Newspaper Page Text
THREE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
VOL. XXXIII. NO. 35.
©rijjiiral
The Dying Christian.
The Chariot! The Chariot of Israel is come !
The saint, long redeemed, is at length going
home;
The walls of his tent are fast crumbling away;
The roofs falling inward; the rafters decay;
The pure light of heaven has entered within ;
The soul feels that Jesus has cleansed from all sin;
The sunshine of heaven illumines the soul;
The floods of bright glory now over him roll.
O where, parting spirit, say where are you bound?
“Os my Lord’s coming chariot, I hear the glad
sound.
His flame-breathing horses will bear me away,
To the bright upper mansions of unfading day.
I hear them approaching—hear the sound of his
wheels;
And o’er my rapt soulholy transport now steals.
My|Father’s voice I hear, “Child, come up higher;”
And my whole soul is filled with a sacred fire.
Celestial visitants around me now throng:
They hover over me with sacred song.
Friends meet my vision: come around my bed ;
Those mnch loved friends, long since among the
dead.
With youth renewed, in heavenly beauty blight,
They crowd around me; greet my raptured sight.
-With loving, joyous smiles, they waiting stand,
And bid me welcome to The Promised Land.
The silver cord is loosed ; the golden bowl
Is broken, and the free, unfettered soul,
Borne up to heaven amid rejoicings loud,
Sinks at the feet of Jesus: while the crowd,
With acclamations make all heaven ring.
“One more redeemed, through Jesus blood" they
sing.
“Another blood-washed spirit, saved by grace,
“Has found admittance to this holy place,
Glory and honor give, with one acclaim,
Through all the heights of heaven, to J esus name.’ ’
Contributions.
Beneficence—i\o. VII.
BY A. M. CHBIETZBERG, SO. CA. CONFERENCE.
As Seen in the Olden Timet;.
Kindness to the poor enforced both by
precept and example crowd the pages of
holy writ. Heaven seems desirous of filling
earth with as much of its own spirit as pos
sible. Although, doubtless, there was many
a churl and covetous soul in Israel, many
examples of a better spirit are written in the
imperishable record, by the finger of God
himself. “Boaz commanded his young
men ; let her glean even among the sheaves
and reproach her not. And let fall also some
of the handfuls of purpose for her, and
leave them.” And Ruth found in the even
ing she had “an ephah of barley” Ruth ii.
14. Thus, by a few handfulls of barley,
Boaz purchased the highest honors conceiv
able to a Jew—the progenitorship of Mes
siah and his name graven imperishably for
ever. Wonderful disproportion between the
price and purchase! but thus is it ever with
God, who weigheth not the gift intrinsically
but looketli at the heart. Like, somewhat,
and yet how dissimilar in spirit to the world’s
maxim, “Buy in the cheapest and sell in
the dearest markets always”—the hardship
to the seller, as well as the necessities of the
buyer never considered at all—a maxim on
which the law of love bears hardly, unless
we can conceive it possible that man, by
power and cunning, has license from God
to make his fellow-man a prey. O, could
the ambitious in the day of Boaz have fore
seen the reward, would they not have
thought it cheaply purchased at the sacrifice
of their all? “Ye shall bo recompensed at
the resurrection of the just,” says Jesus, and
the believing soul willingly waits, in the
meanwhile enjoying a recompense far be
yond the value of the gift.
The alabastor box of ointment is directly
in point. “She bath done it for my burial,
and wheresoever in all the world this gospel
is preached this that she hath done shall be
told as a memorial of her.” Aud Mary’s
name survives the Pharoalx’s: they built the
pyramids to keep their “memory green;”
the monuments remain, but their memorial
has perished from the earth. “Whosoever
shall give you a cup of water to drink in my
name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I
say unto you, he shall uot lose his reward.”
Mar. ix. 14.
The rejoicing Jews delivered from wicked
Human, ordain the feast of Purim. “That
these days should be remembered and kept
throughout every generation, every family,
every province, and every city that they
should not fail from among the Jews, nor tho
memorial perish from their seed”—observed
even unto this day “as days of feasting and
joy,” and of sending portions one to another
—and gifts to the poor. Not as of that excess
of charity, a donation visit —or visitation
rather to the poor pastors we conceive—
now popular in some parts of Christendom,
where as much is consumed as carried, leav
ing the quiet beneficiary to be content with
“taking the will for the deed.” Not as some
benevolently minded persons a short time
ago—not of the African, but Caucassian
type, undertook to raise their pastor's sala
ry, by a Saturday night’s junketing at twen
ty-five cents a head, and drank and danced
far into the Sabbath —all for the purpose of
raising a revenue for Jesus.
Then, see the spirit of Nehemiah after the
desolation of war and the sad capivity were
over. He, unselfish man, himself at ease in
the palace, labors for the rebuilding of Je
rusalem and the restoration of tho rites of
religion. ‘ ‘And I perceived that the portion
of the Levites had uotbeen given them: for
the Levites and singers that did the work,
were fled every one to liis own field." “And
I contended with the rulers, and said why
is the house of God forsaken?” Neh. xiii.
10. Where else could they go? No meat
in the house of the Lord, they must flee to
their own fields or perish. This matter so
censurable in a dark age, I have heard
spoken of with high commendation by some.
