International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 5, 1884
General Articles.
By Mrs. E. G. White
Importance of Cherishing Light.
BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.
JESUS said to his disciples: "Whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand; and the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it."
In this text is shown the difference between the doers of Christ's word and those who are merely idle hearers. Jesus taught by symbols. He illustrated his lessons by familiar objects in nature, that whenever his hearers should see these objects, the lesson might be suggested to their minds. The lily of the valley, the grass of the field, the springing grain, the singing birds, and even the homely scenes in a fisherman's life, became silent but impressive preachers of the word of life. A high standard was kept before the disciples. They were taught that a pure faith would purify and ennoble them; and that unless their righteousness should exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, they should in no case enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Peter, John, and Judas are representative men, types of two classes of hearers. They each had the privilege of associating with Christ and learning of him; but how different were the characters they developed! Peter and John were doers of the word, and their lives were molded by the instructions of the Master. Judas also heard his teachings on the very points where he was deficient. The leading traits in the character of Judas were covetousness and self-esteem. Jesus knew of his dishonest practices, and understood the danger to which he was exposed; yet notwithstanding his defects, he was chosen as one of the twelve who were to be intimately associated with the world's Redeemer. Jesus would give this erring one every opportunity to reform. The light should shine upon his heart; he should see the contrast between truth and error, and decide intelligently between them. Jesus did not openly rebuke him, but gave lessons that he might apply to his own case if he sincerely wished to reform. Selfishness, covetousness, and dishonesty were presented in their true character, so that he could see how offensive these traits were in the sight of God.
When the teachings of Christ reproved Peter and John, they were careful to reform. The transforming grace of God was in their hearts. Their minds expanded, and day by day they grew more like the divine Teacher. Judas, on the contrary, was proud, self-sufficient, and independent. Although enjoying the exalted privilege of being closely connected with Christ, the words of life found no lodgment in his heart; and he went on from one degree of unbelief to another until his character was firmly fixed in the wrong direction. He might have had the wisdom that comes from above to guide him into all truth; but he rejected the counsel of God, and the evil he had cherished gained an overmastering influence, bringing soul and body into subjection to the cruel power of Satan.
Judas had excellent traits of character, and might have been a great blessing to the church had he been steadfast, and resisted temptation; but he was treasurer, and this position gave him an opportunity to practice dishonesty. Had he been humble and teachable, he would have set about the work of reform when his conscience was awakened, and he saw the sinfulness of his course. But he sinned against light and knowledge; and instead of being softened and subdued by the lessons of Christ, his heart became harder and more unimpressible.
We may learn an important lesson from the experience of Judas. We may be called disciples of Christ; we may hold our religious convictions firmly, and be able to present clear, connected arguments in their support; and yet, like Judas, we may hold the truth in unrighteousness. If we would be sanctified through the truth, we must hold it in the love and fear of God. It is a duty we owe to ourselves to cultivate self-reliance and independence of character; but these traits must be blended with meekness and humility. When we trust to our own wisdom and judgment, as a large number do, we are in the sure path to shame and confusion of face. It is only through divine grace that we can overcome the defects in our character; but unless we make continued efforts to subdue them, they will become stronger, as in the case of Judas. Every indulgence in sin prepares the way for renewed and excessive indulgence, until at last the tempter has full control of the mind.
After God has shown individuals their sins and given them grace to overcome, and his Spirit has been long striving with them, he will not work a miracle to prevent the sure result of resisting that Spirit and persisting in a wrong course. There is a boundary to his grace and mercy; and when this boundary is passed, the aid of his Spirit, so wickedly refused and insulted, is withdrawn, and the soul is given over to the worst of tyrants,—the power of a perverted will. If we are closely connected with sacred things, and yet do not realize their importance, the heart will become so hard that the most earnest appeals will not move it to contrition. We must cherish every ray of light. We must work intelligently to form our characters after the divine model, continually striving, with all the powers God has given us, to reach the high standard set before us in his word.
