Review and Herald, Vol. 47, No. 7.
SYSTEMATIC BENEVOLENCE, OR THE BIBLE PLAN OF SUPPORTING THE MINISTRYPage 1
SYSTEMATIC BENEVOLENCE, OR THE BIBLE PLAN OF SUPPORTING THE MINISTRY.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Text “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of Heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” Mal. 3: 8-11. Seventh-day Adventists claim to be a Bible people, both in doctrine and in practice. Whatever the Bible clearly teaches, that we claim to believe and practice. We keep the Bible Sabbath; we practice Bible baptism; we worship the God of the Bible. Being thorough reformers, we find it necessary to disregard many of the customs and practices of the sects around us. This is especially true upon the important subject of the proper mode of supporting the gospel. The modern mode of doing this we condemn and utterly reject. When a minister is hired, a subscription is passed around town, soliciting help from the ungodly and everybody. Then every time a person goes to church the contribution box is thrust into his face. We know that many people stay away from meeting on this account. But as this does not raise means enough, donation parties are resorted to, and all classes and characters are invited to contribute in this manner. Then come festivals, oyster suppers, grab-bags, fish-ponds, ring cakes, and a whole list of religious abominations, with which to coax or catch a dime out of every one. We are utterly opposed to the whole system. We believe that it is one of the signs of the fall of Babylon, one of the sins for which God is forsaking a covetous, fallen church. But the gospel must be supported. The Lord's devoted ministers must have a living. If we reject this system we must adopt a better one. This we can readily do; for the Lord has furnished it, ready arranged to our hands. The only difficulty in the case is covetousness on the part of professed Christians. It is evident that this is the true cause which has led the modern churches to resort to every means to gather in money, in order to save their own pockets. We justly condemn them for this. Let us beware of covetousness on our own part that it does not blind our eyes to the plain teaching of the Lord upon this subject. In order to make this matter plain, we will notice a few of the plainest principles of the Bible bearing upon the point. 1. There is one personal, intelligent, living God, who has created all things. Nothing exists but what he has made. This is so many times and so plainly stated in the Bible that I do not stop to quote any one passage upon the point. Having made them, it is perfectly right and reasonable that he should say how they should be used; and no one has a right to use them for any other purpose. To do so would be the highest crime one could commit. It would be open rebellion against God, the highest authority in the universe. 2. God created all these things for his own pleasure and glory. This is stated many times in the Bible. “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor, and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Rev. 4:11. Notice, it says, “For thy pleasure they are and were created.” Man, in his selfishness, has come to think that all things were created for his pleasure,—that the sun shines to please him, that the earth produces to gratify him, and that he lives for his own pleasure. But the Bible tells a different story. All these things, and man himself, was made to please and glorify God. Hence God's honor must be first in everything. So Jesus says, The first and great commandment is to love the Lord with all the heart, might, mind and strength. Matt. 22: 37. The first commandment in the moral law strikes the same point, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Ex. 20: 3. The Lord's prayer recognized the same principle. “Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread,” &c. Matt. 6: 9-11. Jesus ever taught that our duty to God is paramount to everything else; even the dearest and most tender relations of life must give way before this. Thus he says: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14: 26. A father or a mother, a brother or sister, or even a wife or child, must not stand first in our affections and our duties. God first, everything else secondary. Paul sums it all up thus: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Cor. 10: 31. Then we must keep the glory of God constantly before us, even in eating and drinking. This is reasonable; for it is God's sun that shines upon us, God's air we breathe, God's earth we walk upon,—everything is God's. 3. We are only stewards for a short time of what we possess. No doctrine of the Bible is more plainly and frequently stated than this. Let us hear the word of the Lord upon this subject. “For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains; and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee, for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.” Ps. 50: 10-12. “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts.” Haggai 2: 8. My brother, those