Earlier text: General ArticlesAn Argument for the Two Laws.
By J. D. Rice
MUCH has already been said upon this subject; and the array of evidence presented is such as must forever settle the question in the mind of every one who is capable of appreciating the clearest evidence when given, that the Bible recognizes two distinct codes of laws. But many have not had the opportunity of considering the facts which have been presented, and for the benefit of such, and all who may be in doubt upon it, I will give a few facts to show this distinction between "The law of God" and "The law of Moses." First, we will briefly notice a few texts bearing upon these two laws, by way of comparison. Let any one decide if they can possibly refer to one and the same law. For convenience I will call the law of God, No. 1; and the law of Moses, No. 2. Such expressions as quoted above must be accepted as evidence of one of two things; either the Bible is a mass of contradictions, or else it recognizes two codes of laws. None who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures can hold to the former; they must of necessity accept the latter. Learned, godly men of the past, such as John Wesley, Dr. Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, and a host of others of almost every denomination, and I may especially mention the Baptists, have held to this position. Why do men of to-day try to destroy this distinction and confound the two? They do it that they may sweep away the law of God with the ceremonial precepts, in order to get rid of that part of the law which says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work," etc., and that they may keep a day of their own choosing instead; a day which has no higher authority for its observance than the edicts of pagan rulers and the mandates of the Roman Catholic Church. From the account given in the 15th chapter of Acts, of the Council of Jerusalem, we gather facts which must forever settle the question that there are two laws, and that they were clearly recognized by the apostles. First, consider who comprised this council. They were the apostles of Christ and the elders (Acts 15:6); the very foundation of the Christian church (Eph. 2:20); men that had been partakers of the "power from on high" at the day of Pentecost, and, therefore, fully competent to decide the question before them. Second, mark the time when this council was held. It was at least ten years after the resurrection of Christ, the pentecost, and the opening of the Christian dispensation in its fullness and purity. Therefore it is in the fullest sense a Christian council, and its decisions and recognitions must be considered the voice of the true Christian Church for the entire Christian dispensation. If they recognized two separate and distinct laws, so must we, and abide by the decisions which they made. Let us now consider the question before the council. It was whether or not it was necessary for the Gentile Christians to be "circumcised," and "to keep the law of Moses" (verses 1-6, 24). Circumcision was a part of the law of Moses, but is here specially mentioned, probably for two reasons: (1) because it seemed to be the prominent point urged by the Pharisees upon the Gentile Christians; and (2) it was not peculiar to Moses, but was given to Abraham, and was, therefore, "of the Father"; but it was incorporated into the "law of Moses" among the rest of the "carnal ordinances." (See Jno. 7:22, 23; Heb. 9:10.) So the question simplified is, Shall they keep the law of Moses? What was their decision? It was, "That we trouble not the Gentiles which are turned to God," nor "tempt God" by putting "a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear" (verses 10, 19). Thus they settled the question of the law of Moses. They further decide that four things are necessary for them, viz.: To abstain from meats offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication (verses 6-29). Is it not a "necessary thing" that the Gentile Christians shall "abstain from" murder, adultery, theft, false witness, covetousness, blasphemy, idolatry, and having other gods beside the true God? and is it not a "necessary thing" for them to honor their parents? All must admit that these things are "necessary." I say "must," because these same apostles, actuated by the same Spirit that was in Christ, and in harmony with His teachings, continually urged these principles of righteousness