Testimonies are borne in these meetings that the truth is precious, the truth is everything. So it is; but the truth is nothing to any of us unless we are sanctified through it. Has its influence made you better men and women? Has it improved your life and character? Unless the truth is accomplishing the object for which it is designed in transforming you into the image of Christ, it were better if you had never professed to believe it; for you will mislead others. The salvation of our own souls and the souls of those with whom we associate is of the first importance, while the things of this life are secondary; but Satan is ever scheming to reverse this order, and interpose the world between the soul and its eternal interests.
Many do not exalt the truth, but degrade it by their unchristian course. They neglect to improve the privilege given them to become acquainted with Christ and his love. This knowledge is a sure defense; but whatever tends to draw the mind from the love of Jesus, whether it be the deceitful heart within or an ensnaring world without, is of Satan, and will bring darkness and death.
Some who are present this morning must know that they have uncorrected faults which they are excusing and cherishing. Dear brethren and sisters, you cannot have a more favorable time to confess these faults one to another and pray one for another, than in this meeting. Jesus is present; but evil angels are here also to preoccupy the field. They will endeavor to gain an entrance to the heart by suggesting doubts, so that no permanent good impressions shall be made. Shall we allow them to have the victory? We see how it was with Judas. One neglect to heed the words of Christ prepared the way for another. The first neglect was a seed which produced its harvest in resistance to the Spirit of God; and with each admonition that he slighted, he became less inclined to appreciate and cherish the lessons that gave him a knowledge of himself.
God sends messages of instruction, of reproof, of warning. Do not flatter yourself that he does not denounce the particular sins that you love. Do not imagine that by some means you can enter into life without being free from moral pollution. If we would live with Jesus in the mansions that he has gone to prepare, we must be like him here in this world. We must be diligent to set our hearts in order. Let us338greatly fear self-deception. Let us cover up nothing, but be true to our own souls. Let us study to have the meekness and humility of Christ. An opportunity is now afforded us to become pure in heart and spotless in character. Though the enemy presses in his temptations, coming in upon us like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord will lift up a standard against him. We may find a present help in Jesus; but we must seek this help through earnest, persevering prayer. In the closet, in the family circle, as we walk the streets, and while our hands engage in labor, we may pray, and the Lord will hear us.
There is no excuse for continuing in sin. No man is obliged to do evil, and be lost. Every one who perishes destroys his own soul. The provisions of grace are ample. Jesus is pleading in our behalf, and there is mercy for even the most guilty and sinful. Let us take hold of the strength of Jesus. He loves us with a love that is inexpressible; let us respond to that love.
"DO" AS WELL AS "SAY."
By Mrs. M. S. Beers
"Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say." Luke 6:46
Down from the heaven above me
Comes the voice of the crucified;
The day of the Lord is dawning,
And he who believes must be tried;
Must be weighed in the balance and proven,
Whether wanting in love he be;
If, by daily cross ignoring,
He hath failed to show faith in me.
Faith without works is lifeless,
And no fruit to my honor can bear.
They who do the will of my Father,
For the crucial fire prepare;
Who simply obey, ne'er repining,
That for fruitage they wait "many days;"
Who trust for the sun's promised shining,
And in "sowing" make no delays.
And God who weigheth, doth measure
Not so much the results that are shown,
As the love that prompts the endeavor
To fulfill his behests when known.
—Mrs. M. S. Beers, in Y. M. C. A. Bulletin.
Christ "the End of the Law."
By Rev. Philip S. Moxom
THERE are three ideas that are fundamental in Paul's letter to the Romans, and, indeed, in Paul's entire scheme of thought. These are the ideas of "law," "righteousness," and "faith." All three have their places and their significant relation to each other, in the sentence under consideration: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." The term "law," in the apostle's usage, varies in its meaning. At one time it designates the ritual economy of Israel. At another it designates the specific divine enactments which have their tersest expression in the "Ten Words," and which, thus expressed, represent the entire moral legislation of Moses as distinguished from merely ceremonial legislation. Frequently, also, the apostle uses the word "law" to designate the generic holy requirement of God—that is, the elemental and universal moral law which has its ground in the nature of God. Law, thus conceived, is wrought into the human soul, so that every man feels, because he is man, the obligation of rightness.
