p. 194 | Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 25. (6/20/1878)

Review and Herald

Jun 20, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 20, 1878

THE REJECTED ORDINANCE.

By William H. Littlejohn

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

(Continued.) *

In the second place, we repudiate, as utterly untenable, the view that Christ was simply carrying out in what he did a practice of his time which was common on occasions such as the one in question, for the following conclusive reasons:—

a. Because it occurred at the wrong time.

The rite of hospitality was always attended to immediately after the guest had entered the house; since it was then that the circumstances of the case furnished the necessity for the ablution.

Feet-washing was purely utilitarian in its character, and owed its origin to the fact that the pedestrian in the dry and dusty East,—with his feet clad only with sandals, and his limbs below the knee frequently entirely bare,—as a matter of comfort to himself as well as respect to his host, universally resorted to the use of water almost immediately upon passing the threshold of the friend who was about to entertain him.

Had he delayed longer than this, not only would he have been unpresentable in his personal appearance, but he would also have been in danger of soiling the linen and the furniture with which his limbs might come in contact.

If, therefore, it can be shown that our Lord disregarded the important element of time in the transaction in which he figured so conspicuously on the evening of his betrayal, the inference will be legitimate, either that he was ignorant of the precise moment at which custom demanded that the rite should be administered, or else that what he did had no special reference to that usage of his time.

Turning now to the record, we read: “And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God, riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a bason and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.” John 13:2–5.

Here it is distinctly stated, first; that supper was ended, and, secondly; that he rose up from supper and commenced to wash the disciples’ feet.

As a consequence of this declaration, it is settled, beyond dispute, that the bathing of the feet did not occur for some time—perhaps several hours—subsequently to the entering of the disciples into the upper chamber where the passover supper was eaten.

This, however, as stated above, constituted a marked departure from a usage to which it is claimed he was seeking to conform.

Shall we conclude, therefore, that the variation occurred through ignorance on the part of our Lord as to what would have been proper under the circumstances?

We answer, No. This would impeach his intelligence respecting one of the commonest transactions of every-day life.

Not only so, it would show an utter disregard in point of time of the proprieties of the occasion.

If the washing of the feet needed to be attended to at all because of physical defilement, every consideration of taste, as well as comfort, demanded that it should have been done long before a sufficient amount of time had elapsed for the preparation of supper, so that the individuals themselves might have been ready to enter upon that meal in a condition of absolute cleanliness; since if there ever was a time when the persons of Jewish guests should have been scrupulously free from defilement of every sort, that time was when they were gathered around the table for the purpose of eating a meal. This was true of their hands, because it was their practice to dip all of them into a common dish which was the receptacle of the food for the whole company. It was also true of the feet and limbs; because it was their habit to recline at meals on the same sofa or couch, so that the head of the one might rest on the breast of the other, the limbs of the two parties coming in direct contact with each other as well as with the material which covered the seat on which they reclined, and, therefore, in danger of soiling (unless scrupulously clean) both the garments of a friend at meat and the upholstery of the host.

With all of these facts and circumstances our Lord was well acquainted; and no doubt he was as desirous, to say the least, as the average man of his time that every consideration of neatness should be carried out.

What, then, we ask again, could have been his motive in delaying as he did the entering upon the work under consideration?

As we have seen, it could not have been through either ignorance or oversight.

Neither could it have been on account of indifference to physical uncleanness; for to suppose that this was the case up to the time of his rising from the table and taking the bason and towel, and that he was just at that moment seized with a sudden and inexplicable desire that all should be immediately purified by the use of water, would manifest an oversight or an unaccountable fickleness of purpose wholly incompatible with our ideas of his divine perception of the time when, and the place where, and the manner in which, everything in its due order should have been provided for.

What, then, we ask once more, was the purpose and object which he had in view while doing what he did? The answer is obvious.