on the authority of the law—not of Moses, but of God, which contains them. (See Matt. 19:16-19; Rom. 7:7-25; 8:1-7; 13:8-10; Jas. 2:8-12, etc.) From the last reference we see that James, who presided in the council at Jerusalem, says, that he who kills is a "transgressor of the law;" and He that said "Do not kill" also "Do not commit adultery," and that he is guilty who offends in "one point" of the law. This same law says "Thou shalt not covet;" and Paul calls the law which contains this commandment "the law of God." Rom. 7:7, 22. James calls it "the royal law." Royal signifies kingly. The royal law is the law of God, the "King of Eternity." (Jer. 10:10, margin.) Paul says it "is spiritual" and those who are "spiritually minded," "who are in Christ Jesus," and "walk after the Spirit" that was in Him, and "not after the flesh," are "subject to the law of God," but the carnal mind is not; and "to be carnally minded"—opposed to the law of God—"is death." Rom. 7:14-25; 8:1-7. Now almost any child knows that that law, called the "law of God," which says, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not covet," etc., says also, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," and "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work," etc. This is "one point" of the law, most assuredly. James says if we offend in one point of this law we are "guilty." The light has come. Let us then keep every "point" of that law which God himself spoke from Heaven. "God shall bring every work into Judgment" in the light of His law, and "He will in no wise clear the guilty." There are ten commandments in that law. Deut. 4:12, 13. Truly these things are "necessary." But were they mentioned with the four "necessary things," which the Gentile Christians were required to do, by the government over which James presided, and at which Paul was present? No. Does not James most clearly teach that it is "necessary" to keep every point of that law which says, "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," etc.? Most certainly he does. Then what must we conclude from these premises? There is but one conclusion which can be drawn, viz.: That James, with all the apostles and elders assembled in that council, recognized a clear and decided distinction between the "Law of God" and the "Law of Moses;" and that in discussing the latter they do not include the former, though its precepts are elsewhere recognized by them as necessary to eternal life. The question may be asked, Why did the apostles urge those four things specially upon them? Doubtless because they were generally practiced among the Gentiles, the converts from whom would be in special danger on account thereof, this special counsel was given. Long before Moses, God had forbidden the eating of blood, as it contained the life. (Gen. 9:4.) In eating a "thing strangled" the blood would be, as it is thereby retained. Paul gives the reasons why we should not eat "meats offered to idols." (See 1 Cor. 8. and Rom. 14.) No good could come from it but harm, as it would tend to draw them back into idolatry; cause a "weak brother" to stumble; or to prevent those who might otherwise be won from idolatry. As "fornication" is not specifically named in the law of God, though included in the 7th precept, and as it was a common practice among the Gentiles, a word of caution and admonition upon this point was timely, and is a proof of their vigilance, and care for the church of God.
Oakland, Cal., Feb. 13, 1883. Christ’s Simple Philosophy
THE simple, plain truth taught by Christ is the only philosophy the people can comprehend, and the religion of Christ is the only philosophy the race needs.—The Advance. HERE are some golden words from Dr. Prime, of the New York Observer, which are worthy of deep and earnest consideration from every one, no matter what his sphere of life may be; "If I had another life to live, and two thousand letters to write again, with God's help I would not hurt the feelings of the humblest of all God's creatures, honestly trying to do good. He might be as big as Daniel Lambert, and I would not call him fat and unctuous; he might be as lean as Calvin Edson, and I would not call him a bag of bones. I would call each day lost on which I had not made some hearts gladder than they were in the morning; on which I had not plucked up some thorns or planted some flowers on the path of human life." Heaping Together Treasures.