cattle in your field are the Lord's; those horses in your barn are the Lord's; those acres of land are the Lord's; the wheat, corn, oats, and potatoes that you claim are the Lord's; the money in your pocket, and that which you have at interest, is the Lord's. You only have it committed to you for a short time. How plainly Jesus states this doctrine in Matt. 25: 14, and onward. “For the kingdom of Heaven is as a man traveling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.” “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.” Verses 14, 15, 19. The rest of the story is familiar to every body. It was given expressly to teach the very doctrine which we are here setting forth, viz., that in the Judgment the Lord will require every one of us to give a strict account of what we have done with the means committed to our trust. These talents cover more than simply our money or our property. To some the Lord has given physical strength. In many cases, this is a better capital than money, houses, or lands. We have no right to squander this carelessly, or through laziness put it to little or no use. My brother, God will require a faithful use of the physical strength which you possess. Be careful how you lie around and idle away this great capital. Others have a large capital of mental strength, mental ability. They have capacity for teaching and filling important positions and offices. Their influence is large. The Lord will require them to give an account of this by and by. Some of these have good, financial ability. They know how to calculate well. In making bargains they have prudence and good judgment. In carrying on business, or prosecuting their trade they are successful. God has endowed them with much ability in this direction. If they turn their hand to farming, they know just how to do it, and make it pay. If it is in buying or selling, their foresight and business tact gives them success. But all men have not this ability. Indeed, a greater share have not. Some persons have great ability as preachers, lawyers, or doctors, who have no financial ability. Financial ability is as much a special gift, or talent, as is that of preaching, teaching, or anything else. We often see one brother among several sons who is blessed with this ability, while the rest are not. The others are equally honest, equally industrious, and equally anxious to obtain means, yet they remain poor all their lives. It is not mere luck. They do not know how to calculate; but their brother does. How apt the prosperous are to take all the credit to themselves and disgust their poor brethren and neighbors. They love to contrast their success with the failure of others. They love to look over their fine farms, their fat cattle, full barns, and count over their money, while they say in their hearts and with their lips, “This is mine; I have done this. Brethren Jones and Jay, Smith and Brown, if they only knew how to do it, might be as well off as myself.” They not only take the credit to themselves, but, worse than this, they appropriate all the advantages of these to their own personal advantage and enjoyment. They use their financial ability to lay up money for themselves, to build fine houses for themselves, to purchase easy carriages for themselves, to buy fine clothing for themselves, to set rich tables for themselves; and if any body suggests any other use of this, they say, “Verily, are not all these things mine? Have not I earned them? Have not I made them? Whose business is it what I do with them?” But stop, my brother. Who gave you the ability to get these things? Who made you different from your poor brother? Was it not God? Is God a respecter of persons? Did he love you so much better than others that he gave you this ability simply to honor and please yourself? or did he not endow you with this ability in order that you might make means to help his cause? Listen to the word of God on this point. It is very plain. “Lest when thou hast eaten and art full, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; . . . and thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. But thou shalt remember the Lord thy God; for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth.” Deut. 8: 12, 13, 17, 18. Yes, this is just what wealthy men generally believe: My power, my hand hath gotten all this wealth. But what does the Lord say? It is the Lord “that giveth us power to get wealth.” No Christian will deny this. Now, I maintain that while the Lord calls one man to preach the gospel, and gives him talent for that purpose, he just as truly calls another man, and gives him talent to make money with which to support the other man in preaching the gospel. Paul affirms this in Romans 12: 4-8. He names the different gifts with which the different members in the church of Christ are endowed; as the gift to prophecy, to preach, to teach, to exhort, &c., and among the rest, to give liberally. See verse 8 (margin). Nothing is more reasonable. Look a moment. One man is gifted and called to be a minister. He leaves every worldly occupation, and