Earlier text: NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSONRelation of the Law and Grace.
[A sermon delivered in the tent at Oakland, Cal., Aug. 5, 1884.]
THE subject of this evening is a question which is prefaced by the following text of Scripture, quoted from the Emphatic Diaglott:— "Gal. 5:4. 'Whosoever of you are justifying yourselves by law are separated from Christ; you are fallen off from the favor' (of God). My question is this: Was not the Mosaic law written on stone, given alone to the Jews?" Accompanying this question is a letter giving the position of the questioner, some points of which I will notice. In contrast with the Jews, he says of us: 'We who are begotten of the Spirit through the belief of the truth are become new (spiritual) creatures in Christ, and are raised spiritual bodies, like unto his glorious body, for there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body.' This remark contains a very grave error. The "spiritual body" is given in the resurrection. See 1 Cor. 15. The Christian is spiritually minded, but has yet a natural, corruptible body, being subject to decay, which the spiritual body will not be. Again he says: 'He who undertakes to do the deeds of the law has fallen from grace, as say the Scriptures.' If this assertion be true, I have been in fault in my reading, for I never read any such thing in the Bible. And the Bible has no such saying. In regard to justification, we have distinctly avowed in this tent that we do not expect it by the law. If there is anybody who seeks or expects to be justified by the law, to him the question will apply; to him this text stands as a reproof. Paul says in Rom. 3 that the justification which we receive through faith in Christ, without works, is "for the remission of sins that are past." But he does not say we can live godly lives, and build up a moral character without works. He exhorts to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;" Phil. 2:12; for every man will be judged and rewarded according to his works. Rev. 22:12; Matt. 16:27. I have before said, in this tent, that all our obedience, our tears, our confessions, our prayers, our repentance, will never remove a single sin we have committed. Remission of past sin is by the blood of Christ through faith alone; not by works at all. But as to the future, when we form character it must be by obedience; then "faith without works is dead." It is lifeless, formal, useless. As to the expression, "a new creature," it does not mean another creature. But the "old man" of sin is destroyed. All things—sinful things, worldliness, etc.—have passed away; but the law of God has not passed away. Mark, the change must all be in man; not in God, nor in his government. Rebellion, sin, does not change God's law, nor does it create the necessity of a change in God's law. It changes our relation to the law, bringing us in opposition506 to it; and it makes necessary another change in us, a change from sin to obedience; and this is also wrought by faith in Christ, who strengthens us to overcome our sins, and walk in obedience to his Father. I am also requested, in this connection, to notice Rom. 10:4. It reads thus: "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth." There are three points to be noticed in this text. 1. In what sense is Christ the end of the law? Not in the sense of abolishing the law, for if that were the meaning, it would apply to all, both to the believer and the unbeliever. If it means the abolition of the law, then we have the anomalous relation of a law abolished to one class, and not to another class. And not only that, but it is abolished to numerous individuals at one period in the experience of each one, and not abolished at another period in his experience! The word end must be used as in James 5:11: "Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord." Not the abolition of the Lord. End, in both these texts, means the object or intention. Paul says the law was ordained unto life; it was designed to guide people into obedience to their Creator, that they might live. For to disobey, to sin, is death. Since we are all sinners, and we can no longer obtain life by the law, Christ comes in and meets the design or end of the law and gives us life. 2. This is "for righteousness." We may learn what righteousness is by the inspired definitions given by John. "Unrighteousness is sin," and "sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 5:17; 3:4. Now if unrighteousness is the transgression of the law, righteousness is obedience to the law. "He that doeth righteousness is righteous." 1 John 3:7. 3. "To every one that believeth." In the unbeliever the object of the law is not accomplished, for he, as Paul says, has "pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thess. 