this source. Mrs. A. is of this temperament. She wonders her husband is not more fond of her company. That her children give her so much trouble. That domestics do not like to work for her. That she cannot secure the good will of young people. The truth is, that she is peevish and fretful. Children fear her, and do not love her. She never gained the affections of a young person, nor never will till she leaves off fretting. 4. It defeats the end of family government. Good family government is the blending of fear and love. Indeed it is the great secret of managing young people. Now your fretters may inspire fear, but they always make two faults where they correct one. Scolding at a child, fretting at a child, treating a child as though it had no feelings, inspires dread and dislike; and fosters those very dispositions from which many of the faults of childhood proceed. Mr. G. and Mrs. F. are of this class. Their children are made to mind, but how? Mrs. F. frets and scolds her children. She is severe enough upon their faults. She seems to watch them in order to find fault. She sneers at them. Treats them as though they had no feelings. She seldom gives them a command without a threat and a long running, fault-finding commentary. When she chides, it is not done in a dignified manner. She raises her voice, puts on a cross look, threatens, strikes them, pinches their ears, snaps their head, &c. The children cry out, pout, sulk; and poor Mrs. F. has to do her work over pretty often. Then she will find fault with her husband because he does not fall in with her ways, or chime with her as chorus. 5. Fretting and scolding make hypocrites. As a fretter never receives confidence and affection, so no one likes to tell them anything disagreeable, and thus procure for themselves a fretting. Now, children conceal as much as they can from such persons. They cannot make up their minds to be frank and open-hearted. So husbands conceal from their wives, and wives from their husbands. For a man may brave a lion, but he likes not to come in contact with nettles and mosquitoes. 6. It destroys one's peace of mind. The more one frets, the more he may. A fretter will always have enough to fret at, especially if he or she has the hump of order and neatness largely developed. Something will always be out of place. There will always be some dirt somewhere. Others will not eat right, look right, talk right. And fretters are generally so selfish as to have no regard for any one's comfort but their own. 7. It is a mark of a vulgar disposition. Some persons have so much gall in their dispositions, are so selfish that they have no regard to the feelings of others. All things must be done to please them. They make their husbands, wives, children, domestics, the conductors by which their spleen and ill nature are discharged. Woe to the children who are exposed to their influences. It makes them callous and unfeeling, and when they grow up, they pursue the same course with their own children, or those entrusted to their management; and thus the race of fretters is perpetuated. Any person who is in the habit of fretting or sneering, taunting their husbands, wives, children, or domestics, shows either a bad disposition or else ill breeding. For it is generally your ignorant, low bred people that are guilty of such things.—Sel. Christian Pilgrim! WHITHER ART THOU GOING? Thou art not at home; thou hast not reached thy rest. Thou art here a stranger and a sojourner as all thy fathers were before thee. Wert thou of earth, then could'st thou be at rest. Then could''st thou cast off thy yearnings for an eternal home, thy sighings and longings, and pantings, and could'st say unto thy soul, "Soul, take thine ease; eat, drink and be merry." Then could'st thou be even as the brute beasts around thee, thoughtless, careless, fearless, hopeless. But thou art not at home. Thou wanderest a stranger and foreigner far from thy Father's house. Thou journeyest ever yearning after the unseen; oft weary, oft cold, oft hungry, oft tempted, oft cast down, oft perplexed and forlorn; yet are thine eyes ever forward and upward as one that seekest a better land. Christian Pilgrim! Whither goest thou? I GO TO MY FATHER'S HOUSE. I go to a goodly land, a land of peace and joy. I go to the regions of light, to the glad and blessed world. I go to the New Jerusalem, to the City of my God. I go to the abode of the pure, to the haven of storm-tossed saints. I go to the realms where angels dwell, where seraphs flame and cherubs sing. I go to the Palace of gold, to the temple of my God. Poor, forlorn and way-worn, weary and fainting pilgrim though I be, thither I go; yea, and thither ere long shall I come and be forever at rest. THERE SHALL I SEE THE KING IN HIS GLORY. There, all gloriously attired in his righteousness, shall I behold his face. Ravished by the sight, with joy unspeakable, shall my exulting spirit pour forth its love and adoration in notes whose melody of gratitude will fill the courts of heaven with wondering praise. There shall I bask in the sun-beams of His love who gave himself to death for me. There shall my ransomed spirit, brought safely home, saved, assured, eternally redeemed from sin, from sorrow, from wandering, pain and woe, forever rest with him, the pilgrim's Saviour, God and Guide. BEWARE! OH! PILGRIM! BEWARE! Thou wanderest in a wilderness beset with many a snare. Pitfalls are before thee; enemies surround thee; dangers encompass thee on every hand. Beware, lest thou stumble and fall. Beware, lest thou wander and miss thy way. Beware, lest the fair flowers and fruits of the wilderness tempt thee to dally with transient joys, and cause thee to forget thy home. Beware lest thy foes beguile thee, and rob thee of thy prize. Beware, lest night shades come upon thee ere thy journey be done, and thou reach not the mansions of light. Pilgrim, beware! MY BELOVED IS MINE, and I fear not. I am weary and way-worn, but I lean on his arm. I am chilled, but his beams shine upon me. I faint, but the cordial of his love revives me. I wander, but he, my guide, restores me. I stumble, but his right hand upholds me. Mine enemies are cunning; they are strong and cruel, but he is my buckler and shield. Through him shall I do valiantly. Through him shall I be more than conqueror, and soon shall I enter the pearly gates. Soon shall I enter the golden streets. Soon shall I tune my golden harp. Soon shall I drink of the River of Life. Yea, soon shall I enter in to go out no more for ever. OH! PILGRIM! Go joyously on! Fix thine eyes above. Shake off the mire and clay. Court not earthly joys. Dread not earthly sorrows.