It was something different from the mere desire to rid his disciples from bodily uncleanness through a resort to the rite of hospitality; since, had that been his purpose, he would have resorted to that rite in the earliest stage of the interview, instead of waiting until it was already too late to secure the principal objects for which it was employed on such occasions.

b. The language of Christ forbids the idea that this could be true. Said he to his disciples, “What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter.” Now there is no rational interpretation which can harmonize these words with the view that the Saviour was at the time only administering the usual rite of hospitality. For, if this were the case, every one of the twelve apostles was perfectly familiar with the transaction which was taking place before them, having witnessed it scores and scores of times, since it was something which every dusty and foot-sore pedestrian had experienced, whenever, weary with his labors, he entered the house of a man of his time.

If our opponents, therefore, are correct, the Lord was wrong in inferring that the apostles did not comprehend his movements, and intimating that it would be necessary that they should be explained to them thereafter.

c. What Christ did furnishes so marked a departure from the course pursued ordinarily in his age by those who were entertaining guests, that it becomes apparent that he was acting independently of their example, and, therefore, that his motives were different from theirs.

He in person took the bason and the towel, and, with his own hands, washed and wiped the feet of the disciples. In doing this he varied from the custom of his generation in just so far as he did the work himself. All that they did was to furnish to the individual water and the needed appliances, leaving him thereafter to perform the work of washing his own feet. This is manifest from the language of the Saviour in his conversation with the Pharisee at whose house he was stopping at the time at which the conversation in question took place. He said to him, “Simon, I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet; but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.” From this it appears that the Lord reproved the Pharisee, not for having failed to wash his feet, but for having neglected to furnish him the water with which to do it himself. It is clear, therefore, as to what the practice was. It is also clear that the Lord so far deviated from it at the time of the passover supper as to make his action incompatible with the notion that he was doing to the apostles only that which he expected the Pharisee to do to him. So radical was his departure from the customary practice, that it proves indubitably that he either designed to create an entirely new institution, or else to transform the old one so far as to make it subservient to the inculcation of entirely new ideas. It matters not which horn of this dilemma the objector may take; for either one of them will impair the theory that the Lord was simply acting the part of the host to his disciples, they, in the meantime, sustaining to him the relation of guests.

d. The deportment of Peter also furnishes conclusive evidence that the action of Christ was altogether unusual, and had never been witnessed in him before.

How could this have been true, however, if Christ was merely acting the customary part of host? This was the fourth passover that Jesus had attended. Is it not probable that in each of them he had sustained the same relation to the twelve that he did on that occasion? If this be so (our opponents being right), then custom would have demanded that he should do on the three previous occasions just what he did at that time. But this could not have been the case; else Peter had witnessed the same occurrence before, and would not have been so perfectly overwhelmed by the extravagance of the Lord’s humiliation. Why said he, “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” This proves that he had never done so formerly, and that it was a sight to which the apostles were wholly unaccustomed. If this be the case, however, as it certainly must be to explain Peter’s action, then it is evident that the Master there inaugurated something which they had never witnessed in him before, and for which their minds were wholly unprepared by anything in his life or the usage of their time. But concede this point, and we are again compelled to admit that the familiar rite of hospitality will not furnish a suitable explanation of the scene in that upper room where the Lord and his followers were assembled.

e. If the language of Peter is irreconcilable with the accepted view, the reply of Christ utterly demolishes it, once and forever.

Said he to the recreant apostle whose extreme modesty and veneration forbade the thought that the maker of worlds should so far humble himself before him as to wash his feet, “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.”

The scope of this declaration is simply overwhelming. According to the statement which it contains, the only alternative left to Peter was submission or separation from the household of Christ. Let him but have persisted in refusing to submit to the ordinance, and this refusal would have cost him the loss of eternal life. How prodigious, therefore, the consequences which hung upon the decision which he there made. But will any one say that for a trifling cause the Saviour would have cast off this tried disciple, who had been so long a faithful companion in his labors and sufferings?

Would a simple refusal to submit to a rite of hospitality which had in it no religious element, have been sufficient to call forth from the Lord such a terrible denunciation of punishment in case of a failure to comply?

Such a hypothesis is simply preposterous.

The washing of feet, as it was then practiced, from the stand-point of hospitality, was never compulsory, but always a matter of free choice. The individual might indulge in it or not, according to his inclination or the necessities of his condition.