2:12. This text does not teach that the law is no longer of obligation, but it does teach that we are to obey the law through faith in Christ. The question itself, whether the law was given to the Gentiles, or to the Jews alone, is quickly disposed of. Was there ever a time when it was no sin in the Gentiles to worship idols, to blaspheme the name of God, to dishonor their parents, to kill, to commit adultery, and to steal? If there is any force to the question, if it has any bearing against our position, it is only because these things were not wrong in the Gentiles. But if these things were sin in the Gentiles—if for these abominations God abhorred the Gentiles—then the law held them, for "where no law is there is no transgression," and "sin is not imputed when there is no law." Rom. 4:15; 5:13. This sufficiently refutes the idea which appears to be in the mind of the questioner, as far as the Gentiles are concerned as a class. But the question has a more specific application, not to Gentiles at large, but to the believers in Christ from the Gentiles. What we have before said, especially on Rom. 10:4, is to this point; but it must be noticed more particularly. Paul says more on the subject of justification than all other writers of the Bible; and he says more about it, argues it more particularly, in the letter to the Romans, than in all his other writings together. And it is a suggestive fact that the first time he speaks of justify in this letter it is in connection with doing the law, while he has never connected, in any manner, justification and breaking the law. He never recognizes any such relation. Rom. 2:13 says: "The doers of the law shall be justified." An objector once said to me, when I quoted that text, "You, then, believe in justification by the law; but I would not like to risk my salvation on your word on that subject." I replied, 1. You have not my word on the subject. I quoted Paul's words, and if you have any fault to find, settle it with him. 2. You have nothing to risk on that text, for Paul was not there speaking of you, or of any like you. He said the doers of the law; but you are not a doer of the law; you do not even try to do the law; indeed, you disclaim any intention to do the law. Therefore you have no claim, and personally no interest in that text. But the text is useful in this: It teaches that justification is in the law, and we would find it there if we had not forfeited it; if we had not transgressed the law. It is a vindication of the morality of the law, and it fully agrees with Solomon's words, that to keep God's commandments "is the whole duty of man." And if man had done his whole duty, if he had never sinned, he would not be condemned; he must then be justified. Some affect to find a contradiction between this text and Rom. 3:20, which says: "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." But there is no contradiction. It may be said that both cannot be true absolutely; one must be qualified to avoid the contradiction. Which shall it be? And the answer generally comes thus: "The first must be qualified, for it is an absolute fact that no one can be justified by the law." But this answer is made under a misapprehension of the facts, and of the principles underlying them. There is an intermediate statement which makes all plain; let us take the three in connection—they are given in the regular form of an argument: 1. The doers of the law shall be justified. 2. There are no doers; all have gone astray; "there is none that doeth good, no, not one." 3. Conclusion: "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." Thus we see that it is no fault of the law that it does not justify us; it is our own fault; we are sinners, and the law would be unworthy of respect as a law if it would justify us. We deserve condemnation, and the law very properly treats us as we deserve. And then another query is raised. "What is the use," it is asked, "of keeping a law which will not justify us?" But this question shows an unenviable state of mind on the part of the questioner. We should not view the subject altogether in the light of its benefit to ourselves; something is due to the Government of God; his authority is to be recognized, his law to be honored. But if it is necessary to our salvation that past sin should be forgiven, it is equally necessary that future sin shall be prevented. Sin is odious in the sight of God, whether it be past, present, or future. Obedience is better than sacrifice. If all shall be rewarded according to their works, how necessary that our works should conform to the divine will, which we learn only in his law. See Rom. 2:17-23. To illustrate this let me relate an incident. It is not "founded on fact;" it is the fact itself. Some years ago I was preaching in Wisconsin, and a man gravely informed me that he had learned that we are not justified by the law. I replied that we had learned the same thing; that we did not expect to be justified by the law; the law had no power to justify a sinner, and we did not keep it with the thought of being justified by it. And he then began to laugh. Being inquired of for the reason, he said he could not help laughing that anybody should be fool enough to keep a law which cannot justify him. Laying the compliment aside, I proposed to present the case in such a manner