Now, what is meant by "law" in the apostolic sentence before us? It cannot be simply the ritual law. It must be the expressed divine command, or the inherent divine requirement, to which conscience witnesses, that man shall do and be right. In what sense, then, is Christ the "end" of the law? Many have said that, in the case of those who believe in Christ, the law is abrogated, or, at least, that its claim has been "satisfied," by the righteousness and sufferings of Christ. Just what the word "satisfied," as applied to law, means, is not clear, though, as often used, it seems to have the force of "annulled," or "done away with." But, thus construed, is the saying "Christ is the end of the law" true? Is God's requirement that man shall be righteous ever abrogated? Then there is an end of all morality, and salvation becomes unmoral, if not immoral. Is not the believer in Christ bound by the obligation to be pure, honest, and holy? Did Christ in any way relax the claims of holy law? Did his "work of atonement" terminate in the release of men from any one of those claims? Certainly Paul is the last man in the world to reply affirmatively to these questions. If he seems to us to do so it is evident that we have not got the right view of his teachings.
We are helped to a clear understanding of these words, "Christ is the end of the law of righteousness," by remembering that "end" in Greek, as often also in English, does not necessarily mean termination or cessation, but fulfillment. In fact, we have the testimony of such Greek lexicographers as Liddell and Scott, and Drisler, and the distinguished Cremer, that the word here used, telos, never means simply termination, but "fulfillment," "completion," and even "the highest point," "the ideal." This is the word that Peter uses in his first epistle (1 Peter 1:9), where he says: "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." Here, evidently, "end" cannot mean termination, and must mean fulfillment. We read, then, "Christ is the fulfillment of the law for (that is, unto eis) righteousness." In Christ the obligation of righteousness is met and fulfilled; not for man, as if there were no further claim on man, but by man—actually by the man Christ, and prophetically by the believer in Christ through the mediation of faith.
These words must be construed in the light of preceding revelation. Man is sinful. He has not kept God's law, and, therefore, has not lived righteously. But he ought to be righteous. He is under the commandment of law without, and the imperative of conscience within, neither of which he can escape. As a sinner he is under penalty; and penalty already works in his morally disorganized nature. In Christ the holiness and love of God are supremely manifested. Atonement is made in the divine compassion, which, through suffering, quenches wrath and lifts the ban of condemnation. Christ is the Saviour of men, not by the law, for law saves no one except through obedience, and man does not really obey until he is already saved; nor from the law for the law is "holy, and just, and good;" something to be honored and accepted, not to be escaped. He is a Saviour by virtue of the grace and power whereby he "translates" the sinner, through an inner, not an outer change, from a state of conflict into a state of harmony with the law. Salvation is just this process of bringing the soul into that spirit in which the law is fulfilled by ceasing to be mere enactment or imperative, and becoming impulse and motive. This process is begun and carried on to completion through faith.
Herein lies the real power of Christianity—that it is the revelation of a personal Saviour, who draws to himself the interest and confidence of the sinful soul and begets in it new moral purpose. We know we ought to be and to do right; but we are bound in evil habit. Righteousness, as a mere abstraction, has no power to renew us. Law, as mere enactment, is incapable of touching our hearts. But Christ, in whom righteousness and law are embodied and suffused with the beauty of gracious love, lays hold of our hearts, touches the springs of desire and volition, wakens us to righteous impulses, and through our faith, becomes in us the fulfillment of the law unto righteousness. By faith we enter into a truly righteous disposition, because by faith we are joined to him in love. We cannot love an abstraction; but we can love a concrete being, in whom the law is revealed as the rhythmic movement of a perfect life. We cannot trust in a proposition; but we can trust in a Person in whom is embodied all excellence of truth and grace.
The Pharisaic idea of righteousness was artificial and false. The Pharisee sought to manufacture a righteousness by doing things that had no vital relation to the heart and character. He lived under a law of works. He built himself up in self-flattering virtues and austerities. He fasted, and counted his fasts as if they were intrinsically meritorious. He gave tithes, and claimed credit with God to the full extent of the money's worth. His religious life was a kind of commercial affair, entirely apart from real spirituality. Against this idea Paul flung the combined weight of his passionate speech and his intense personality. He opposed to it his spiritual insight, his clear common sense, his close-knitted argument, and his restless eloquence. He fought it as a deadly heresy to be destroyed at all hazards.