So far as Peter was concerned, also, the occasion of his hesitation was not an unwillingness to submit to the purifying process, but it was a deep sense of his own unworthiness and of the exalted character of the Son of God. There was in his motives nothing which was unworthy of the man, but rather everything which should have commanded him to favor. He, therefore, who would argue that the Master, when there was nothing at stake but the mere matter of the ablution of a portion of the person in accordance with a usage of the times, would have insisted upon carrying his point, even at the cost of Peter’s salvation, does a gross injustice to the heart of Christ.

Let it be admitted, however, that the occasion was one on which a new Christian ordinance was in process of erection, and the whole affair takes the complexion of high religious duty, and justifies the action and the words of the Saviour. This is so, because Peter would have been found not simply setting at naught a conventional arrangement of little consequence, but absolutely

and persistently refusing to perform a solemn religious duty.

f. The theory that the affair was wholly secular in its character is very unsatisfactory in another particular; i. e., it teaches that Christ sought to enforce a thing for which there was no earthly necessity. In other words, that he required Peter to submit to the washing of his feet, when, according to his own statement, they needed no cleansing whatever.

His declaration was: “He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.” Manifestly these words imply that in the case of Peter there was no physical necessity for the application of water. This being the case, there was no good reason why the customary rite of hospitality should be administered to him; since that was designed to be employed only by persons whose feet had become soiled by travel, or otherwise, and needed to be cleansed. Christ said to him distinctly, “Ye are clean.” His statement was of course true. And, being true, it furnishes positive proof that his object was not the purifying of the body according to the manner of his time, but must have been something entirely different. He emphatically sets forth in words the fact that even though the whole person were perfectly free from everything like external pollution,—having been washed, so that he was clean every whit,—still it would be required that he should submit to the washing of the feet. It mattered not if—as was perhaps true in the case of Peter—the individual had not passed out of the house subsequently to the taking of the bath, it was still required that he, though “clean every whit,” should submit to the ordinance in question. But this being so, there is no further need of debate. The subject is at once freed from all of its difficulties, and the evidence that Christ had in view a higher and nobler object than the mere carrying out of a social formula instituted solely for the purpose of physical cleanliness, is overwhelming to that extent that we cannot see how a candid person can longer doubt.

Pausing, therefore, for a moment in order to present in a brief summary the points made thus far, we will leave this branch of the subject. That summary will run as follows: The transaction which we have been contemplating was not identical with the ordinary custom of feet-washing as administered to guests in the lifetime of our Lord, as proved by the following decisive considerations:—

1. It occurred after supper; whereas, in order to make it appear to be one and the same with the rite in question, it would be necessary to prove that it was administered immediately upon entering the house, and before the eating of the meal of which the disciples partook in company with the Lord.

2. It was something with which the disciples were not familiar, as shown by the language of Christ; whereas every one of them had been acquainted with the ordinary rite of hospitality from childhood, having witnessed it again and again, and, doubtless, having themselves been refreshed by it times without number.

3. Christ himself washed the feet of his disciples; whereas, had he followed the practice of his time,—and the one which it is claimed he sought to imitate,—he would simply have provided them with water, and allowed them to do the balance of the work for themselves.

4. It was something which the Lord had never done to his followers before, as proved by the language of Peter; whereas, if it had been the habitual bathing of the feet as practiced by the contemporaries of Christ, the latter must have administered it to the disciples on at least the three passovers which preceded the one which they were then celebrating, as in all of these passovers he doubtless sustained to them practically the same relation which he did on that night.

5. The refusal of Peter to allow the Lord to wash his feet would have cost him the loss of eternal life; whereas a refusal on his part to submit to the ordinary custom of feet-washing would have been followed by no punishment whatever, and would only have subjected him to the inconvenience attendant upon a condition of uncleanness as it regarded his lower limbs.

6. Christ emphatically declared that the washing which he administered was compulsory, even when the feet were entirely free from soil of any and every nature; whereas the sole and only object of furnishing the traveler with the appliances necessary for the washing of the feet was to enable him—from considerations of both health and comfort—to enjoy a condition of perfect freedom from bodily defilement, and, therefore, was never resorted to unless such defilement actually existed.