By Editor
In the Century for February is an article—"Topics for the Times"—which truthfully characterizes much of the extensive money-getting of the present day as systematized and legalized robbery. If any one will read the following extract from the article, and turn to the fifth chapter of James, and read that, he can scarcely fail to be struck with the graphic manner in which the treasure-heaping process is there described. The scene is there laid in "the last days," when the "coming of the Lord draweth nigh":— "Of the gigantic fortunes now held in this country, not a few have been gotten by legal robbery. Twenty years ago our millionaires could be counted almost on the fingers of our hands. To-day their enumeration would carry us into thousands. Since the new system of robbery was perfected, about twenty men have amassed fortunes, which taken together, exceed the debt of the nation. Twenty years ago many of these men were poor. Some of the new millionaires have grown rich honestly, but some of them have led a raid upon the production and the accumulated wealth of the country. So Napoleonic in its boldness and success has been the method of the master robbers, that rich men of better instincts have been dazzled by it, and have adopted it openly and independently, or have lent indirect co-operation and social credit to the robber-chiefs, and have shared in the plunder. Men of honorable reputations, who have been crowned with public honors, have countenanced these crimes as affording the surest way of adding to their unsatisfying fortunes of ten, twenty, or thirty millions. It is by no means our purpose to throw discredit upon the pursuit of wealth. Honest production, and the honest gains of wealth that is employed in the service of society, are the bulwarks of civilization. But we do say that examples of private greed are sapping the sources of public honor; examples of gigantic and countenanced robbery are undermining the foundations of public morality and corrupting the national character. "Our legislators have failed to see, or for private and corrupt reasons have winked at the fact, that the laws which were made to fit old-fashioned ideas of honor and morality, instead of protecting the public, are the strength and the protection of dishonest men. The old code of commercial honor is lost sight of in the complex transactions of stock-jobbers, who remain out of sight while their work is being done by scienceless factors; by lawyers skilled in discovering loop-holes in the law and in juggling with the law; by lobbies with money at the doors of legislatures; by paper shares and paper promises to pay; by cipher messages and spies, and by abusing the facilities of stock exchanges." The Return of Israel.
By Editor
PERHAPS no one subject has been so much talked of, which is yet so little understood, as that of "the return of the Jews." It is a stereotyped theological phrase, representing various and indefinite views. We believe in the gathering of Israel to their own land; but we must apply the same New-Testament rules here that we have to other classes of promises, to wit, allow that the true Israel are of faith, whether Jew or Gentile by birth. There are two classes of Old-Testament prophecies on this subject; one, agreeing with the history of the past; the other, agreeing with New-Testament declarations, to be fulfilled in the future. Those who advocate the return of the Jews in the Age to Come, do so on the assumption that there has never been a gathering of Israel since the Babylonian captivity. But that this is only assumption and an error can be shown by history, both sacred and profane. All chronologists agree that all the prophets, except Malachi, wrote before the return of the Jews from Babylon. They date about as follows: Isaiah, 758 B. C.; Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Obadiah, 588; Daniel, 534; Hosea, 725; Joel, 761; Amos, 787; Jonah, 800; Micah, 758; Nahum, 720; Habakkuk, 605; Zephaniah, 608; Haggai and Zechariah, 518; Malachi, 400. These dates are designed to cover the latest periods of their prophecies, and the decree of Cyrus was B. C. 536, and that of Artaxerxes, which gave efficiency to, and really complemented, the original decree, Ezra 6:14, was in 457. Hence, quotations from their writings, to sustain the theory in question, have the full weight of chronology against such an application. In Isa. 44, the Lord declares himself as their Redeemer, "that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof." The instrumentality used in fulfillment of this promise is also shown: "That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid." Verses 26, 28. By turning to the record, we find that the decree for the return of the children of Israel was very liberal, giving permission to all to return who would. And no prophecy contemplates anything more than full permission and voluntary acceptance. "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth; and he hath charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God of Israel (he is the God), which is in Jerusalem. And whosoever remaineth in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, besides the free-will offering for the house of God that is in Jerusalem." Ezra 1:1-4. Again, in the decree of Artaxerxes, chap. 7:13: "I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and of his priests and Levites, in my realm which are minded of their own free will to go up to Jerusalem, go with thee." Jeremiah, speaking of the return of Israel from all the nations and from all the places whither they had been driven, introduces the same condition that Artaxerxes does in his decree—they shall go up voluntarily. "For thus saith the Lord, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end. Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. And I will be found of you, saith the Lord; and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the Lord; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive." Jer. 29:10-14. He also places this general gathering after the seventy years' captivity. These plain declarations are sufficient to cut off the assumption of the Age-to-Come theorists, who teach that only two tribes returned, while the ten remained scattered. There is no evidence that all of any tribe returned, while we have evidence that some of each tribe returned, even all that were willing. Josephus proves conclusively that twelve tribes were restored after this captivity. He says that Ptolemy Philadelphus sent a request to the Jews to "send six of the elders out of every tribe," for the purpose of translating the law into the Greek. When they were sent, word was returned to Ptolemy thus: "We have chosen six men out of every tribe, whom we have sent and the law with them." Josephus says they sent seventy-two; thus the twelve tribes were represented. See Josephus' Antiquities, B. 12, ch. 2, sec. 4-7. This testimony is corroborated by Scripture. That the tribe of Levi was represented in the return is evident, for the priests were all of that tribe. But Ezra says further, "So the priests and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinims, dwelt in their cities, and ALL ISRAEL in their cities." Ezra 2:70. "And when the seventh month was come, and the children of Israel were in the cities, the people gathered themselves together as one man to Jerusalem." Chap. 3:1; Neh. 7:73. When the temple was built, it was dedicated as related by Ezra. "And the children of Israel, the priests and the Levites, and the rest of the children of the captivity, kept the dedication of this house of God with joy, and offered at the dedication of this house of God an hundred bullocks, two hundred rams, four hundred lambs; and for a sin-offering for all Israel, TWELVE he-goats, according to the number of the tribes of Israel." Ezra 6:16, 17; 8:35. If ten tribes were lacking, it would be truly singular that it should not be mentioned in such a connection as this. There is another gathering of Israel spoken of in both Testaments, which we will briefly notice. Isa. 27 evidently refers to it. Notice in verse 11 the expression parallel to Rom. 11. "When the boughs thereof are withered, they shall be broken off; the women come and set them on fire; for it is a people of no understanding; therefore he that made them will not have mercy on them, and he that formed them will show them no favor. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall beat off from the channel of the river unto the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come which were ready to perish in the land of Assyria, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and shall worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem." Verses 11-13. This we think is easily identified as the gathering of the New Testament. When the Saviour comes, "he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Matt. 24:31. That this is the gathering of Israel referred to in the prophets is proved by reference to Eze. 37. After relating the vision and the revivifying of the dry bones, the Lord said, "Son of man, these bones are THE WHOLE HOUSE OF ISRAEL: behold they say, our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God: Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. . . . And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land." Verses 11, 12, 21. Comp. vs. 20-28, and Rev. 21. This gathering is coincident with that of Matt. 24, above referred to, as the graves of the house of Israel will be opened when the Lord sends his angels with a sound of a trumpet to gather his elect. The various points referred to in Isa. 27, Eze. 37, and Matt. 24, are united in 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air." In 2 Thess. 2, the subject is also introduced of "the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him." This we firmly believe is the only gathering of Israel that remains to fulfill the prophecies. EDITOR. Useful and Ornamental Church Members
By United Presbyterian
SOMEBODY has spoken of the "ornamental" members of the church, meaning those who are in it, but are of no use. But he is mistaken. They are rather the "disfiguring" ones. They who ornament it, who give it its beauty, and help make it the joy of the earth are such as love it, enter eagerly into its work, strive to build it up and extend it. In saintship the useful and the ornamental are one. There is no embellishment in uselessness.—United Presbyterian. It was Bulwer who said that in nine cases out of ten, poverty is only an idea. Some men with ten thousand dollars a year suffer more want of means than others with three hundred. The reason is, the richer man has artificial wants. His income is ten thousand, and he suffers enough from being dunned for unpaid debts to kill a sensitive man; he who earns a dollar a day, and who does not run in debt, is the happier of the two. Very few people who have never been rich will believe this, but it is true. There are thousands and thousands with princely incomes who never know a moment's peace, because they live beyond their means. There is really more happiness in the world among the working people than among those who are called rich—always providing that poor folks do not, in a smaller way, emulate the prodigality of their richer brethren. Poverty is simply a question of the good or bad management of money in hand. THERE are thousands and thousands of men who