that he could appreciate it. Suppose you were accused of stealing a horse, and were proved guilty, and the Judge thereupon asks if you have anything to say, and you ask and are answered as follows: "Judge, will the law of Wisconsin justify me?" "Justify you? No; we have not a law in Wisconsin that will justify a man stealing horses. The law condemns you, and I am about to pronounce its sentence upon you." "Well, Judge, I am not such a fool as to keep a law which will not justify me, and hereafter I intend to steal all the horses that I can." "And," says the Judge, "I will see that you do not have the opportunity very soon to carry your intention into effect, for I shall give you the full time in prison which the law allows." And then I inquired: "Do you not think the Judge would so answer a man who avowed such an intention?" He answered, "Yes," and added, "But nobody would be foolish enough to talk like that!" "Of course not; nobody would be foolish enough to treat the law of the State in that manner; but that is exactly the manner in which you have been treating the law of God. If you, and people in general, would grant as much to the law of God as you require for the law of the State, we would have little need to argue the question. No one ever for one moment, supposes that a pardon frees any one from obligation to keep the law of the State which condemns him. But there are thousands who refuse to keep the law of God because Jesus Christ has purchased their pardon by his blood!" Satan is wily, we know; but it is a marvel that he can so blind the minds of people who appear to be otherwise sensible, as to make them believe that pardon absolves them from allegiance to God and his law! Paul says that "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal. 3:13. But the curse comes only by transgression. Had man not sinned, he would not have been cursed, for "the doers of the law shall be justified." And the curse invariably, in all cases, follows transgression. Christ redeems from the curse, but not from the duty; he redeems from the condemnation, but not from the obligation. We say that the curse follows transgression "in all cases," because it is as true now that "the wages of sin is death," as it was before Christ died, or would have been if Christ had never died. It is a narrow view of the method of redemption which leads one to say that obedience to the law is contrary to free grace. And this calls us to notice one more point in the position of the questioner. It is his claim on Rom. 6:14: "Ye are not under the law, but under grace." But this is only a part of the text. Taken in its connection it clearly teaches that we are not under the law in the sense of being under its condemnation; from this we are released by grace. But it does not teach that we are free from obligation to the law; to the contrary, it teaches that violation of the law is contrary to grace. Here are two individuals, one a non-professor, and the other a church member, who claim to be released from the obligation of the law. We can more readily represent the position of the latter (which is the position of our questioner) by the way of question and answer. "What is your position?" "I am not under the law, but under grace." "Were you always under grace?" "No; I was by nature a child of wrath, even as others." "When did you come under grace?" "When I was converted." "Then under grace is the condition of a converted man. What was your condition before you were converted, and what is the condition of all the unconverted world?" "Under the law, of course." "Very well; are they who are under the law condemned by the law if they break it?" "Certainly; they are under its curse, as sinners." "But if the law has power to curse them—if they are under it—then the law cannot be abolished; it is still in force?" "No, it cannot be abolished, but I am free from it through faith in Christ." "Are you, then, free from all its claims, so that you are not obliged to keep it?" "I am not under the law; I am entirely free from it, and it has no authority over me." "But when you were under the law you were under obligation to keep it, and therefore it was sin in you to transgress it. Then we are to conclude that it was sin in you to break the law before you were converted, but it is not sin in you to break the law after you were converted. Is that so?" "Why,507 there is no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus?" "We will waive for the present the subject of forgiveness, or justification. But we must conclude from your declarations that that which is sinful in an unconverted man is no sin in a converted man." This is the doctrine of the old "perfectionists"—a doctrine which we had hoped had disappeared from the face of the earth. According to this doctrine, if a man feels the restraints of the law and wishes to break it, but dare not for fear of condemnation, he has only to be converted and join the church, and he is at once at full liberty to violate the law! This is making "Christ the minister of sin." Gal. 2:17. The way of righteousness is