devotes all his energies to the work of the ministry. He takes no time to plant or build, to trade, or make money in any manner, while at the same time his family must be fed, clothed, and cared for, as other people. He must have books, his traveling expenses must be paid, &c. He cannot do it. Now here is another brother, equally talented, but in a different direction. He has no gift to teach or preach; but he has a gift to make money, and do it honestly. The Lord calls this brother to make money, and divide it in supporting the other one. Because one man is endowed with ability and talent to preach the gospel, does God call him to give up all worldly hopes and ambition, leave his home and family, labor hard day and night, in season and out, summer and winter, seven days in the week, suffer persecution and spend his life among strangers, working to his last day, even to old age, and die in the harness? Yes; many have done this, and are doing it now, and we believe that they are only doing their duty. But here is the other brother, equally talented, though in another direction. He has financial ability and advantages. Does the Lord require no sacrifice of him? Is it his privilege to use this ability simply for his own comfort and convenience—to surround himself with a pleasant home, luxurious living, and heap up wealth to leave for others? So some men seem to think; but it is a terrible deception. Riches have blinded their eyes. If they give a little now and then they think it very hard. As to sacrificing or practicing self-denial in order to save means to help the cause of God, they never dream of it. After they have supplied themselves with every comfort, and even luxury, then, if they have a few hundred dollars above this, they think they do exceedingly well to give a part of that. Many of these men are dreaming of securing Heaven with hundreds of plain Scripture texts right against them. Call after call is made to help the cause of God, but their hearts and hands are closed.50 4. God requires that a tithe, or one-tenth, of all the income of his people shall be given to support his servants in their labors. Ever since the fall of man it has been necessary that there should be men devoted wholly to the service of God. It appears that from the very beginning the Lord taught his people to devote one-tenth to the support of his ministers. Away back in the patriarchal age this was an established rule. This is evident from the conduct of Abraham toward Melchisedec. Thus we read: “For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all.” Heb. 7: 1, 2. God had just blessed Abraham in not only recovering Lot, but in taking a great booty. The very first thing Abraham did was to give the Lord's priest a tithe of every thing. See Gen. 14. Jacob acted in like manner. He solemnly vowed to give the Lord one-tenth of all he should bless him with. “And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God; and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house; and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.” Gen. 28: 20-22. Many passages might be given confirming the fact that the tithing principle is as old as the fall of man. In the time of Moses, when everything was more definitely required by law, this system was very plainly enforced. Thus the Lord said: “And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's; it is holy unto the Lord.” “And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord.” Lev. 27: 30, 32. All the tithe of the land, whether it grew from that which was sown, as wheat, corn, potatoes, etc.; or that which the tree brought forth; as apples, pears, peaches, etc., was to be given to the Lord. So also a tithe of the herd; that is, of the cattle, and all the flock, was to be the Lord's. One-tenth of all that they raised or made in any manner, was to be given for the support of the priests. If a farmer raised one hundred bushels of wheat, ten of these were the Lord's. If he raised ten sheep, one was the Lord's; or ten oxen, one was the Lord's. If he made ten dollars, one was the Lord's. One-tenth of all his income from every source was required. But was not this system abolished in the gospel dispensation? No; and why should it be? Does it cost less to support God's servants now than it did then? Is not the gospel worth as much as the law? Why should not men give as much now as they did then? Some professed Christians seem to go on the principle that the greater light and blessings they enjoy the less they are to give for them. But I do not so read the gospel. Listen to the language of the Saviour: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith; these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” Matt. 23: 23. These Pharisees were very particular to give one-tenth of everything. If they raised a little sage, mint, or a few hills of onions, or anything, they were careful to set apart one hill in every ten to the Lord. Now, did not Jesus condemn this, and set it aside? No, indeed. They had neglected judgment and mercy, &c., while they were very particular about