And I have heard it seriously urged as an
exceedingly pleasant and economical ar
rangement, to get a little farm and let the
preacher work it all tho week and preach on
Sunday for nothing—some being so relig
iously scrupulous as to doubt the propriety
of paying at all for Sunday work.
Quite in keeping with the sago remark of
a well wisher to religion, when the bycicles
(velocipedes) first came in. He thought,
“they would be a great help to the gospel;”
but one may safely doubt it, unless the
mountains are levelled and the vallies exalted
—literally. Even then, there may be doubt
of the practicability of a man’s carrying the
gospel along and his horse as well. How
different from the sentiment of the blessed
Lord Jesus: “the workman is worthy of his
meat.”
Then see in Hezekiah’s good reign, when
the captives of Judah were sent home—at
tention to religion being of first importance.
“He in the first year of his reign and in the
first month, opened the doors of the house
of the Lord, and repaired them.” n. Chr.
xxix. 3. Cleansed the house of God and
said unto the Levites, “My sons, be not now
negligent, for the Lord hath chosen yon to
stand before him, to serve him, and that ye
should minister unto him and bum incense.”
And then see the regal munificence. The
king gave “a thousand bullocks and seven
thousand sheep and the princes gave a thous
and bullocks and ten thousand sheep.” And
when the commandment went abroad “the
children of Israel brought in abundance the
first fruits of corn, wine, oil and honey, and
of all the increase of the fields, and the
tithes of all things brought they in abun
dantly.” No wonder when Hezekiah and
the princes saw the heap, “they blessed the
Lord and his people, Israel.” And when he
asked concering them, the chief priest said,
“Since the people began to bring the offer
ings unto the house of the Lord, we have
had enough to eat, and have left plenty: for
the Lord hath blessed his people: and that
which is left is this- great store.” 11. Chr.
xxxi. 10. (read the context.) A kind of mul
tiplying the loaves and fishes, not miracu
lously at' all, but simply according to the
word of the Lord spoken of old—the same
word holding good even now; men’s stub
born unbelief alone preventing the divine
blessing.
But daik days were coming on, fne con
flict turning in favor of evil, and pride, sel
fishness, and idolatry for long years prevail
ing. The indignant prophet Amos likening
the great and rich men of Samaria, to the
Line of Bashau—well fed cattle. “Hear
this word ye kine of Bashan, that are in the
mountains of Samaria, which oppress the
poor, which crush the needy, which say to
to their masters: bring and let us drink.”
Threatening wrath to the uttermost: “And
I also have given you cleanness of teeth in
all your cities, and want of bread in all your
palaces: yet have ye not returned unto me,
saitlx the Lord.” God had witholden the
rain, smitten them with blasting and mil
dew, the fruit of their gardens, vineyards,
fig-trees, olive trees, the palmer worm de
voured; pestilence and war and famine, even
such overthrow as of Sodom and Gomorah,
sufficed not to turn them. And thus on in
their eventful history until the last of their
prophets—Maaehi—closes the sacred canon
with the prediction of the Baptist’s advent,
and God’s coming near in judgment—“And
I will be a swift witness against the sorcer
ers, and against the adulterer, and against
false swearers, and against those that oppress
(defraud) the hireling in his wages, the
widow amt the fatherless, and that tnrn
aside the stranger from his right, and fear
not me saith the Lord of hosts.” Charging
the whole nation witli the worst sacrilege,
robbing God in tithes and offerings, “Ye
are cursed with a enrse, for ye have robbed
me even the whole nation. ” Professing for
giveness upon repentance, “Aud all nations
shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a de
lightsome land, saith the Lord of hosts.”
But still threatening vengeance to the re
bellious, “in the day that shall burn as an
oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do
wickedly shall be as stnbble,” with the pro
mise of sending “Elijah the prophet before
the coming of the great and dreadful day of
the Lord.”
“Ecce Deus.”
If “Ecce Homo” hail been productive of
other good than to have called forth “Ecce
Deus,” that is sufficient to make us rejoice
that it was written. Who the author of
“Ecce Deus” is, has not, so far as I know,
transpired. But he says for himself in his
Preface, that “a careful consideration of the
points raised in ‘Ecce Homo’ induced him
to take a re-survey of the Life and Doctrine
of Jesus Christ.” He either does not ap
prove of, or does not sympathize with, the
method or the apparent aim of the previous
author. He finds it to his mind “impossi
ble rightly to survey tbe Life aniTWork of
Jesus Christ, without distinctly acknowledg
ing the unprecedented conditions under
which Jesus Christ became incarnate.” To
obtain a complete and comprehensive view of
the nature and character of Jesus, this is no
doubt essential. The question is whether,
for certain purposes, a partial view cannot
be taken. But we will take no issue with
the gifted author on this ground; nor, in
deed, on any ground that would lead us irto
a general or decided opposition to his views.
The work is too evidently tho product of a
master-mind, and the picture he has drawn
of Jesus Christ too grand a contribution to
the theological literature of tbe age, to allow
any captious objections to his preliminaries.
He takes his first position on the pre
sumptive proof afforded by prophecy and
expectation that a divine incarnation would
take place. He assumes as unquestionable
the account of the fact that this expectation
was realized in the conception of tho son of
Mary. He understands the language in
which Jesus claimed God to be his father,
as based upon and confirmatory of this tes
timony. And he maintains that this much
must be accepted of the Christian narrative
and doctrine, before we can even begin to
form any conception or take any view of
Christ that shall have any truth or rational
consistency about it.