(Concluded next week.) *

HYMN ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD.

By Bonaventura

[From the Latin of Bonaventura.]

LET Heaven highest praises bring, And earth her songs of gladness sing, To magnify our Saviour king, Who bought us by his blood.

May all the suffering thou hast borne, The bleeding side, the cruel thorn, Our hearts to thee in sorrow turn, And lead us home to God.

By scourgings, spittings, stripes, and scars, Jesus, the maker of the stars, The gates of Heaven to us unbars, And bids us enter in.

Fill us, O Saviour, with thy love; Grant us eternal joys above; Oh, faithful to thy promise prove, And cleanse us from our sin.

STUDY HARD AND CATCH UP.

By G. F. HAINES

We often hear young men, and sometimes older ones, who have just embraced the truth, regret having lived in darkness so long. They say, If I had only been on the way as long as some of the other brethren, I should be all posted up, and ready for the field. How do you know, young man, that you would be so well informed in the truth if you had been as long on the way as some others have been?

I know of but one way to judge what we might have been, and that is by the energy with which we labor to know something now. If we are satisfied with knowing little now, it would have been the same if we had embraced the truth years ago. If we put forth no effort to learn now, when these things are put in our reach, we certainly would not have done so when the truth had to be sought out by hard mental labor.

It is all right to regret that we have lived so long a time in darkness; it is right, too, that we should look up to those men who have had years of experience in this work, and learn from them all we can; but that is not enough, we want to do more. We want to rightly and highly appreciate truth, and then bend all our energies to obtain it. Wishing we knew the truth will not do; we must do more than that. Nothing is accomplished without labor. Then how can young men flatter themselves with the thought of ever becoming strong in the faith and in present truth, without labor?

Hear the wise man: “If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding; if thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures,

then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.” Prov. 2:3-5. Here we are required to seek and search for knowledge as for silver. Now our zeal in seeking and searching will be in proportion to the value we set on that after which we are seeking; hence the importance of placing a high estimate on the truth. Look at that man who is seeking silver and gold. See him up in the morning before light, laboring hard through the day and late into the evening. Why does he do this? Simply because he places a high value on these earthly treasures.

True wisdom and understanding is of more value than silver and gold. Hear the wise man again: “Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold.” Prov. 3:13, 14.

Do you say, “How shall I go to work? See how much others know, then think how little I know. What shall I do?” Then I answer, You must “study hard and catch up.” Never was reading matter so abundant as now, never was it so cheap as now. There are works on almost any subject you wish to study.

Do you ask which ones are best for you to study? That depends on the subjects upon which you wish to inform yourself. To this rule there is but one exception; it is this, in all cases the Bible should be our first study. Then if it is the Sabbath you wish to learn about, I know of no work so well calculated to instruct you as the “History of the Sabbath,” by J. N. Andrews. If you wish to know more about the prophecies, read “Thoughts on Daniel” and “Revelation,” by U. Smith. If you wish to learn of man’s nature and destiny, Eld. Smith has an able work upon this subject also.

Young man, time is short; you have but a little time to search for wisdom. The means are placed within your reach, and how great will be the condemnation if you do not labor to gain a knowledge of these truths. Time is short; therefore “study hard, and catch up.” If you prefer to select your own books, look them over carefully before you read them. Do not judge a book by the title it bears. A good title is not always a guarantee of a good book, any more than a good name is a guarantee of a good man. Spiritualists give the devil many good titles, but that has never made a gentleman of him, and never will.

Forget those things which are behind, and search for those things which are before. G. F. HAINES.

South Lancaster, Mass.

“NO LOVE COMMANDED IN THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.”

By G. V. Kilgore

A FIRST-DAY ADVENTIST minister, speaking against us once, took the position that the old covenant (the ten commandments, as he claimed) did not command love to God or man. He first said there was no love in the old covenant; but when he was referred to the second commandment, which says God shows mercy unto thousands of them that love him and keep his commandments, he took the above-named position, and said that the love mentioned there was not commanded, but simply spoken of as a result following the obedience of the law. He wanted the law to say plainly, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” etc., before he could see that love was commanded there. He also said that hatred was not condemned in the old covenant. I read the second commandment on this point also, and to me it looked very plain that God had condemned hatred. It says that God will visit iniquity upon those that hate him.