This Pharisaic idea of righteousness, though Jewish, was also pagan. The pagan sought to propitiate the gods by sacrifices that were tributes or bribes, or he did things which he thought raised his own value in the eyes of the Supreme Being. But righteousness never consists in doing things, but in being something. It is a relation of heart, and mind, and will—that is, of the thinking, willing, feeling personality—to God. And righteousness is not begun until love is wakened, and love has its spring in faith.
In the moral government and development of man, law is necessary. Its enactments are regulative and tuitionary. We must be schooled by compulsion, by command and penalty, into a sense of our wrongness and need. But law can have no renewing influence on a sinner. Only as love comes in to kindle aspiration and beget hope does law begin to pass into the heart as a freely accepted principle of life; and love works effectually only through the medium of trust.
Law must pass into life before there can be freedom; and only in freedom is real righteousness possible. No soul that is scourged to right action is righteous. It must choose to be right; and choice has its source in the heart. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness." Over against law as enactment is set the life in which is the fulfillment of law and the completion of righteousness. Christ is the law realized in life. He perfectly obeyed the law, because the law was in him an element of holy liberty. He could say: "I delight to do thy will, O God."
In his concrete re-expression of law, Christ is also the personal embodiment and revelation of divine love. Thus, while law alone is compulsory, he, as law and love in one, is supremely attractive. He draws us upward toward himself, into the very atmosphere and impulse of righteousness. He subdues us by his tender, pitiful feeling for us. He inspires us by his powerful aid. He gives the heart an uplifting aim; and that aim is not perfection in the observance of rules, but likeness to himself. Righteousness is not to be found in scrupulous, ascetic practices—a kind of moral gymnastics—but in Christlikeness. As that condition is progressively attained, the law passes into fulfillment within us. He who loves Christ loves righteousness, and so is transformed in his deepest impulses. He is assimilated to the character of him whom he loves.
Christ is, then, the end of the law for righteousness; not the abrogation of the law, but its re-enactment in the sphere of the individual soul. The atonement has its clear efficacy and sufficient fruit in this that the requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who are in Christ Jesus. There is the deepest philosophy in Paul's statement of the doctrine of salvation. He makes no error in his insight or slip in his logic. The whole process is conditioned on faith. To many who look at Christianity superficially this seems an arbitrary condition. And it is arbitrary; it is even immoral, if we think of believing as a mere mental act having efficacy in itself. It then becomes like any other act that is done for merit's sake by the ascetic or devotee. Faith is then a fetish. It is a Pharisaic "work." But faith really being trust in a Divine Person—the revealed and revealing God—it involves the abandonment of will and life to the gracious influence and sweet rule of God. It is "letting God love us" out of our degradation and weakness and sin. It is letting God save us through his free grace in Christ Jesus. The right temper in which we are put by the faith that his love wakens becomes the fruitful soil in which are sown the vital seeds of all virtues. Righteousness springs up in the warmth of holy love as flowers spring up in the wooing sunshine. Hence it comes that the trusting soul has new and strange choices which reveal a growing appetite for goodness. Then, too, the "sinner saved by grace" begins, at first feebly and tremblingly, but with increasing strength to say, "I delight to do thy will, O God."
To say that man must have faith in order to be saved is like saying that he must have breath before he can speak and act.339In conclusion, the practical import of the statement we have been studying, and of the whole epistle, on the threefold theme—“law,” “righteousness,” and “faith”—is this: Law, as generic obligation or as specific enactment, is, in a very important sense, external to the sinner. It presses upon him with all its weight of command and penal sanction. If he is ever to be saved—that is, if he is ever to be righteous—the law must pass within him, and become a free, internal impulse. Obedience must rise in the spontaneous choices of his heart.
How can this be accomplished? Not by any compulsion, not by any fiction of imputed righteousness, not by any hard will-work and ascetic discipline, but by FAITH, by the acquaintance of the soul with God in Christ, by the sinner’s coming into love with Christ through the revelation of Christ’s grace and beauty, and by the ministry of that Spirit whom Christ unceasingly bestows.—Rev. Philip S. Moxom, in N. Y. Independent.