not found in such a sham Christianity as this. Look again at these two men. One professes to be a Christian, and the other is an acknowledged sinner. How do we know that he is a sinner? Because he transgresses the law (1 John 3:4), for by the law is the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20). What, then, is the difference between him and the other man? Oh! the other man is a Christian. But neither does he keep the law; he claims that he is not under its obligation. So, then, one breaks the law, and he is therefore a sinner; the other breaks the law also, yet he is a Christian! And the only real difference between them is that one professes religion and has his name on the church book! Both are sinners according to every authorized definition of sin. We have here a subject worthy of our earnest consideration. It cannot be too strongly enforced. The idea of the objector is that the law is not now binding; that we are released from its authority by grace. But if that be so, then there is no distinction of classes, for none can be under an abolished law in any sense, and all are under grace. That will answer for Universalists, but Paul says: "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace." Therefore his words will not apply to all the world, but to those only who are not under the dominion of sin. But as long as we transgress the law, so long has sin dominion over us. Sin brings condemnation, no matter when or where it is found. And therefore the apostle's question and answer in the next verses: "What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" This is a plain declaration that if we sin, or violate the law, after we are justified, or under grace, we again come under the dominion of sin, and the result is death. And the same is shown in the first verses of the chapter. "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" Some say we shall; they affirm that we deny grace if we keep the law, or abstain from sin. But the apostle says, "God forbid;" and he continues: "How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?" Here is an important lesson. That we are dead is proved by our having been buried—in baptism. Dead to what? to sin. But if we live in it—if we still transgress the law—we are not dead to it. Then we are not under grace, but under the law—under condemnation. That there is a popular prejudice against preaching the law, we are well aware. And we regret that preachers themselves are strengthening this prejudice by conforming to the popular feeling, and moving in this popular current. I was once requested to put away exclusiveness and unite with another in holding revival meetings; and was told that I must not talk so much about the law; that people did not want to hear it! Now I believe in union as much as any do, and am willing to unite on the same terms that they require. They will unite with me if I will yield my faith and adopt theirs. And, in like manner, I am ready to unite with everybody who will yield the peculiarities of his faith and adopt mine. I am just as liberal as they are. But my inquiry was this: If I drop the law, what shall I preach? "Why, preach repentance; nobody has any prejudice against that." What an idea, that the minister must conform his preaching to people's prejudices. But, if somebody asks me of what he shall repent, what reply shall I give? "Tell him, of course, to repent of sin." Just so; and then if he asks me what is sin, what shall I say? In a hesitating manner he replied: "Why, the apostle says, sin is the transgression of the law." But I thought you were going to set me on a track to get rid of the law, and you leave me in the same difficulty still, and yet you tell me I must not preach the law. It thus appears that you think the law is not of sufficient consequence to be preached. But if the law is of no consequence, the transgression of it is of no consequence; and if sin is of no consequence, repentance is of no consequence; and if repentance is of no consequence, then your preaching is of no consequence! This is the logical result of depreciating the law. With such preaching I have no desire to unite. We believe that the great God is displeased with this easy style of religion which ignores his law which he has so highly honored. It is made void by preachers and by people. Either in whole or in part it is set aside boldly, publicly. And yet the Lord has shown that he who offends in one is guilty of all, for the law is a unit; if we break one commandment we are law-breakers—doers of iniquity. Men will even profess "holiness," entire freedom from sin, and yet transgress the law continually! What definition of sin will they give us? By what rule shall we be made to believe that God approves their course? How shall we determine that their religion is genuine, and not rank fanaticism? We have a message in Rev. 14, to be given just before the Lord comes, which says: "Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Paul says that we do not make void the law through faith. Rom. 3:31. They are united in true moral and