The difficulties that might occur in the
adjustment of conflicting testimony, or the
apparent repugnance of reason and asser
tion, he disposes of by the following bold
canon of interpretation: “The written
Word is a reportory of facts, a revelation of
doctrines, aud a standard of appeal upon all
questions to which it bears any relation.
The only interpreter of this Word is the
Holy Ghost, and he operates through the con
sciousness of the reader.”
What these words may mean, it is not so
easy to say. Consciousness is the knowledge
which the mind has of its present state or
act, as connected with the preceding series
of states or acts. How the Holy Ghost can
interpret scripture through such a power as
this, Ido not see. If he means that the
Holy Ghost assists the judgment or reason
of the reader to understand the Word, he
ought to have said so, and the assertion
would command the assent of every intelli
gent believer. Interpretation is a work, not
of consciousness, but of reason or judgment.
The judgment, of course, uses conceptions
that come to ns by intuition; and it is very
possible that the Holy Ghost may impart
some intuitions to those under its culture
that ordinary men are destitute of. Bat how
this is consistent with the doctrine that the
Word is “a standard of appeal” where tlxe
judgments or intuitions of different Chris
tians differ, we cannot see. Who shall de
cide which of the differing parties has “the
mind of the Spirit” with him? Who shall
say which one of the differing interpreta
tions, both claiming to be the suggestion of
the Holy Ghost, is really such? No; there
is no third course possible; either let the
Church interpret, as Romanists and High
Churchmen say; or let each man judge for
himself, each running his own risk, whether
he interprets with the guidance of the Holy
Ghost or not, as Protestants (ought to) say.
But passing over all little blemishes, the
portrait of Christ, drawn by “Ecce Deus” is
a grand and beautiful one. He shuts out no
light from a heavenly source. He shows us
the glints bf divinity at every crevice of
speech or action. The book is full of new,
ingenious and profound interpretations of
Scripture. His chapters on the Cross of
Christ alone are of inestimable value. Tru
er views of the love of God, expressing
itself in sacrifice, are not elsewhere to be
found.
The writer of “Ecce Dens” is manifestly
no bigoted worshiper of the old, afraid to for
sake the effete guides of the past and walk
forth to the call of the present and the fu
ture. He recognizes the fact of the world’s
advance. Under the lead of the Spirit, he
is not afraid to see the church go forward to
new troths, or new views of troth, more
suited to its maturer intellect and the sur
rounding enlightenment. He shrinks not
from assisting in the progress himself. He
recognizes the fact that there are doctrines
for the Church now to learn from the Scrip
tures which she could not have digested in
the infancy of her existence. And of course
he would not deny that there have been
questions and controversies which once
wrenched her very muscles aud tendons,
which she has outgrown, rather than solved,
and can now scarcely comprehend the points
of contention. The mind of no attentive
reader will be lulled to sleep by tbe reading
of “Ecce liens.’ Rather will it be aroxised
to the sublimity and divinity of its grand
work, “search for truth.’’
I hope every one of the preachers of our
church will study “Ecce Deus,” and catch
its style of thought, if not accept all its con
clusions Freeman.
A Plea lor “ Sufferer,”— Many Suf
ferers.
I read with some degree of interest the
statements and figures made by “.Sufferer,”
giving his “three and a half years’ expe
rience” as an itinerant minister in the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South. lam
not—never was—never expect to be an itin
erant preacher; but I am glad that I have
a heart that can sympathise with “Sufferer,”
aud all others who are in his condition.
Some are in a worse condition, for from his
statements he had a little outside means
that he could bring into requisition to re
lieve his sufferings, while there are others,
many others, who have nothing to fall back
on, aud if the Church fails iu their support
their condition is deplorable.
But “Sufferer” tells us that he is stand
ing on the next to the last plank, and very
significantly asks, “how is it possible to
hold on under such circumstances ?” This
is a very grave question, one hard to solve;
but to our mind there are two ways present
ed as a remedy by which the necessities ol
the itinerant may be met.
The first is, an enlargement of liberality
on the part of the congregations he serves
with tho water of life. This is the most le
gitimate, the proper mode by which it should
be effected. But how is it to be done. The
writer is an old man, has been a steward for
over forty years; and, consequently has forty
years experience in begging—not money —
but in begging or persuading the member
ship of the Church into an enlargement of
their views and practice, and to show a be
coming Christian liberality towards their
pastor. And my experience has taught me,
that of all the conceivable things this is the
hardest. It has upon it the seal of divine
sanction. The gospel teaches liberality, it
enjoins, enforces it as a duty on all, as a Chris
tian principle on which we should act, and
by which we should be governed. The case
is easily stated, and the cause can be pleaded
from the purest motives and for the highest
ends; und yet it is hard to get. the Church
to work up to the divine teachings on tho
subject. Heretofore it has been in most
cases a failure. Can we hope to succeed in
the future any better than we have done in
the past by begging ? We fear not. Men
love money as well as they ever did in the
past; and the losses by the war serve as a
peg on which their excuses are hung; and
the preacher has no better prospect before
him now for the liberal support of himself
and family than he had the first year after
the close of the war. What is he to do ?
Go into secular pursuits ? Some have tried
it and failed. If they succeeded one way
they failed in another. If they were suc
cessful in secular matters, what has become
of their usefulness as preachers or pastors ?