are pretty moral, who join the institutions of religion, who do not break over the theological fences violently anywhere, and who are considered very good Christians. If they have more than morality it is regarded as all the better; but that is all that is regarded as indispensable. Notwithstanding that, a man may be moral and join institutions of religion, and yet have not dreamed what the central element of religion is—the substitution of a true love for self-seeking in any of its forms—the reconstruction of the whole life and character around about this appropriate center. So a man may comply with the average church notions on the subject of religion, and yet know nothing whatever about it. A man may conform to his own general vague sentiments or conscience in many respects, and yet be far from religion. A man may be decorous, he may be prayerful, he may be obedient to much law; but no matter what a man complies with and conforms to, the requisition is absolute. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels"—though Demosthenes, though Cicero, though all the noblest and most eloquent and most cogent preachers, such as Bourdaloue, Massillon, and Whitefield speak through my mouth the things which concern time and eternity and human life—if I am not animated by the principle of unfeigned and organific love, if that is not the central motive, and it does not color everything I do, what am I? I should not dare to say what such men are; but the apostle did say. They are worse than bass drums, according to his declaration. He says, "They are as sounding brass." Is there anything in this world that is so empty in and of itself as those little thin plates of brass that go sounding through the streets? Such men are "tinkling cymbals." Paul says that though a man may be a brilliant orator, though he may be wise, though he may possess many noble qualities, if he has not this central element of love, he is a "tinkling cymbal." An Italian woman might as well dance and cause the castanets to rattle, and then say, "I am a Christian," as a man, who merely has an overflow of eloquence says, "I am a Christian teacher." That man is a Christian teacher the breath of whose life bears love; but that man who simply inspires more thought of worship, more technical piety, without love, is "sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal."—Christian Union. Words in Season.
By Editor
IN a report in the Review and Herald from Sweden, Bro. Matteson uses the following language, to which we call special attention:— “We do not wish to mention names, but we wish our brethren in America, as well as in Sweden, to understand that it is not for the advancement of the cause to send papers and money to such men, even though they make long reports and strong appeals for money. One person who has done this has now united with another to publish a paper in Stockholm. We have received the first number. The last-named person published an article in a political paper some time ago, stating that he was no S. D. Adventist. He said he kept the seventh day, and believed in the soon coming of the Lord, the sleep of the dead, and the destruction of the wicked, but, nevertheless, he was persuaded, and wished others to understand, that S. D. Adventists, as well as other churches, belonged to the great harlot, Babylon, that is fallen. This paper was sent to us. He has a burden to make people believe that the mark of the beast is a literal mark, which will be branded into the foreheads and hands of those who receive it, either by a hot iron or by some chemical preparation. Some have embraced this new light, and seem to rejoice in it, because it gives them a chance to find fault with our views.” We digress from the main design of these remarks to say that we have known a few in this country to take the same fanciful view of the mark of the beast, which destroys the harmony of Revelation 13 and 14, and sadly unhinges the Third Angel's Message. But, fortunately, most of our people are too well grounded in the principles of the present truth to be unsettled by the “new light.” Again Bro. Matteson says:— “We desire that those brethren in America and elsewhere, who are in harmony with us and desire to help the Swedish Mission with their means, will do so through the General Conference Committee.” This is a matter which ought to receive the earnest attention of all benevolent individuals, and of all the denomination. The abuse here spoken of has existed from the very beginning of our work. Before we adopted the tithing system, or any system of raising means, we were struck with the want of discernment manifested by many of our brethren in giving to the cause or to individuals, and the consequent inequality of the recompense bestowed on different laborers. Two ministers would go out to labor; one, a self-sacrificing, devoted man, whose mind was wholly on his work. Himself and his wants were kept out of sight, while he labored zealously for the cause. The brethren would be delighted with his labors; they would rejoice in his sermons and listen to his counsels, but seem to forget that he needed anything, because he had not the disposition to press his wants upon their notice. If he had a family he would often return to them with a sad heart, because he could not bring to them the means of providing even necessary food. The other, of a different mould, would seek to attract people to himself; was always ready to present his own wants, real or supposed; would magnify the trials attending the work of the ministry, and thus enlist the sympathies of those among whom he labored. Having created a greater interest in himself than in the cause which he professed to represent, he would