their tithing. To them, Jesus said, “These ye ought to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” Here Jesus distinctly teaches that men ought to pay tithes, even of little things, as mint and anise; how much more, then, of more important crops. Paul also established the same rule among all his churches. Thus he says, “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” 1 Cor. 16: 2. Notice that this was something in which every one was to take a part. They were to do it regularly, once every week. How much should they give? Just according as God had prospered them. Giving, then, was to be by rule, and systematically carried out. What part they were to give was already established,—one-tenth. One-tenth, then, of all our income is the Lord's. Notice, the Lord does not say you shall give me a tenth, but he says one-tenth is the Lord's. Lev. 27: 30. That is to say, the Lord graciously gives to us nine-tenths of all that we make. With this we are to provide for all our own wants and that of our family, our food, clothing, schooling, taxes and necessary expenses. But one-tenth the Lord reserves to himself. It is not ours; it belongs to God. Do we raise one hundred bushels of wheat? It is grown on God's land, is watered with the Lord's dew, warmed with the Lord's sun; and for all this the Lord simply claims one-tenth. But men have always been covetous. When they have taken nine-tenths they are not satisfied. They persuade themselves that they need a part or a whole of this tenth. Hence the Lord warns us to deal honestly and to be careful upon this point. “Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.” Deut. 14: 22. And yet, with all that the Lord has said upon this subject, and with the eyes of God upon them, men have deliberately taken the Lord's share, and used it themselves. To such persons God says: “Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of Heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” Mal. 3: 8-10. “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and I will sup with him, and he with me.” Rev. 3:20. Sweet Guest, dear Guest, no more
I lock the low, dim, door,
Where long with patience sweet
Have strayed thy weary feet;
Withdrawing bolt and bar,
I set it now ajar. It is a poor, dark, place,
Unworthy of such grace;
For through its pane, dust-deep,
Only the shadows creep,
And thick have spiders spun,
Nor left space for the sun. And here no rich banquet
Befitting thee is set;
Not even bread is mine,
I have no food, no wine,
No damask fine, nor silver cup;
How, then, with me canst sup? Oh! that it were but clean!
For canst thou really mean
To come and sup wherein
Only foul guests have been—
A dusty dwelling where
All empty is and bare? Sweet Guest, dear Guest, if thou
In such canst go, come now!
O come! hungry I wait,
Longing, repentant, late,
Withdraw each bolt and bar,
And set my door ajar. —Boston Congregationalist. DO BEASTS HAVE IMMORTAL SOULS?
Mr. Wood claims that all animals have a distinct language of their own by which they can distinctly convey ideas one to another. After arguing the case very conclusively he gives the following illustrations of it:— “Looking at the nervous system of insects, in which there is no definite brain, but merely a succession of ganglia united by a double nervous cord, many physiologists have thought that reason could not be one of the attributes of the insect race. Yet nothing is more certain than that they are able to converse with each other and communicate ideas, this fact showing that they must possess reason. As far as we know, the hymenopterous insects—namely, the bees, wasps, and ants—are the best linguists of the insect race, their language being chiefly conducted by means of their antennæ. A good example of this was witnessed by me in the summer of 1872. “At breakfast time, some pieces of the white of an egg were left on a plate. A wasp came in at the window, and, after flying about for awhile, alighted on the plate, went to the piece of egg, and tried to carry it off. Wishing to see what the insect would do, I would not allow it to be disturbed. After several unavailing attempts to lift the piece of egg, the wasp left it and flew out of the window. Presently, two wasps came in, flew directly to the plate, picked up the piece of egg, and in some way or other contrived to get it out of the window. These were evidently the first wasp and a companion which it had brought to help it. “I had a kind of suspicion that when the wasps reached their home they would tell their companions of their good fortune, and so I put some more egg on the plate and waited. In a very short time, wasp after wasp came in, went to the plate without hesitation, and carried off a piece of egg. The stream of wasps was so regular that I was able to trace them to their nest, which was in a lane about half a mile from my house. “The insect had evidently reasoned with itself that, although the piece of egg was too heavy for one wasp, it might be carried by two; so it went off to find a companion, told it the state of things, and induced it to help it in