Therefore to be secularized will not do. It
is ruinous to the man, cripples his religious
zeal and energy, and disqualifies him for
the pastoral work. This we all know : what
then ?
The second thing now to be considered is
an enlargement of the work—give him more
territory to travel over, and more appoint
ments to attend. In a word, give him full
W'ork, let him preach on Sunday at the
churches affording the largest congrega
tions, and in the week at the smaller. Con
dense the preaching places where it can be
done without hurt to any one, and our opin
ion is that success will be the result. If no
other good is reached, this last plan will
keep the preacher at his proper work. It
will keep him from the cotton and com
patches that are so ruinous to his influence
as a minister of the gospel.
But some will object, because this plan
will lessen the demand for pastors. Well,
be it so —there is a goodly number that
should locate. Men of large, expensive
families, with small preaching abilities,
should take a prudent step and join my
ranks. The local preacher is not a pastor—
we don’t know really what he is. What
shall we denominate him ? fifth wheel or
any thing else. But the fact is, he can
plant as much as he pleases, and then he
can preach as much as he is able, and give
as much as he is able, to support the pastor
on his work, and for all other benevolent
enterprises.
There is no doubt but that this question
of finance among us, as Methodists, is as
suming a very serious aspect. Our beloved
Methodism will, in all human probability,
be greatly retarded in her mission of mercy
to perishing sinners, unless some plan can be
devised to bring her members to the faith
ful discharge of the important duty of sus
taining their pastors. Methodists don’t
shout now as in former times, for fear that
some steward might take occasion of their
ecstacy of feeling to call for a little quarter
age; and it would not do to be a shouting
Methodist and not contribute to the support
of the pastor. Is this so ? one has said it,
and there may be some more truth in it
than ought to be.
It is true, if Methodists would give more
liberally according to their means, they
would enjoy more religion. God blesses the
cheerful giver—him that gives without being
dunned or begged—the man who comes
right square up to his duty, talks to his pas
tor, tells him his financial condition at
present, but assures him that as soon as he
sells his cotton, or can raise money from
other sources, he will pay. He feels right,
and the pastor feels encouraged because he
knows he is not forgotten by his brother.
PUBLISHED BY J. W. BURKE & CO., FOR THE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH.
MACON, GA., FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1870.
But there are others who never trouble
themselves about the matter. They don’t
know whether the pastor and family have
anything to eat or not; because they never
inquire into the matter; and unless some
steward goes to them and makes the de
mand, the year will roll away and they ex
cuse themselves, as they were never called
on to contribute, and therefore, they did
not do it.
And again, Do the stewards do their duty
faithfully and regularly ? Some do; but
there is no doubt that there is a lack of ser
vice among them.
Verily we need a revival in our beloved
Church—one that will open the hearts and
reach the purse strings of our entire mem
bership-one that will make all feel the sat
isfaction of giving—of doing our duty to
the bodies as well as the souls of men. One
says when questioned on the matter, that
he is cold in religion; he does not enjoy the
life and power of religion as in former
times. Brother, have you done your duty
towards your pastor ? Have the Missionary
enterprise, the Conference collections, the
Bible cause, all been duly considered and
cared for to the amount of your ability ?
If not, you may well cry out, “Oh ! my
leanness, my leanness.” And no wonder
you are lean. Look at that poor “Sufferer.”
You may have given him good dinners at
your hospitable table, but have you fed his
family ? Have you done your duty towards
him as your pastor ? He has gone through
cold and heat, through wet and dry, and has
faithfully dispensed to you the word of life,
and you have plenty, but. he is a “Sufferer”
at your door. Will yon withhold the little
mite that will relieve his wants ? If you do,
you may not expect anything but leanness
of soul —you will die of it in the end—you
may say, “Lord, Lord,’! but he may say
“in as much as ye (lid it not to one of these
the least of my brethren, ye did it not to
me. And these shall go away with everlast
ing punishment, hut the righteous unto life
eternal.” S*****.
‘‘ls the Sunday-School really as
Profitable as we think it is ?”
Such is the question. propounded by R.
W. D., in the Advocate of July Bth, “for
the serious consideration of all Sunday
school votaries everywhere;” aud it may be
well to keep it before them. I have just
been looking over the reports, which the
Advocate of this week contains, from several
District Conferences, und was gratified to
observe, that, however it might be with the
other interests of the Church, the Sunday
school cause is in evei - y instance, represent
ed to be iu a flourishing condition. From
one District we have a sad presentation of
facts as to the “condition of the church,”
in which the Sunday-School item is the only
exception. Finances wofully in arrears—
church-meetings not spiritual—prayer-meet
ings gone into disuse—class-meetings obso
lete- family worship observed by only a
small, a very small portion of the members
of the Church—but “the Sunday-schools
are generally flourishing.” “Thank God !”
I almost involuntarily exclaimed, as my eyes
fell upon this item—“there is hope for the
Church in that section yet. ” Now Ido not
suppose that the condition of the Church
in that District, is materially worse than in
others—only a more candid and concise ex
hibit was made, and that too, not in com
parison with the state of things actually ex
isting elsewhere, or at any period, but with
what, under favorable circumstances, ought
to be; yet it is a significant fact, that of all
the departments of Christian labor and duty,
the Sunday-school alone seems to be favored
with a measure of prosperity at all satisfac
tory to the zeal and enthusiasm of the faith
ful inspectors of our beloved Zion.