return to his home loaded with presents, though he had done but little good to the people among whom he had labored. And he would soon come to look upon this as his right, even though he knew that his fellow-laborers did not fare as well as himself, and was the first to murmur and complain of neglect. This is no fancy sketch; we have seen it acted over and over. The formation of Conferences and the introduction of system in our financial affairs, did much to remedy the evil, but it was not by any means cured. There have always been some who did not like to be bound by rules; did not like to conform to that which was adopted by the body. Sometimes they objected to it as inconsistent with their personal liberty, and sometimes excused themselves on the ground that their circumstances were peculiar, and they ought to be made exceptions to the rules which were applied to others. These stood exactly where their sympathies could be perverted and misdirected, and a complaining, selfish person could work upon their sympathies, and obtain means to a liberal amount from them, where the most urgent appeals for some suffering branch of the cause would fail to move them, especially if made by those who bore responsibilities, and were laboring in harmony with the system adopted by our people. These things we have witnessed very often. And there is still another class, composed of conscientious, self-denying, benevolent people, whose feelings are in harmony with every branch of our work. They are very anxious to see the cause prosper, and their anxiety prompts them to do that which should only be done by, or under the counsel of, the Conference Committee. They will bend all their energies to respond to some urgent appeal, and not only give all they had to spare, but secure all that the brethren could spare as far as their influence extended, actually robbing the treasury of its due to meet a want, the merits of which they did not understand. We have known the resources of whole churches to be drained in this manner, and the Conference crippled, and worthy, faithful laborers left to suffer, while unworthy ones were liberally supplied. For, in such cases, it almost always turns out that the means so raised have been misapplied, and the cause has been injured and not benefited by a misappreportion of funds; by discouraging the faithful workers, and by strengthening the hands of those who are serving themselves and not the work of God, and who, sometimes, as in the case cited by Bro. Matteson, are fighting against the cause which the brethren, who bestow the means, dearly love and are anxious to advance. Our Conference Committees are all finance committees according to the Constitution of the Conferences. In addition to this the General Conference Committee, by an article in the Constitution of that body, is constituted a Committee on Missions, all mission-fields, both home and foreign, being placed under its supervision. No words are needed to prove that individuals and the cause will be best and most fairly served if the distribution of the funds is left to the proper committees. It is their duty to inquire into the circumstances of the applicants, and they have the means of acquiring an understanding of the case which others seldom have. And especially is this true of foreign fields. Our methods of operation have been well and carefully planned, and thoroughly proved, and no irregular, unorganized action will ever improve them. In most cases the gift of money in this irregular manner has led to many regrets; in some instances the donors have been so greatly disappointed with the results as to become discouraged, and for some time give little or nothing in any manner. Instead of complaining of those who received the funds they ought to bewail their own want of discernment whereby they have permitted funds to be diverted from their proper channel and lost to the cause. And instead of suffering the fountains of benevolence to dry up, they should be more earnest to “redeem the time,” and as far as possible remedy the errors of the past. We suggest a few rules which, if followed, will leave little cause for regret in time to come:— 1. “Bring all the tithes into the storehouse” of the Lord. Do not withhold from the treasury that which is its just due. 2. If private calls are made for special help, to any large extent, seek counsel of those whose duty and privilege it is to understand the wants of the cause at large, and inquire concerning these two points: (1) Whether the person making the call is worthy and needy, and (2) Whether the outlay would be judicious, that is, whether you are not aiding a cause or person not greatly in need to the neglect of some branch of the work which may be suffering for the aid which you can give. 3. If you feel called upon to bestow a gift or make an offering to a cause in a distant field, especially in a foreign field, or wherever you are not acquainted with the circumstances, make it through the committees who have the oversight of that field and that work. They will be glad to convey your charities, as they are in that business, and they may be able to make suggestions to you which will prevent injudicious actions and consequent regrets. If these rules were faithfully followed by all, there would be plenty in the treasury to meet the requirements of the work, all reasonable wants would be promptly met, and there would exist no possible causes of regret. We ask our brethren and sisters to read this article a second time, and examine the subject carefully, and consider whether it does not present a remedy for many existing difficulties. God will bless us if we walk uprightly, and give us a cheerful courage in our work.