Christian character. And before our High Priest closes his work, there must be a reform; the commandments of God must be honored, and kept, even as the faith of Jesus. ALTHOUGH our reaping time is not in this life, the faithful laborer is not left even here without occasion for rejoicing. Said St. John to his well-beloved brother: "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in the truth." He who loves the truth, who spends his time and strength in its service, he only knows the joy which is felt when the truth prospers, and sinners are converted unto God. Besides the report which we published from Brother Ings, we have received private letters which give the most cheering accounts of their prosperity in missionary work. Speaking of the ship work in Portland, he says:— "We have placed distributors on fourteen passenger steamers—two on each. The Lord has wonderfully wrought for us. Captains who had the reputation of having no regard for such things have with their own hands helped us to fasten the distributors to their finely-finished walls; the cases carrying the precious truth alone decorating those walls. Favors have been granted us far beyond our own expectation. "It will take means to follow up these openings. These steamers must be supplied, some each day and some every other day. Then there are the San Francisco boats, the hotels, and the two overland trains each day. We sell considerable on these trains, having obtained that privilege. "It will take 650 Signs per week to do our work, and this number has been ordered. This may seem large at first, but it is a small estimate. We have said nothing about the sailing ships, of which there are twenty on their way to this port from England. We hope to gather up enough for that branch of the work. We shall use 500 Sabbath Sentinels, besides a good many tracts. I think you are not too hasty in securing another press, and enlarging your facilities. "Is it not about time for something to be done on the overland trains leaving San Francisco?" This query we cannot answer; we publish it for the consideration of the workers. But we know that "the laborers are few"—we have not laborers enough for the ship work and for these two cities. Brother Sawyer says of the Chicago Mission: "The Lord has been with us and added his blessing. Five have already embraced the truth." He gives many interesting items of personal experience. He says there is an opening in South Chicago. Bro. E. W. Whitney writes from Rome, N. Y.: "The work is moving in some branches with us in an encouraging manner, though we long to see it go with greater power. The Signs canvass in the cities is no longer a doubtful matter. This is proving the utility of the reading-room. Our workers found it hard work to take subscribers as long as they depended upon the canvass alone. They were considered agents, and in many instances they could not reach the people. They then struck upon the plan of introducing themselves with the mission card, and now they do their work principally by the card, and let the card represent the character of the work they are doing. This plan seems at once to establish confidence, and but little time is required to take orders, and the increase is wonderful. Some of our workers take over fifty subscriptions per day in these old and agent-overrun cities. Experienced and faithful workers have success in the best streets among what is termed the 'upper class,' where we would not have thought of gaining an entrance a year ago." This is an item of great interest, and we recommend that all our city workers consider it well. It may be that this will prove the utility of all our mission stations, and that they may add materially to the success of missionary labor. We hope to hear from others as soon as they have had experience in that direction. Brother Ings writes concerning the recent large fire in East Portland, expressing his belief that the hand of the Lord was over their mission-rooms. He says:— "The fire started in a drug store in the block adjoining that in which is our depository. Soon other buildings were on fire, and as the spirits and other inflammable matter in the drug store and saloon caught fire, the flames would burst up one hundred and fifty feet high. It looked as though our block would surely go. Some said, move our books; but I could see no light in that. The books would be more or less damaged, and we greatly needed the place for our depository, and it would look like a denial of our faith. My prayers were constant that our heavenly Father, who has power over the elements, would protect us, so that the work so well begun here might not be hindered. And now the building with its precious truth stands as a monument of his mercy, and we are permitted to continue in our good work." We shall never know till the great day when we know as we are known, how many times the providence of God has interposed in behalf of his people and work; how many times his angels have encamped round about us to deliver us. It is safe to trust his grace. The Story of a Poor Rich Woman.