“How Is the Amendment to Be Carried Out Practically?”
By Alonzo T. Jones
THIS question is asked by Rev. J. C. K. Milligan, in the Christian Statesman of Feb. 21, 1884, and is answered by him as follows: “In brief, its adoption will at once make the morality of the ten commandments to be the supreme law of the land, and anything in the State Constitutions and laws that is contrary to them will become unconstitutional. But the changes will come gradually, and probably only after the whole framework of Bible Legislation has been thoroughly canvassed by Congress and State Legislatures, by the Supreme Courts of the United States and of the several States, and by lawyers and citizens generally.”
Then what will that be but to re-open the whole course of religious controversy, from the Council of Nice to this day? And when the whole nation is thus plunged into religious controversy, who shall decide whether Congress or the State Legislature is correct? Who shall decide between lawyers and citizens generally, or between lawyers themselves, or citizens, or congressmen themselves?
Dr. M’Allister’s answer is, “The conflict of individual opinion will inevitably lead to anarchical conflict of legislative action, unless there is an acknowledged standard to which appeal can and must be made. The law of the Bible, by the proposed amendment, is made the supreme standard in deciding all moral questions in the administration of the government.” (See his Cleveland Convention speech, Statesman, Dec. 27, 1883.)
But it is not a sufficient answer to say that “the Bible is the standard and source of appeal;” because the Bible is just what all the controversy and “conflict of opinion” is about. And to say that there the Bible is to be the source of appeal, is only to say that the very subject of controversy is to be the standard by which to decide the controversy. It is plain, therefore, that there must be something to which appeal may be made, and which can interpret the Scriptures, and decide between the disputants, as to what the truth of the question is; and this decision must, in the very nature of the case, be final. It cannot be the courts, because they are parties to the controversy, and again, because there are certain principles of law which courts recognize in their decisions; such as this: “When words are plain in a written law, there is an end to all construction. They must be followed.” (See Hon. John A. Bingham, in “Impeachment of Johnson,” p. 23.) And this: “The words of a statute, if of common use, are to be taken in their natural, plain, obvious, and ordinary signification and import.”—Kent’s Commentaries, section 462. These principles will not be accepted by the Amendment party.
To illustrate: Suppose the Amendment is secured, and, therefore, the ten commandments are the supreme law of this nation. I, to be loyal to my Government, as well as loyal to my God, take up the Bible, find the ten commandments, and begin to study diligently to learn what is my duty under this Government. I am taught by these fundamental principles in the interpretation of law, that “when words are plain in a written law, there is an end to all construction; they must be followed.” And having this plain rule, from the Hon. John A. Bingham, for my guide, and believing that the Congress of the United States made no mistake when it chose Mr. Bingham as the Special Judge Advocate to conduct the trial of the assassins of President Lincoln, and again when it chose him to conduct its impeachment of President Johnson; therefore believing him to be a safe guide in the interpretation of law, and having also the plain directions of Chancellor Kent, I proceed to the inquiry, as to what is required of me by the ten commandments. I come to the fourth commandment. I read, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt not do any work.” I apply my rule, thus: (1) This is a written law; (2) the words are plain,—“The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Now if I find what day is the seventh day, my duty is plain. I turn to that subject, and I find that all the sources of inquiry to which I apply, answer with one voice, “The day commonly called Saturday is the seventh day.” Having found the seventh day, and the words being “plain,” (3) “there is an end to all construction,” “they must be followed.” Now I apply Chancellor Kent’s rule, that by the testimony of two witnesses I may be right. First, are the words of this statute such as are of “common use”? I read the statute over carefully, and I find not a single word that is not of common use, and not one which I do not understand. Then I must take them “in their natural, plain, obvious, and ordinary signification and import.” Therefore, by these plain principles of the highest authority, I am compelled to admit that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and also to keep it as such.