Some of the wise and good of our t imes,
who stand as “watchmen upon the walls,”
tell us that this is one of the signs of anew
spiritual era; aud I observe tlitxt, in one of
the reports mentioned above, the present is
characterized as a “Sunday-school dispensa
tion.”
What does it all mean ? Why is so much
of the religious thinking and feeling and
praying and working and watching of tho
Christian world turned in this direction ?
Is it true, that the “former apparatus,”
upon which the Church has been wont
mainly to rely, for the conversion of sinners,
is to a great extent set aside, by tlie Holy
Ghost ? Are wo no longer to expect har
dened sinners, under the impulse of acute
and painful convictions, to renounce their
sins and embrace the Saviour ? Must we
look mainly, for the well taught children
and youth of the Church, to pass quietly
into the kingdom, on a simple acceptance
of the facts and principles of the gospel,
with believing spirits aud yielding hearts ?
These questions I shall not undertake to
answer. This much, however, I may safely
say, that, taken in all its bearings, there is
presented iu the progress of the Sunday
school cause, for the last decade of years,
the grandest auxiliary religious movement
the world has ever witnessed; and the signi
ficance of the whole matter is, that the
Church, hi all its branches has been worked
up to realize the pre-eminent importance of
the conversion of the children to God.
There was a time, in the recollection of
many now living, when there was but little
appreciation of the capacity of childhood
for Christianity. Children were not expect
ed to be religious in any true sense of the
term. The profession of religion by a little
child was, as a general thing, looked upon
with suspicion, and any manifestations in
that direction were promptly suppressed, by
prudent parents and cautious church officers.
The writer, whose own experience affords,
to himself, most satisfactory evidence of
the truth and excellence of childhood
religion—remembers very well, how his
child-heart was grieved and his child-faith
almost destroyed, by hearing a prominent
member of the Georgia Conference say,
of a number of little children who were
rejoicing together at a revival - meeting,
that he felt “like pitching them out at the
window.” Harsh and unchristlike as this
language would now seem, it was but an
unguarded expression of what was then the
prevailing sentiment of the Church. lam
glad to be able to say, that brother
lived long enough to change his views en
tirely, and when I met him, fifteen years
later, he was an ardent advocate for early
conversions, faithful and zealous in the
Sunday-school cause, and labored for the
young with a devotion which increased and
intensified to the day of his death. And
this is but an illustration of tbe wonderful
change which has taken place in the general
sentiment of the Church on this great ques
tion.
As someone has said, “it took the Church
a long time to rise to anything like a proper
appreciation of the mighty meaning of
the Saviour’s precious words, ‘suffer the
little children to come unto me, and for
bid them not, for of such is the kingdom
of God.’ ” Even yet, suggestions
to very many rather of early translation to
heaven, than of acceptable membership in
the Church on earth, and seem more appro
priate on little tombstones,than on Sunday
school banners; but we Lave most gratify
ing reason to believe, that their true signifl
cence is becoming better and better under
stood, and as the tide of religious senti
ment rises in this respect, the Snnday
school is lifted to the place it ought to occu
py in the affections and consideration of
pastors, parents and teachers. Hence, by
common consent, the great object of the
Sunday-school is now held to be, to aid in
bringing the little children to Jesus that
they may receive his blessing, and be train
ed for liia service. “The Sunday-school
that fails in this is itself a failure,” says
Bishop Marvin, and all our Conventions and
Conferences decree the same thing.
Now, in this aspect of the great Sunday
school movements of the day, the question
at the head of this article is worthy the se
rious consideration, we have been asked to
give it.
It kf possible for us to report flourishing
Sunday-schools, in good faith, and to con
gratulate ourselves upon the success of the
Sunday-school cause, when really but little
is being accompHshed. The fig tree on
which our Saviour found only leaves, would
have been reported, by a superficial ob
server, as in a very flourishing state. So it
may be with some of our Sunday-schools.
What we see and rejoice at may be in too
many instances, only leaves, while the mas
ter loOks for fruit on the tree.
But I have taken so long to get to the
point I aimed at, when I began to write,
that I must defer its consideration till an
other time.
In the meau time, allow me to say that I
profess to be a Sunday-school votary, iu the
broadest acceptotion of the term. I appre
ciate the oause. I love the work. I listen
to any body who is prepared to say what
ought to be done, and faithfully try to do
my part in it. “My heart’s desire and
prayer to God,” for our Sunday-schools, is,
that they may be brought up to as high a
state of efficiency, as the combined intelli
gence and piety and pecuniary ability of the
Church is capable of producing. In tha
hope of contributing somewhat to this re
sult, I propose to call attention, iu another
communication, to some of the tests by
which the real profitableness of a Sunday
school may be determined, and consider
some of the means and measures by which
its efficiency may be promoted.
W. F. C.
Between the Rivers, Aug., 1870.
Memoirs of Our Deceased Min
isters.
BY REV. A. M. THIGPEN.
Our Annual Conferences seldom have an
hour of such deep interest as that in which
the “Committee on Memoirs” read their
sketches of the labors and triumphs of our
departed brethren,
All business is suspended, all conversa
tions cease, and, often with tearful eyes,
each member listens to these brief histories
of the tahilfbu dead. The attention is the
more profound, because no one can tell but
that his life and labors will be tbe snbject of
the next annual reading.