Although the ten commandments do not say, “Thou shalt love God,” expressed in just this form of words, they most certainly command love the same as if they did. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments,” 1 John 5:3; and the first commandment cannot be obeyed unless we love God above everything else. Paul says that covetousness is idolatry (Col. 3:5); and idolatry is a violation of the first commandment, although the word idolatry is not found there. As well might a person say that the ten commandments do not forbid idolatry, as to say they do not command love. Covetousness is “an eager desire for gain.”—Webster. Covetousness “is idolatry.”—Paul. A man who is eager for gain loves money or property more than he loves God, and so is a transgressor of the ten-commandments. Therefore, love, supreme love to God, is commanded in the decalogue.

The queerest position of any I ever heard, was the one taken by the minister to whom I refer; namely, that the ten commandments alone, without the laws of Moses, were the old covenant. This, however, was not his first position. He first mixed all the laws of the Old Testament together, calling them the old covenant, the yoke of bondage, etc., and declaring that the old covenant had no love in it, and that it did not forbid hatred, malice, or drunkenness. But when such passages as Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:16-18, were read to him in answer, he took the position that the ten commandments alone were the old covenant. What a reflection would this be on the Author of the decalogue. God spoke ten precepts and added no more; yet he left out such important principles as the love of God! He never thought to tell people to love one another, and not to hate! His neglect had to be made up by Moses!

No, indeed; love is commanded in every one of those ten precepts. God never intended to specify in them every duty that man should perform, but simply to give a “perfect law,” whose principles would include every moral obligation, and forbid every sin. And he inspired men and sent his Son to teach those same principles to his people. John says that hatred is murder, which is a violation of the sixth commandment. 1 John 3:15. Christ says anger is a violation of the same. Matt. 5:21, 22. Paul says, “Now the end [object, or design] of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart.” And here he says the law was made for the disobedient; and after naming several kinds of sins which the ten commandments forbid, he says the law forbids “any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.” 1 Tim. 1:5-10. The very design of those commandments is charity, or love. “Therefore love is the fulfilling of the law;” and of course hatred, malice, envy, and everything contrary to sound doctrine, is condemned by it.

G. V. KILGORE.

THE MYSTERIOUS BEING.

A Pointed Lesson for the Old as well as the Young.

ONE of the best writers in America gives the following good picture of a popular old lady:—

How different people appear at different times, as when we are sick or well, rejoicing or mourning, laughing or weeping. A few days since I met an old lady who nodded very familiarly to me, and yet I hesitated to call her name, lest I should miscall it. She looked old and yet young, soft and smiling, and yet wore stern frowns. She was fair in face, yet her hands were iron. It seemed as if the wind would blow her away, and yet she moved with the strength of an elephant.

“Why, sir,” said she, “you seem to stare at me, though you have seen me a thousand times before.”

“That may be, madam; but I never saw you loaded down with all sorts of things. I am curious to know about them. Would it be rude to ask you a few questions?”

“Not at all. Ask away.”

“Well, what are you going to do with those small, thin, ladies’ shoes?”

“Why, make the ladies wear them, to be sure.”

“Not in the cold, wet season? Why I can hardly keep my feet warm in these thick, double-soled boots. I must have over-shoes. How can they wear such thin, cold-catching shoes?”

“Oh, sir, I have only to bring them to them, and the dear creatures put them on, and never hesitate a moment. They know me!”

“And those little half-dresses hanging on your arm?”

“They are to put on little children in cold weather, or to walk out in;—naked at the knees, naked at the neck, and hardly covering half the body. You can’t think how eager parents are for these dresses.”

“What have you in that little tin box?”

“Lozenges, sir; troches, hoarhound candy—things that always go with thin shoes and thin dresses. And this bright red box, sir, contains what is called conscience salve, which I always keep on hand to rub on the conscience when any one sees he has done wrong in obeying me. It’s in great demand, sir, and a certain cure.”