carrying off the coveted morsel. Then the two had evidently told the other inhabitants of the nest that there was a supply of new and dainty food within reach, and had acted as guides to the locality. Here is positive proof that these insects possess a very definite language of their own, for it is impossible that human beings could have acted in a more rational manner. “Every one knows that wasps carry out one of the first principles of the military art by always having the gate of their fortress guarded by a sentinel. Should there be danger, the sentinel gives the alarm, and out dash all the inhabitants at the offender indicated by the sentinel. “It is clear that, out of the many hundred wasps which form a full-sized nest, the individual who is to act as sentinel must be selected, and its task appointed. We do not know how the selection is made, but that such is the case is evident; for the rest of the wasps acknowledge their sentinel, trust to it for guarding the approaches of the nest, while they go about their usual task of collecting food for the young and new material for the nest. “As for the ants, some of their performances are absolutely startling, so closely do they resemble the customs of human civilization. “They have armies commanded by officers, who issue their orders, insist upon obedience, and on the march will not permit any of the privates to stray from the ranks. There are some ants which till the ground, weed it, plant the particular grain on which they feed, cut it when ripe, and store it away in their subterranean granaries. There are ants which are as arrant slaveholders as any people on earth ever were. They make systematic raids on the nests of other ants, carry off the yet unhatched cocoons, and rear them in their own nests to be their servants. “There are ants which bury their dead—a fact which was discovered by accident. “A lady had been obliged to kill some ants, the bodies of which lay about on the ground. Presently a single ant found its dead companions, and examined them and went off. Presently it returned with a number of others, and proceeded to the dead bodies. Four ants went to each corpse, two lifting it, and the other two following—the main body, some two hundred in number, following behind. The four bearers took their office in turns, one pair relieving the other when they were tired. They went straight to a sandy hillock, and there the bearers put down their burdens, and the others immediately began to dig holes. A dead ant was then placed in each grave and the soil filled in. The most curious part of the proceedings was that some six or seven ants refused to assist in grave-digging. Upon which the rest set on them, killed them, dug one large hole, and tumbled them unceremoniously into it.” “Some time ago a couple of shepherds met in a market-place, each, as a matter of course, accompanied by his dog, one of which had been suspected of sheep-worrying. After the manner of dogs, the animals accosted each other, and soon assumed so remarkable a demeanour in their conversation that their owners consulted together on their own account, and agreed to set a watch upon their dogs. On that very evening, both dogs started from their homes at the same hour, joined each other, and set off after the sheep. “Here we have a direct example that dogs have a sufficiency of language to convey ideas. The old offender had invited the young and innocent dog to go with him sheep-worrying, and had even managed to tell him the time when he was to start on his expedition.” “Two very remarkable instances of language and combination are given by Colonel W. Campbell in his ‘Indian Journal.’ The writer is, perhaps, better known by his nom de plume, ‘The Old Forest Ranger.’ He was at Ranee Bennore on a hunting expedition:— “‘I witnessed this morning a curious instance of wolfish generalship that interested me much, and which, in my humble opinion, goes far to prove that animals are endowed to a certain extent with reasoning faculties, and have means of communicating their ideas to each other. “‘I was, as usual, scanning the horizon with my telescope at daybreak to see if any game was in sight. I had discovered a small herd of antelopes feeding in a field from which the crop had lately been removed, and was about to take the glass from my eye for the purpose of reconnoitring the ground, when, in a remote quarter of the field, concealed from the antelopes by a few intervening bushes, I faintly discerned in the grey twilight a pack of six wolves, seated on their hind quarters like dogs, and apparently in deep consultation. “‘It appeared evident that, like myself, they wanted venison, and had some design upon the antelopes; and, being anxious to witness the mode of proceeding adopted by these four-legged poachers, I determined to watch their motions. I accordingly dismounted, leaving my horse in charge of the sowar, and, creeping as near the scene of action as I could, without being discovered, concealed myself behind a bush. “‘Having apparently decided on their plan of attack, the wolves separated, one remaining