These papers retaiu their iuterest, long
after the adjournment of Conference, Os
all the elaborately written reports of the
session, they atone are preserved for the ben
fit of the whole Church. While the rest
may find a place in the “Church paper,” or
go into tne Minutes of the Annual Confer
ence, these memoirs are preserved in the
General Minutes, and become a part of the
pern,uncut of the Church. Succeed
ing generations will read them, and they
will bear the memory of the fathers back to
tbe days “lang syne,” and furnish, to the
younger brethren, a truthful record of the
heroic warfare, and conquering faith of
those that have gone before.
Who that has the memoirs of 1805 can
forget the Apostolic Tobias Gibson ? travel
ing six hundred miles on horseback, and
then paddling his own canoe, from the
fiumberland to Natchez, in reaching his
Crst missionary appointment in the South
west. That first voice, heard crying in the
wilderness from the Cumberland to Natchez,
has not been forgotten, amid the rejoicing
of tbe thousands of converts and hosts of
ministers, who have entered into his labors.
Interesting and truthful as these reports
are, their value may be, and ought to be, in
creased. They are often imperfect and un
satisfactory, as to the statement of impor
tant facts. Sometimes they confess igno
rance of the time of the birth, conversion,
early life or religious history of the dead; or
perhaps the time of joining the Conference,
and the fields of labor which have been
served, seem to be unknown. Opinions of
of parts, capacity, and training, are some
times expressed, which better acquaintance
would change.
The Committee ought not to be blamed for
the most of these omissions. They are ap
pointed at the meeting of the Conference,
under the excitement of its cares and busi
ness. Perhaps they have not been person
ally acquainted with the deceased; have had
no access to papers and persons who could
supply the desired information. Their state
ments are necessarily of a general character,
and therefore, they do not fully meet the
demands of a memoir.
These things ought not so to be. This
part of the permanent History of the Church
ought to answer its end as sneh.
The perfection desired, may be reached by
placing this work in the hands of a commit
tee, appointed for four years. As soon as
a minister is called to his reward, the com
mittee could begin to gather the material
for his memoir. This could be done, by
correspondence with his family and most
intimate friends; by consulting manuscripts,
diaries, etc., of'the deseased, and also, by
reference to Conference and General Min
utes. In this manner, all necessary facts
might be obtained, and sufficient time be
had for the preparation of a perfect memoir.
If our Conferences see proper to provide
iu this, or some better, manner, for a faith
ful portrayal of the character aud services of
our dead, we may never again read the mor
tifying confession, “We know nothing of
the early life or conversion of our brother.”
Then future historians of the Church will
find in our memoirs a mine of information,
rich in authenticated facts, ready for com
pilation.
A University preacher, having occupied a
school-house in the country on the Sabbath
for the purpose of promulgating his views,
gave notice at the close of the service that
two weeks from that day he would preaoh
again in the same place, in the afternoon,
by leave of Providence and the Trustees. A
Quaker rose and responded to this announce
ment in this wise: “Friend, if what thee has
this day told us be true, we shall not need
thee two weeks from this day; and if what
thee has told us be not true, we do not want
thee at any time.
From the Sunday Magazine.
A French Hymn.
BY ALEXANDKE,VINET.*
“Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth.”—Heb.
sii. 16.
Why take away,
O Father, say,
The gift Thy tender love had given ?
Why give at all,
If Thou recall
At once the treasured boon to heaven ?
Speak, gracious Lord! Thy ways my heart appal,
My heart so weak, with sorrow riven!
Thou speakest, Lord,
And as a word
The piercings of Thy voice I hear,
And in clear tones
My conscience owns
The justice of Thy stroke severe;
Myself Thou seekest; in Thy darkest frowns
The pleadings of Thy love appear.
The same art Thou
Whether Thou sow
Or watchful come Thy fruits to reap;
To bless my store
Or make xne poor,
In equal love Thon workest deep;
Startling my soul with righteous chastening sore
When careless on Thy care I sleep.
Our living Head
Himself “was dead;'’
We follow Him, and we must die;
Death? nay, 'tis birth,
Ev’nhere on earth
To lay the rags of nature by,
And oue with Christ, and dead to sin, go forth
New clad in light aud liberty.
To babblings vain
Os lips profane,
To vaunted light which is not Thiue,
To any life
With Thine a strife
Now let me die, O King Divine!
Faithful Thy wounds though keen the pruuing
knife,
By them new life and health are mine.
To cleanse my soul.
To make it whole,
My Father, smite, and do not spare;
Doth gold require
Refining fire,
Aud shall not faith the furnace share?
Yea, though Thou dash to shreds my heart’s desire,
Great Sculptor, I Thy strokes will hear!
Then take Thy way!
It might not stay,
That boon Thy tender love had given!
All wise in all!
Though Thou recall
Thy gift, ’tis love my heart hath riven.
No longer Thy dark ways my heart appal,
I read them in the light of Heaven.
♦Written in 1828, afterthe death of his daughter.
From tbe Presbyterian and Index.
Fashionable Amusements—No. IV.
AN ESSAY READ BEFORE THE PRESBYTERY OF
TUSKALOOSA, AND PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF
PRESBYTERY.
But even admitting that no spiritual iuju
ry would rosult to those who participate iu
fashionable amusements or to others, we
argue further, that professors of religion
should abstain from then because participa
tion in them servo more than anything else
to obliterate the distinction between the
Church and the world.
