their moral characters. Christ would have his followers do the same. None of his true followers can despise the poor, when they remember the condition of their Master. The fact that Christ came to eradicate pride and selfishness, and unite all men in one brotherhood, rendered it necessary that he should be in a condition destitute of the advantages of wealth and power. We are called on to admire his wonderful condescension, in exchanging the riches of the universe for a poverty so great that he had not where to lay his head.

A. Ought not Christians to follow their Master's example in this matter?

Mrs. H. Do you mean to ask whether it is the duty of all Christians to be poor?

A. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. H. It is their duty to be poor in spirit; but not in this world's goods, provided Providence sees fit to bestow those goods upon them.

A. Christ says it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Now it is impossible for a camel to go through the eye of a needle.

Mrs. H. As so, you would infer that it is impossible for a rich man to be saved?

A. It seems to me, that conclusion would follow from the

text.

Mrs. H. It would, if the text were to be interpreted literally; but such was not the design of the Saviour. The expression was a proverbial one, and was well understood by those to whom it was addressed. Christ intended to teach the exceeding difficulty, not the impossibility, of the rich man's salvation. In the same connection, Christ said, "How hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God!" From that expression it appears that the evil does not lie in riches themselves, but in the effect they are likely to produce on the mind of the possessor.

A. Are there not a great many who think it wrong to be rich? I went with Susan Case to Mr. L-'s one day, and were shown all over the house, and saw all the rich and beautiful furniture;

and when we came away she said, "I always thought that Mr. L was a good man."

Mrs. H. She thought right. He is a very good man.

A. But the manner in which she spoke showed that she thought

he could not be a good man, because he was so rich.

Mrs. H. There may be a few persons who entertain the same erroneous view. If they would reflect for a moment, they would see that God designed that there should be wealth in the hands of his people. He has commanded them to be industrious, diligent in business, and has also commanded them to practice frugality. He has forbidden them to waste anything in luxury and vice. Now, if these commands of God are obeyed, riches will be accumulated as a necessary result. It is plain, therefore, that God designed that there should be wealth."

A. I do not see why, if riches make it so difficult for one to be saved.

Mrs. H. How could the sick and suffering poor be relieved, and how could the Bible be sent to the heathen, if every Christian were as poor as Christ was? Besides, our hospitals, asylums, colleges, seminaries, and our benevolent institutions, are the result of wealth—that is, these could never have come into existence, unless there had been previous accumulations of wealth. It is plainly the duty of some persons to devote themselves to the acquisition of property. All have their appointed work. The missionary has his work; the minister at home has his; the merchant has his; the farmer has his. All are to live to the glory of God. A. Is it the duty of those who devote themselves to the acquisition of property to give away all that they make ?

Mrs. H. I think not. It is their duty to make suitable provision for their families, and to enjoy, with gratitude, the bounties of God's providence, as he has prospered them. If all men were to give away all they make excepting what is absolutely necessary for their own support, there would be more poverty and suffering in the world than there is now.

A. I do not see why it would be so.

Mrs. H. What would the people who work in the factory here do, if the factory were to stop running?

A. They would be thrown out of employment, and would suffer, unless they could get some one to hire them.

Mrs. H. Suppose that the owner had acted on the principle that it was his duty to give away all that he earned, could he employ the men he now does ?

A. No, ma'am.

Mrs. H. Does he do any good by employing them?

A. Yes, ma'am, he enables them to get an honest living. Mrs. H. Which he could not do, if he had given away his money as fast as he made it. By accumulating, he is able to carry on more business, and to give employment to more persons, and thus to do more good.

A. But does not your reasoning prove too much? Does it not teach that a man should never give away anything? The more a man keeps in his own hands, the more men he can employ.

Mrs. H. There is truth in your last remark, but we are commanded in the word of God to give liberally, as the Lord hath prospered us. We are to inquire how much it is our duty to give.

A. Mr. G. said, that if Christians would content themselves with the necessaries of life, and would give away the rest, the treasury of the Lord would be full.

If

Mrs. H. It would not be full for a very long time. Let us consider what would be the consequences of such a course. Christians were to use those things only which are absolutely necessary to the preservation of life, there would be no demand for many articles, the making of which gives support to a great many families. Chairs, for example, are not absolutely necessary. Blocks of wood would answer for seats. Suppose no chairs were used, what would become of those who gain a livelihood by making and selling chairs?

A. They would have to make and sell something else.

Mrs. H. But if the system supposed were generally introduced, the demand for all other things, as well as for chairs, would be at an end—that is to say, there would be no demand except for those things which are absolutely necessary for the support of life. There would be a demand for coarse cloth, corn, and potatoes, &c.,

but if everybody went to making coarse cloth and growing potatoes, what would become of the amount that would be made?

A. Nothing could be done with them.

Mrs. H. That is, they could not be sold; for there would be more than would be wanted. In such a state of things, only a few could find employment. All would be poor, and many would perish, or at least, would live in a state but a little removed from the condition of savages. It is plain, then, that such a course would not be wise, and is, therefore, not required of us.

A. Instead of promoting the cause of benevolence, it would render it bankrupt.

Mrs. H. It would, indeed, in a very short time.

A. But here is a difficulty. If it is not right to confine ourselves to the mere necessaries of life, is it right for us to indulge in luxuries? These give many employment. Is it right for us to drink wine and spirits, and indulge in various luxuries, because their manufacture enables many to gain a livelihood?

Mrs. H. By no means. While we avoid one extreme, we must not fall into another. We are not to indulge in anything that is injurious to the souls and bodies of men. Intoxicating drinks come under this head, as do many other luxuries. The case is clear in regard to all such things. In regard to other things, it is not so easy to draw the line between lawful conveniences and comfort and luxuries. But is it not a difficult thing for each one to decide in regard to his own duty. Let him ask counsel of God; let him hold all his possessions as belonging to God; let him inquire, with an obedient spirit, daily, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" and he will not fail to find the path of duty.

A. Do you think there is any danger that people will do harm by denying themselves too much?

Mrs. H. Not the least. The danger lies altogether the other side. The love of self puts every one in danger of indulging himself too much of expending that upon himself which he ought to give to the poor or to the cause of benevolence. Self-denial is a duty and a principle which we ought not to neglect. Still, we ought to understand just what is required of us; otherwise our consciences may be perverted, and we may contract guilt, even when we are doing those things which may not in themselves be wrong.

Editorial.

THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST.

LESSONS FOR MOTHERS OR MATERNAL ASSOCIATIONS.

HEN Jesus had grown up to be a man, and was about to enter on the work for which he came into the world-to save sinful men-he Tesitzwas led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil. Jesus went into the desert by the influence of the Holy Spirit. The wilderness, or desert, was a lonely place, where there were no inhabitants but the wild beasts, or the fowls of the air. There Jesus went alone by himself, to pray and to think about God and heaven, and to prepare himself for his great work of saving sinful men. There he stayed and fasted forty days and forty nights. After he had been without food so long, he began to feel very hungry. Then Satan came to him, and instead of bringing him something to eat, he told him if he was the Son of God, to command that these stones be made bread. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, and to possess all power. Satan told him, if he was the Son of God, and had such power, he could get food by commanding even the stones, which lay scattered around him, to become bread.

Why did he not do it? He could have done it, but he did not choose to do it. He knew this was not the will of God. Satan