“What have you in that bundle, madam?”

“This? Why a few knick-knacks, which I sometimes distribute in Sabbath-schools, in the shape of dialogues, speeches,—things to make people laugh and to prevent the schools from feeling too serious, or thinking too much about religion. You must understand, sir, that I continually have to attend church to regulate things there, to see that the bonnets are right, the rings are bright, and the dresses complete; yet religion itself I hate as poison! And here is a box of the finest—what shall I call it? It is a sort of wit and smartness which I deal out to preachers, with which they spice their sermons and become popular. I sell them by the gross. They are growing in demand, and they are a real saving of conscience and headache. Warranted to keep in all climates—a kind of sensation powder.”

“Pray, madam, what are those screws for?”

“Why to pinch the feet and make them look small, without regard to corns or bunions. They can’t wear those dear little shoes except you have pinchers to go with them.”

“And that great heap of books in your arms?”

“Those? They are the latest, most exciting, weak, and silly novels. But I hand them out, and shake my head with a smile, and crowds read them.”

“Well, madam, I am very inquisitive, I know, but I do want to know what you have in that great bag thrown over your shoulder?”

“A great variety of valuables, such as ‘late suppers,’ in great demand, and which send people to the grave early, and thus make room for more. Here are ‘late hours,’ and ‘late rising,’ and all manner of hair-dressing and expensive dressing, things that ladies must have, even if their husbands fail. Here are diamond pins and rings, just the things to stir up envy and create extravagance. Here are cigars, meerschaum pipes, gold watches, gold-headed canes, eye-glasses, and all manner of things to suit all kinds of people. And I laugh and coax, and frown, and command, till I get them to wear and use them, and do just what I please. Now, I have stopped to talk with you a few moments; don’t you see what a crowd have gathered round me?—low necks, thin shoes, muslin dresses, tight boots; some on crutches, some coughing, some breathing short, all crowding to get near me; and when I move you will see how they all run and rush and crowd after me. Oh, sir, I am the great power of the world. I rule kings and queens, beggars and philosophers. Don’t you see?”

“Truly, madam, truly. And now may I ask you your name?”

“Name? Fashion, sir; my name is Mrs. Prevailing Fashion! I thought everybody knew me.”

We wonder if any of our readers patronize this Mrs. Prevailing Fashion? She travels extensively, is found in every city and village in the land, and does not hesitate to visit the rural districts. She is highly esteemed in fashionable circles, and is therefore an abomination in the sight of the Lord. Do not patronize her; do not even admit her into your houses; she is a dangerous tramp of world-wide reputation, acquainted with every nation, kindred and tongue, and familiar with the ways of public and private life of every grade and order. Her business is to ruin health, squander your money, ruin families and churches, people the regions of despair with myriads of unhappy and eternally lost beings.—Selected.

The Backbiter

By Kate Clark

There's some one living in this town (Maybe you know her name, And maybe should I write it down, Your own might prove the same), Who, when you say, “He's good,” will cry, “Indeed! You think that's true, But”—very confidentially— “You wouldn't if you knew!”

One says, “What pretty girl goes by?” “Oh, horrors! you don't think So!—Since we're you and I, I'll say, her parents drink. And so—well, I won't tell it out, Though I've no doubt 'tis true. You think she's nice and pretty, but You wouldn't if you knew!”

If one sings sweetly, “How she flats!” If dressed in taste, “What style!” Supremely “vulgar” all her hats, Her dresses simply “vile.” And when good Deacon Busby failed (A noble man and true), She said, when his lot bewailed, “You wouldn't if you knew!”

Let those admire and love who can This malice-breathing dame, Who seems to think a prosperous man Must surely be to blame; That beauty is a mark of sin; That goodness must be crime: She sees but thieves and rascals in The heroes of the time.

Sometimes she doesn't hesitate To tell us what she knows, And in nine cases out of eight A lie is all she shows. For virtue's sake, I hope to find One good old doctrine true; Some heat for such I should not mind, You wouldn't if you knew.

—Kate Clark, in the Springfield (Mass.), Republican.

Continue reading: Sabbath School Department