If anything is clearly taught in the word
of God, it is that he designs his people to be
a peculiar people, separate and distinct, iu
their spirit and conduct, from the children
of this world. This has been a distinguish
ing feature of his Church from its very or
ganisation. Abraham was called out from
his father’s house and his native country,
and removed far away into a strange land,
that he might be entirely separated from his
idolatrous kindred, and all idolatrous per
sons and associations. When the family of
Jacob was led into Egypt, they were placed
in Goshen, and wholly segregated from the
native population. When his descendants,
grown into a nation, were introduced into
the promised land, they were hedged round
about by every possible barrier and restric
tion, in order to keep them separate and dis
tinct from the surrounding heathen. Aud
under the New Dispensation, the same sep
paration from the ungodly world is demand
ed of all who name the name of Christ:
“ Wherefore, come out from among them,
and be ye therefore separate, saith the Lord,
and touch not the unclean thing, and I will
receive you, and will be a father to you, and
ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the
Lord Almighty,” “Ye are a chosen gener
ation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a
peculiar a people, that ye should show forth
the praises of him who hath called you out
of darkness into his marvellous light.”
Whatever, therefore, serves to obliterate
this distinction between the children of God
and the children of this world, is forbidden
and wrong. But how can this be more ef
fectually done than by Christians participa
ting freely in the amusements aud indul
gences which are distinctly and confessedly
worldly ? How could a Christian, in the
midst of strangers, more effectually conceal
his character, and prevent even tlie suspi
cion from arising that he was a professor of
religion, than by freely resorting to the
theatre, card-table, and the dance ? In no
other possible way at all consistent with the
maintenance of ordinary morality and decen
cy. These fashionable amusements, more than
anything else of the present day, constitute
the line of division between the Church and
the world—recognised as such on all sides.
When the sinner renounces the world, the
flesh, and the devil, and takes the vows of
God upon him, all—the world as well as the
Church—naturally expect him to abandon
these things. There is an instinctive sense
of the impropriety and wrong of his having
anything more to do with them. Nor does
the Christian himself, while the love of
Christ is warm in his heart, have any desire,
or thought even, of resorting to them for
his amusement or enjoyment. It is not un
til his love waxes cold and his zeal abates,
that his zest for them revives, and he is
found returning to them again, like the
sow that was washed to her wallowing in the
mire.
This participation is inconsistent with the
sobriety of Christian character and the sol
emnity of Christian vows, and the purity
and sanctity of Christian life. The Church
feels it to be so. The world feels it to be so.
The enlightened conscience and loving
Christian heart feels it to be so. All know
and feel and demand that those who are be
loved of God, called to be saints, separated to
his service and glory, should keep them
selves unspotted from the world. They are
not of the world, even as Christ was not of
the world ; and they are to hold themselves
sacredly aloof from whatever tends to com
promise their Christian character or defile
their Christian garments, or even to excite
the suspicion that they are lovers of pleas
ures more than lovers of God ; and this all
must feel to be impossible and at the same
time indulge in the fashionable amusements
of the day. They are wholly and confessed
ly of the world; and whoever participates in
them necessarily loses his distinctive char
acter as one of God’s peculiar people, and to
the extent of his indulgence creates a doubt
as to whether he is really of the Church or
of the world.
In addition to these general considera
tions. which are applicable to all professors
of religion, we urge as a special reason why
Presbyterians should abstain from these fash
ionable amusements, that they are contrary
to the roles of their Church.
Union with the Church is a voluntary act;
and those who attach themselves to any par
ticular branch of it shonld do so with the
full purpose and intent conforming to its
reqirements. They do in fact vow so to do
in the very act of their reception. It is so
understood by both parties. And volunta
rily and knowingly to violate the rules and
requirements of the Church, is a breach of
faith—a violation of solemn covenant en
gagement.
No evangelical Church in existenoeis more
hostile to these fashionable amusements than
the Presbyterian Church. No one has been
more distinct and earnest in her testimony
against them. Her ministers in their indi
vidual capacity, and her courts, from the
lower to the highest, have lifted up their
voice of disapprobation and warning and en
treaty from the very first until now.
The Assembly of 1869 earnestly and sol
emnly enjoins upon all sessions and Presby
teries under its care absolute necessity of
enforcing the discipline provided in our
Constitution against offences ; under the
word ‘offences,’ “including attendance by
our members upon theatrical exhibition and
performances, and promiscuous dancing.”
This is the unanimous voice of the Church,
expressed through its representatives assem
blep from every part of it in the capacity of
a court of Jesus Christ. And it would seem
to be nothing short of presumption and ob
stinacy, wholly unbecoming a true follower
of the Lord Jesus Christ, to set at naught
these solemn convictions and injunctions of
her divinely-appointed teachers and rulers,
and continue to indulge in these things
which they declare to be blighting to her in
terests and damaging to her honor. They
speak earnestly because they feel deeply
the greatness of the evil which they seek to
remedy. And those who refuse to heed
their admonitions and entreaties commit an
offence which justly merits the censure and
discipline of the Church.
If an individual cannot use the self-denial
requisite to conform to tho rules and re
quirements of the Church, and to respect
her sentiments, let him remain out of tho
Church. Better not to vow, than to vow
and not pay.
