But who was I? Unknown to fame, unmentioned yet in story, List to my story: I was plain, and growing somewhat old, 'Tis true, by nature I was prone to fall, Oft needed cleansing from earth's vileness all; And I was very lowly there, within my humble lot, 'Twas evil hour; a nation in dismay Needed strong heart and hand that gloomy day; My polish, firmness, power of penetration, All breathlessly I sped, and, knocking, pressed Ruthlessly in, to sudden make arrest, When, lo, (what strange reverses in war do warriors know!) 'Twas awful moment, fraught with issues great Not mine to hear the glad exultant shout, And now the sacred pen has told the story, BIBLE QUESTIONS. M. A. T., Phila. 1st. Whose sin was written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond? 2d. Who was told to go down to the potter's house, and what for? 3d. Who proclaimed a solemn assembly in subtilty, and for what intent was it done? 4th. What was Zedekiah's name before it was changed, and who changed it? I am composed of 19 letters My 4, 3, 2, 1 is to exist. My 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 is to chase. JOHN D. KENNEDY, Brushland, N. Y. ANSWERS. John, Eunice, Ruth, Uzzah, Samuel, Adam, Lois, Enoch, Malchus.—JE RU SALEM. Merodach, Euphrates, Sibmah, Ophir, Partridge, Orpah, Tema, Amaziah, Mene, Ibzan, Ashdod.-M E S OPOTAMIA. Boaz, Elim, Naasson, Ebiasaph, Jehezadak (son of Seraiah), Amram, Abraham, Kohath, Arphaxad, Naphtali.-BENEJA AKAN. Answers to enigmas, &c., in March number were given by R. S. Magee, L. S. Madden, M. E. Fowler (scripture enigma), to those in the April number by Beccie Douthett, Willie Harshaw, J. M. Douthett (1st), Achsah Gilliland (1st and 3d), Aggie Rhodes (1st and 3d), L. S. Madden (1st), Nannie Love (1st), R. S. Magee (1st and 3d), John D. Kennedy. Will the HOME CIRCLE correspondents please send the answers in all cases with the enigmas, &c., and on a separate leaf? MARRIAGES. By Revs. J. F. Morton, R. C. Wyatt and David Murdock, on Thursday, May 3d, 1877, Mr. DAVID S. ERVIN and Miss BELLE MURDOCK, both of Cedarville, Greene county, Ohio. By Rev. J. W. Sproull, assisted by T. Sproull, D. D., May 3d, 1877, in the Central R. P. Church, A. W. POLLOCK, of Pittsburgh, and SADIE S. AIKEN. By Rev. T. Sproull, D. D., May 9th, 1877, A. STEAN and SARAH STEINER, all of Allegheny, Pa. By Rev. J. French, Ray, Ind., May 8th, 1877, Dr. EDWIN SWAN and KATE FULTON. May 17th, 1877, Walter MoRROW and HATTIE MITCHELL. Also, at the same time and place, DAVID MITCHELL and LOUISA MCNAUGHTON. OBITUARIES. DIED, December 26th, 1876, at the residence of her brother-in-law, John R. Renfrew, in Conococheague, Miss HANNAH DUNCAN, aged 70 years. Deceased was for many years a consistent member of the congregation of Conococheague.-Coм. DIED, Oct. 14, 1876, JOHN MCCLURE, in the 82d year of his age. In 1824 the deceased united with the R. P. congregation of New Alexandria, of which he continued a member till his death. Mr. McClure was a well-informed man, a close reader, an excellent conversationalist, and an intelligent Covenanter. As a ruler, his desire and efforts were for the spiritual welfare and purity of the members of the church. For a number of years before his death he was blind, and confined mostly to the house. Personally, he was a pious, godly man, T. A. S. Minute of Session. God in his providence has removed by death John McClure, for fifty-two years a member, and for more than forty years a ruler in our congregation. The session desire to place on record their testimony to the consistent Christian character of the deceased, his knowledge of and attachment to the principles of the church, and his punctual and faithful discharge of his official duties until prevented by bodily infirmity. THOS. A. SPROULL, Moderator. JOHN BEATTY, Clerk. In many of the religious papers there have appeared lately advertisements so conspicuously displayed as to attract attention at once, and offering to purchasers special inducements. The phraseology used is frequently such as is well calculated to throw the reader entirely off his guard, not seldom, indeed, conveying the impression that the editors themselves are at least indirectly interested in the success of the party or parties whose names appear. One peculiarity about all these advertisements is, the price at which the article for which buyers are solicited, is offered, bears but a small proportion to its actual cost. Something claimed to be sometimes of considerable value is promised in case an amount sufficient to cover the expense of boxing, express ing, &c., is forwarded. If the statement published be correct, money or its equivalent is being given away in a manner and with a lavish hand not often wit Dessed in these days. Advertisements of a similar kind have appeared with more or less frequency in even religious papers for a long time. But until lately they were in out of the way corners, and in type so small as not likely to attract attention. Only lately have they been inserted in conspicuous places and in a manner that as soon as the paper is opened the reader's eye at once rests on them. Emboldened by past success, and as if feeling secure against exposure and detection, the parties that engage in such wonderfully benevolent undertakings, now in the most public manner possible proclaim to the religious world the trifling Conditions necessary to become partakers of their charity, and the religious press does all in its power to assist in the publication. It is true that at times merchants obtaining bargains are able to sell at greatly reduced prices. Often, to get rid of an old stock, they will dispose of it at less than cost. To sell one class of goods at a large profit, they are willing to sell another at a