Having now learned my duty in relation to the Sabbath, and having kept it, I proceed to learn and obey the rest of the commandment. I read just as plainly as the other, “Six days shalt thou labor.” When the Sabbath is past, I go to work on the first day of the week, that I may work the six “working days.” But my neighbor sees me at work, and calls out to me, “Halloa! Why are you working on the Sabbath?” I reply, This day is not Sabbath, and therefore I am not working on the Sabbath. I kept Sabbath yesterday. He answers, “Oh! that was the Jewish Sabbath that you kept. This day is the Christian Sabbath; this is now a Christian Government, and the Christian Sabbath must and shall be kept.” I refuse to yield to that argument, and here is a “conflict of individual opinion.” He has me arrested, and brought to trial. Suppose I providentially obtain the services of Hon. John A. Bingham to defend my cause, and he, by his consummate ability, convinces court and jury that from the plainest reading of the statute I have obeyed the supreme law of the land, and am therefore innocent. And now suppose that just here the prosecution enters the plea that that is not the correct interpretation of the commandment; that, correctly interpreted, it means, not the definite seventh day, but “one day in seven.” Mr. Bingham insists that, by the fundamental rules of law, it must mean the seventh day. They reply, “Are we to apply the rules of civil law in the interpretation of a religious question? This is a religious subject, and it must be decided, and the commandment interpreted, in accordance with the Christian sentiment of this Christian Government. We are the majority, and the majority must decide.”
Now in such a case as this, is it not plain that the Bible will not be the source of appeal, but that it will be the Church as the interpreter of the Bible, which must render the final decision?
Plainly, Yes. Is this an unjust illustration, or an unfair conclusion? Let us have their own words for answer. Please read again the question at the head of this article, and to the last word of that quotation connect the following and read right onward; for it belongs there: “The churches and the pulpits have much to do with shaping and forming opinions on all moral questions, and with interpretations of Scripture on moral and civil . . . points; and it is probable that in the almost universal gathering of our citizens about these, the . . . final decision of most points will be developed there. . . . There is certainly no class of citizens more intelligent, patriotic, and trustworthy than the leaders and teachers in our churches.” (?)
So, then, the church is to be the grand interpreter, and is to render the “final decisions” in this universal controversy. And again we are brought face to face with the image to the papal church. It was in this way that Rome placed herself as the one single interpreter of the Scriptures. Whenever a conflict of opinion occurred, it was brought immediately to the notice of the church, and she must decide as to what was the Scripture in the case, and which one of the disputants was in the right; consequently, no opinion could be held, and no duty practiced, which she chose to declare unscriptural. Therefore, if the Scriptures were to be interpreted alone by her, and conduct was to be regulated alone by her decisions, it is manifest that the more the people read the Scriptures, the more was she annoyed by new controversies and by the necessity of rendering new decisions; and then why should she not prohibit the laity from reading the Scriptures? Besides, where was the use of the laity reading the Scriptures anyhow, when none but the clergy could interpret?
Will the national reformers prohibit our reading and interpreting the Scriptures? If not, why not? Would it not be vastly better to do so at once then to be kept in a constant whirl of “interpretations,” and decisions? Then they could regulate the faith and practice of their so-called Christian government by bulls issued, as occasion required, “in Innocuo salutero et apostaticam benedictionem.” This would save them a vast deal of labor, and doubtless would work just as well.
Seriously, now, from reading the Christian Statesman, and studying this movement, how is it possible for any one to doubt that the “image to the beast” is to be formed in this United States Government, and that it is at the very doors? And we fully agree with them that their movement does decidedly “contemplate sufficiently practical ends.”—Alonzo T. Jones, in Review and Herald.
Spare Not the Truth.
No MAN has any right to make that which he believes to be the truth of God any less exacting, less sharp or clear, because he thinks his fellow-men will not accept it if he states it in its blankest and baldest form. I read an incident in a newspaper the other day that seems to me to illustrate this point. A tired and dusty traveler was leaning against a lamp-post in the city of Rochester, and he turned and looked around him and asked a boy, “How far is it to Farmington?” The boy answered, “Eight miles.” “Do you think it is so far as that?” said the poor, tired traveler. “Well, seeing that you are so tired, I will call it seven miles.” The boy, with his heart overflowing with kindness, pitied the exhausted traveler, and chose to call it seven miles. I know that I have seen statements of the truth that have dictated the same answer. Never make the road from Rochester to Farmington seven miles when you know it is eight. Do not do a wrong to truth out of regard for the feelings of those who have not the courage to obey it all.—Sel.