stationary, and the other five creeping cautiously around the edge of the field, like setters drawing in a shy covey of birds. In this manner, they surrounded the unsuspecting herd, one wolf lying down at each corner of the field, and the fifth creeping silently toward the center of it, where he concealed himself in a deep furrow. “‘The sixth wolf, which had not yet moved, now started from his hiding-place and made a dash at the antelopes. The graceful creatures, confident in their matchless speed, tossed their heads as if in disdain, and started off in a series of flying bounds that soon left their pursuer far behind. But no sooner did they approach the edge of the field than one of the crouching wolves started up, turned them, and chased them in a contrary direction, while his panting accomplice lay down in his place to secure wind for a fresh burst. Again the bounding herd dashed across the plain, hoping to escape on the opposite side; but here they were once more headed off by one of the crafty savages, who took up the chase in his turn, and coursed them till relieved by a fresh hand from an opposite quarter. In this manner, the persecuted animals were driven from side to side and from corner to corner, a fresh assailant heading them at every turn, till they appeared perfectly stupefied with fear, and, crowding together like frightened sheep, began to wheel around in diminishing circles. “‘All this time, the wolf which lay concealed in the furrow near the center of the field had never moved, and although the antelopes had passed and repassed within a few feet of him, and had, perhaps, even jumped over him, his time for action had not yet arrived. It now became evident that the unfortunate antelopes must soon be tired out; when it appeared probable that the surrounding wolves would have made a combined attack, and driven the terrified herd toward the center of the field, where the wolf which had hitherto been lying in reserve would have sprung up in the midst of them, and secured at least one victim.’51 “‘At this period of the proceedings, the spectator shot the nearest wolf, whereupon the other five decamped and allowed the antelopes to escape. “‘Here we have reason and a power of combination for mutual action that would have done credit to human beings. “‘The anecdote shows also that there is much more detail in the language of animals than is generally supposed. Each had its different work assigned, so that the wolves must have possessed some means of indicating that locality; and each undertook to play its own part in a scheme of small intricacy, so that their language must have been capable of expressing abstract ideas.’” “Most persons have heard of the celebrated rook parliaments, though very few have seen them. I have an account written by a lady who was at the time in bad health, and was reclining among some shawls behind a window curtain, where even the sharp-eyed rooks could not detect her. “The account much resembles those which have already been given by other writers, but introduces one additional circumstance. The rooks (called crows by the spectator) assembled in a circle, and in the middle was one bird lying very downcast and wretched. Two more rooks took their places at its side, and then a vast amount of chattering went on. At last, two birds, which seemed to act as accusers, pecked the central bird and flew off. All others then set on the condemned bird, pecked it nearly to pieces, and went away, leaving the mangled body on the ground. “The lady who witnessed this remarkable scene was much struck by the variety of expression employed by the birds, and their great expressiveness.” “The following anecdote of a rat shows how expressive and intelligible is the language of gesture: A gentleman living in Kent had a fancy for taming animals, and among others had some rats, which were on the most friendly terms, and used to run about him as he sat in his room. One of his rats had a litter of young, and, in order to insure their safety, they were placed in a bird-cage, and hung on a wall. “One night, after their master was asleep, he was awakened by something patting his cheek, and found it was one of his tame rats. He tried to sleep again, but the animal would not allow it, and was evidently disturbed about something. As soon as he obtained a light, the rat went to the door, and looked at him as if it expected him to follow. He did so, and it led him down the stairs into his room, and took him to the spot where one of the young was lying, having fallen from its cage. “Suppose that we substitute for the rat a deaf-and-dumb man or woman, the action would have been almost exactly the same, as would have been the ideas that were so lucidly conveyed by the language of gesture. The animal found that it was unable to put back its fallen young one, and must have calculated that its master was taller and stronger than itself, and so was able to replace the young rat. So it went in search of its master, traced him to his bedroom, which it must have done by the sense of smell, awoke him from his sleep, and