very small one. To introduce a new article to the trade the parties that have it will sell at the price of manufacture, or even below. To raise money to meet pressing engagements many a one has sold his goods at a very great reduction. These, however, are all exceptional cases. It may safely be set down as a rule, that any one who offers an article at less than its value has come by it dishonestly or calculates in the long run in some way to defraud. Such a person should be watched, and if possible, no dealings be had with him. The advertisements referred to are no exception to this rule. They are dishonest on their very face. They offer inducements which it is utterly impossible for those who make them to make good. The intention to swindle must be patent to all. In fact, it would appear that acting in concert, numbers of dishonest persons, unwilling to obtain a livelihood in an honest way, have combined and started bogus stores in our large cities. Knowing that the religious press come in contact with the religious people of the land, and is supposed to be especially guarded against the insertion of anything hurtful to good morals, they conclude, and here is their wisdom, that readers who, if their advertisements were inserted in secular papers, would at once have their suspicions aroused, would implicitly believe them if inserted in religious papers. Dollars and cents, it is believed, are entirely a secondary consideration in the conducting of religious journals, the inculcation of pure morality being the first. The insertion of such advertisements in religious papers is part of the programme to swindle the public. Already some of these swindling firms have been exposed. The Post Office Department at Washington directed, a short time ago, the postmaster at Pittsburgh to retain the letters addressed to one of the most extensively advertised. A large number have thus been detained. The parties, to escape prosecution, have fled, and yet even after the first exposure, some of these very same journals publish a new advertisement offering equally dishonest inducements by the very same firm. The question at once presents itself, and it is a very important one, to what extent are the editors responsible for these advertisements? So far as the advertising columns are concerned, surely they are responsible for everything that goes in them. While they cannot examine carefully everything that is presented for insertion, the position they occupy is such that they are morally bound to see that nothing hurtful to good morals appear. They should exercise such a supervision that nothing in any way injurious to the family circle would be inserted. Anything of a doubtful character they should unhesitatingly refuse. It is difficult to see how, in regard to these advertisements, any palliation can be presented. As though conscious an explanation was needed, possibly called to task by some of their deceived subscribers, some editors excuse themselves in this way: "The firm that sent the advertisement is honorable. We have had long business dealings with it, and have always found it responsible. It is possible all promised will not be given, but an equivalent for the money sent will be obtained. No one should ask for more." Miserable makeshift. A confession of guilt, and nothing else. We cannot shirk in this way our responsibility. Who wishes to select as a guide in morals any one who would thus attempt it? The subscribers deal with the editor, not with the third party. What kind of morality is that which would justify one in saying, it is true the advertisement which has been in our columns, and is still in, is not true, still, you will get the worth of your money? Are not such editors accessories to the fraud? Subscribers owe to themselves a duty in regard to this. Let them examine carefully the advertisements, and where the interests of morality are held of secondary account, let them speak out. If editors are unwilling to exercise a proper supervision over all their columns, the remedy is in their hands. Let them demand that there shall be entire harmony between all departments, that those who advocate Christian morality shall be consistent, and not for the sake of a few dollars allow in one department what entirely neutralizes their teaching in another, that they show they themselves understand the requirements of common honesty and act in accordance with the first principles of acknowledged right If this be done not a few advertisements now prominent enough, such, for instance, as of certain patent medicines, will speedily disappear from columns they have long disgraced. THE LAW OF CHRIST TOUCHING MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. BY JOHN BROWN. IN the days of Christ there was a difference of opinion among the Jews on the question of marriage and divorce. The followers of Shammai maintained that adultery alone was a lawful ground of divorce; the followers of Hillel held that a man might dismiss his wife for any cause, or at pleasure. The Pharisees, who were always on the alert, that they might entangle the Redeemer in difficulty, "came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? We know that thou teachest the way of God in truth and carest not for any man; tell us what we are to believe on this disputed subject. The followers of Shammai say that it is lawful, and the followers of Hillel say it is not; but what sayest thou?" Jesus framed the answer by which he was enabled to declare the truth and avoid the snare. "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." Gen. 1:27; 11: 21-24. On these words we observe: 1. That marriage is a divine institution, and not a mere human arrangement. The words "For this cause shall a man leave father |