By Dorothy Redwood
How WELL I remember my grandmother, sitting erect in her straight-backed chair beside her favorite window, her fine, well-poised head and delicately cut features sharply outlined against the casement. On this particular afternoon of which I wish to speak, she held her usual knitting in her hands, but, as she neither moved nor knitted, we children, who were grouped around an open fire in the room, concluded that she was asleep, and talked in whispers that we thought very low and soft. Betty, our colored cook, who had nursed us all when we were babies, and now scolded and petted us by turns, had just brought in a plate of her famous cookies, which we were enjoying by the light of the cheerful blaze. Feeling very comfortable, as we drew our small chairs near the fire and partook liberally of the cookies, our tongues ran as children's tongues are wont to run when they think no older person is listening. "What are you going to be when you grow up?" asked my cousin Ralph, turning to my brother Jack. "Why, a stage-driver, of course! I'll have four horses and a great long whip with a splendid cracker. I'll whip up my team, and away we'll go! You shall ride in it for nothing, Ralph," said Jack, as seriously as if the team stood waiting at the door. "Yes, if I'm here," replied Ralph. "I'm thinking of traveling all over the world. I am not quite sure whether I'll go to the North Pole, or to the middle of Africa." "That would be fun too," said Jack. "I wonder what these two girls want to be"—with that slight touch of contempt in his tone that boys are wont to use in speaking of the occupations of girls. "I should like to have a cake-shop," said Elsie, promptly, "and make all the cakes and pies myself." "We'll come to see you often, my dear," said Jack encouragingly. "I'll come in my carriage," cried I, "and order lots of cakes and good things, for I expect to be rich, and have plenty of dresses and jewelry and carriages. Betty says there's a line on the palm of my hand that means money, so you see I shall be sure to have it. I intend to do just as I please, and have black cake and ice-cream for dessert every day. There is nothing in the world as nice as having plenty of money and new dresses all the time!" "Dresses! That's just like a girl, always thinking about dresses!" exclaimed Jack, with such energy that grandmamma stirred in her sleep, and said:— "Dresses, my dear; do you know how many dresses Queen Elizabeth had?" "About a thousand at one time, so the court chroniclers tell us. Do you think they made her happy?" "Not the dresses only," I said, shaking my foolish little head; "but the money to buy them. Money makes people happy." Then, when grandmamma looked as if she did not agree with me, I added quickly, "Of course, I don't mean to spend it all on myself. I mean to be generous, and give a great deal to the poor." "One need not be rich in order to be generous," she answered. "The most generous people whom I know are poor in this world's goods. The Bible talks of the deceitfulness of riches," and taking up her well-worn volume, which was her constant companion, she read those words of the Lord Jesus that had always puzzled me when I heard them read in church. "Verily I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." Hard words they seemed to me. I could not understand why rich people should be spoken of so; those whom I knew were nice and kind, all except old Mr. Scraggs, the miser of the village, whom we children disliked because he would not share his cherries with us, even when they were rotting on the trees. While I could readily see why it would be hard for cross old Scraggs, with his great money-bags, to squeeze through the narrow gateway that leads into the kingdom, I wondered why the kind and gentle Lord Jesus should speak so of all rich people. My eyes, raised to her face with eager questioning, must have asked just what I wished to know, for grandmamma continued. "It seems to me that it is not with any thought of particular blame or anger that the Lord Jesus speaks thus of the rich; but knowing the effect of riches on the heart, he had an especial word of warning for those poor rich people who were in danger of having their hearts hardened by their large possessions. Let me tell you a little story that will explain to you what I mean. It is about an old woman in an English almshouse. This old dame, Mrs. Grey, was rather better off than her neighbors, having a nephew who, out of his earnings, allowed her sixpence a week for pocket-money." "Only six cents!" cried Jack. "And for a grown-up woman; why I have that much myself?" "No, it was more than that; an English sixpence is equal to nearly twelve cents of our money. Not much, to be sure; yet, with this small income, Mrs. Grey not only kept a store of tea, sugar, and other dainties for herself, but was able to give occasional tea-parties, to which she invited her particular friends among the old dames. They enjoyed their tea together, and doubtless had many a dish of gossip over it." "One bright day, that is, the brightest kind of a day that comes in London, a serious-looking gentleman in a black coat came to see