showed him where his assistance was needed.” “How completely animals can make themselves understood by man, especially when they wish to help each other by the aid of man, may be seen in many of the anecdotes narrated in this work. Here is a case where a gander managed to convey ideas to human beings:— “‘I was once sitting at my window reading, when a gander came up and stood at the window, uttering the most discordant screams, and making the strangest gestures with his head. I was aware that he was a knowing bird, but had no idea what he wanted. “‘As soon as my wife and I came out, he waddled away round the stables and out-houses until he came to the mill-wheel. Then he stopped, went forward a few paces, and kept looking round at us. We could see nothing wrong; but in a short time we heard the plaintive voice of some young goslings which had fallen through the mill-lade, which had been left open. “‘There was no possibility of rescue except by putting on sufficient water to wash them through the conduit. I did so, ran to the end, caught them as they were washed out, and stored them to their delighted parent. The gander seemed overjoyed, as could be seen by his action as he strutted off to a place of safety, conscious that he had done great things. So he had.’” “There was a parrot, well known to our family, which was able to speak in two languages; and, when addressed, always replied in the language used by her interlocutor, speaking English or Portuguese, as the case might be.” “There was another parrot—a green one—that I did not know in life, having only seen her preserved skin in a glass case. None of the family had the slightest doubt that Polly was quite as well acquainted with the meaning of the words which she spoke as any of them could have been. Sometimes, before her feeding time, she would call out, ‘Cook, cook, I want potato.’ She knew what potato was as well as the cook did, and if anything else was put in the pan, she would take the vessel in her beak, throw out all the contents, and then cry, ‘Won’t have it, turn it out!’ “The few scraps of language which she had learned on board ship were occasionally produced just where they ought to have been omitted. On one occasion, the remarks were so singularly inopportune that one of the family offered52 a remonstrance, saying, ‘O Polly! Polly! who could have taught you such language?’ Whereupon the bird at once replied, ‘You did.’ It is impossible, or, at all events, in the highest degree improbable that the bird should not have understood the language of its interlocutor as well as herself.” “The following anecdote, related by the late Rev. Cæsar Otway, who produces vouchers for the exact truth of the story, affords a remarkable instance of the capability possessed by the lower animals of understanding the language of man:— “‘A gentleman of property had a mastiff of great size, very watchful, and altogether a fine, intelligent animal. Though often let out to range about, he was in general chained up during the day. “‘On a certain day when he was let out, he was observed to attach himself particularly to his master. When the servant came, as usual, to fasten him up, he clung so determinedly to his master’s feet, showed such anger when they attempted to force him away, and altogether was so peculiar in his manner, that the gentleman desired him to be left as he was. “‘With him the dog continued the whole day; and when night came on, still he stayed; and on going toward his bedroom, the dog resolutely, and for the first time in his life, went up with him, and, rushing into the room, took refuge under the bed, whence neither blows nor caresses could draw him. “‘In the midst of the night, a man burst into the room, and, with dagger in hand, attempted to stab the sleeper. But the dog sprang at the robber’s neck, fastened his fangs in him, and so kept him down that his master had time to call for assistance and secure the ruffian, who turned out to be the coachman. He afterward confessed that, seeing his master receive a large sum of money, he and the groom conspired together to rob and murder him, and that they plotted the whole scheme leaning over the roof of the dog’s kennel.’ “‘The foregoing statement does not assert that the dog understood human language as completely as the men themselves did. But it is evident that the animal did gather from the conversation of the men that they intended to injure his master. The narrator does not state whether the conspirators mentioned any particular time for the murder, which was probably left to opportunity. The companionship of the dog during the day (which the intended murderers knew) might have prevented them from attacking their master by daylight, while his presence at night (which they did not know) effectually counteracted their plot.’” “‘My own dog, ‘Rory,’ perfectly understood much of our conversation, and if told by any of us to fetch the slippers, to shut the door, to wipe his feet, or to put the cat down stairs, he always performed the right act, showing that he knew the ideas represented by different words.’”