Mrs. Grey, and, after spending a full hour in her little room, went away looking as solemn as when he arrived. Not so Mrs. Grey, who followed him to the door, smiling and courtesying as low as if he had been the Lord Chancellor. Soon after a large package arrived for Mrs. Grey. Of course, her neighbors were much excited, and all anxiety to know what was going on in her room." One old dame, who peeped in at the window, saw Mrs. Grey strutting about before her small looking-glass arrayed in a rich purple silk dress, a velvet mantle, and a gay bonnet, with a great white feather on one side that looked strangely out of place as it nodded and waved above her withered old face. As she stood there, admiring herself and her fine feathers in the glass, the poor old lady looked very much like a gorgeously-plumed parrot; and the friend who was peeping ran away and said that Mrs. Grey had gone crazy. Small wonder that she thought so; but where had the fine clothes come from? This set the old dames to wondering whether she had had a visit from a fairy godmother. Soon after this, Mrs. Grey invited her neighbors to spend the evening with her. This time, although she received them in a gay silk gown, no tea was handed to them; but they were not surprised at this, and said among themselves that no wonder her head was turned, for they soon learned that Mrs. Grey had come into a fortune. This is what the serious-looking man had come to tell her. "Now for the moral of my tale. Mrs. Grey was no longer sociable with her friends, but spent all her time fretting and worrying about the handsome house that had been left her, fearing that some thief might break in and steal, or that moths might injure the elegant carpets that had not been hers a week before. There were no more pleasant tea-drinkings in her little parlor, and when she left the almshouse, which she did a few days later, wrapped in silks and velvets, there was only one old dame to stand by the carriage and wish Mrs. Grey 'Godspeed.' The others would have been glad to wish her well, for they were kind-hearted old women; but in these few days of prosperity Mrs. Grey had treated them very rudely, thinking that her money and her fine clothes made her superior to them. This one old dame was something of a flatterer, and as she stood courtesying and saying, 'How sweet you look, ma'am, in your beautiful clothes!' this silly old woman, who looked more like a parrot than ever, smiled on her, and, with a toss of her plumed head, said, 'Thank you, my good woman; you'll find a ha'pennyworth of tea, and a ha'pennyworth of sugar in my cupboard; take them for yourself—they're of the best,' and with the air of one who has given a handsome present, she ordered the coachman to drive away, not once glancing back on the scene of her past life. Never again did Mrs. Grey invite her former neighbors to sup with her, although she could now have given them black cake and ice-cream, instead of the single cup of tea that she had once been pleased to offer them." I laughed to hide my confusion, for I now knew that my grandmother had heard all my foolish speeches. Without noticing my blushes, she added softly, "Riches do not harden all hearts, my dear, as they did Mrs. Grey's. Those who hold them as a good gift of God, to be used for his service, find them a means of blessing to themselves and others."—Dorothy Redwood, in S. S. Times. OH! be not the first to discover
A blot on the name of a friend,
A flaw in the heart of a lover,
Whose faith may prove true to the end. We none of us know one another,
And oft into error may fall;
Then let us speak well of our brother,
Or speak not about him at all. A smile or a sigh may awaken
Suspicion most false and undue;
And then our belief may be shaken
In hearts that are honest and true. How often the light smile of gladness
Is worn by the friends that we meet
To cover a soul full of sadness,
Too proud to acknowledge defeat. How often the sigh of dejection
Is heaved from the hypocrite's breast,
To parody truth and affection,
Or cause our suspicion to rest. How often the friends we hold dearest
Their noblest emotions conceal;
And bosoms the purest, sincerest,
Have secrets they cannot reveal. Leave base minds to harbor suspicion,
And small ones to trace our defects.
Let ours be a noble ambition,
For base is the mind that suspects. We none of us know one another,
And oft into error we fall;
Then let us speak well of our brother,
Or speak not about him at all. THERE is a statute in Iowa against the sale of toy pistols, and the penalty for the violation of the statute is a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail for not less than ten nor more than thirty days. The law is a good one. The number of accidents, many of them fatal ones, from the use of the toy pistol, is frightful. R. J. Farquharson, secretary of the Iowa State Board of Health, has written a letter on the toy-pistol subject, in which he advocates a rigid enforcement of the statute. He says the poisonous nature of the fulminating powder of which these explosives are composed, in case of wounds received by them, almost invariably results in tetanus (lock-jaw) and death.—Sel.