And not only is tho voice of our own
Church against these fashionable amuse
ments, but the voice of every other evangel
ical Church in the world. Tho evangelical
bishops and clergy of the Episcopal Church,
even, are as strongly opposed to them at the
ministry of our own Church. It is only
where formality and ritualism have done
their baleful work, that these things are
countenanced and encouraged. Such men
as McUvaine and Lee and Johns and Hop
kins, amongst the brightest lights of their
own Church, and whose praise is in all tho
Churches, have again and again lifted up
their voice in solemn warning aud depreca
tion and entreaty to those committed to
their spiritual care, to abstain from these
indulgences as contrary to the spirit of
God’s word, dishonoring to the cause of re
ligion, and hurtful to their own spiritual
interests. Aud the professor of religion
who participates in them, sins against the
common sentiment of God’s troest, most
pious, most faithful people, in every branch
of his blood-bought Church.
We would conclude, therefore, by deplor
ing tho alarming prevalence of this sin
amongst the members of our churches, and
by addressing to them words of affectionate
entreaty henceforth to abandon and stand
wholly aloof from it. Dearly beloved, ab
stain, we beseech you, from these fleshly
lusts which war against the soul and cause
your good to be evil spoken of. Come out
from amongst the fashionable, gay, and un
godly devotees of pleasure, and be separate
from them. Be not conformed to this world,
but be ye transformed by the renewing of
your mind. Your own experience teaches
you that participation in these fashionable
amusements robs you of your spirituality,
and makes prayer and the duties of religion
irksome and barren. You eunuot be fervid,
happy, growing Christians, so long as you
indulge in them. The Church witnesses
your worldly complicity with grief and heav
iness of heart ; and the world secretly re
gards you as soiling your garments, anil vio
lating your covenant engagements, as often
as you mingle in those scenes and amuse
ments which it has itself originated aud
claims as peculiarly its own. It may love
the treason, but at least it despises tho trai
tor. By all these considerations, we pray
you iu Christ’s name, and in tho name of
liis wounded, dishonored Church, come out
from the world and its gaieties and ungodli
ness, aud bo separate from it, and touch not
the unclean tiling. “If any man will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up
his cross daily, and follow me,” “They that
are Christ’s, have crucified tlie flesh with its
affections and lusts. ” “If yo live after the
flesh, ye shall die ; but if ye, through the
Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye
shall live.”
Are These Things So '?
The Christian Union gives the following as
statistics and facts, on tho authority of the
Northern Christian Advocate :
“Tho Methodist Episcopal Church, in
stead of having been supplanted throughout
the South by the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, is declared by the Northern
Christian Advocate, to be, in many districts,
‘quite as strong in membership, social po
sition, Church property, and all other re
spects, as the Church, South.’ The entire
membership of the Southern Church, ac
cording to the figures which we printed
some months ago, is 571,241; that of the
Northern Church within the limits occupied
by its rival is given by the Northern at 289,-
571. ‘About one-half of this membership,’
says this journal, ‘is white.’ We estimate
147,921, though the exact number is not
known. Delaware, Washington, and Lex
ington Conferences are exclusively colored;
Baltimore, Wilmington, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Kentucky, are exclusively
white; Holston, North Carolina, Missouri
and St. Louis, ore mostly white; Alabama,
Georgia, and Tennessee, include a large
white membership; South Carolina, Missis
sippi, Louisiana, and, we suppose, Texas,
are mostly colored.’ The comparative nu
merical strength of Churches divided, as
these are, politically, not geographically, is
so important that we collate the Northern's
returns for the Southern membership of the
Northern Church with those we have already
printed for the Southern Church. ”
The statement that “in many districts” of
the Southern States, the M. E. Church is
“quite as strong in membership, social po
sition, Church property, and all other re
spects, as the Church, South, ” is sought to
be established by statistical‘reports of the
two Churches. The writer puts down the
total membership of Southern Methodism
at 571,241, and that of the Northern Church,
within the same limits, 289,571. Os these
147,921 are put down as white. The obvious,
we think, the sole intent of tho writer, was
to show the growth of Northern Methodism
in the Southern States since the war ; and,
for the sake of truth, he ought to have re
stricted his statements and comparisons to
those States of tho South, in which, before
the war, Northern Methodism had no foot
hold. This would have been fair, honest
and truthful. But this is not done. His
statistics, then, however particularly accu
rate, are generally fallacious, and do not
set forth the facts of history, or the facts of
Northern Methodist growth in the Southern
{States. The real facts of the case do not
show a growth among the whiles of the South,
that is, in the States entered by the North
ern Methodists, since the war, nt all compli
mentary to their professions, their efforts,
or their expenditures. We present the facts
as they were before, and as they ought to be
considered, if truth be the object, since, the
war.
Before the war, the Methodist E. Church
had Conferences in the following States:
Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri—
in all five organized and well represented
Conferences. These Conferences, according
to the tables we are considering, are, with
their membership, as follows :
Baltimore 29,397
West Virginia 26,100
Kentucky 19,808
St. Louis 17,088
Missouri 18,007
105,400
In territory occupied by the Methodist
E. Church, before the war, there is now a
membership of 105,400. Deduct this from
the white membership given above, 147,921,
it leaves, as the white membership, in the
States occupied since the war, a total, on
their own calculations and statistics, of 42,-
521; and these are distributed over Virginia
(south pf the Potomac, and east of the Blue
Ridge,) 1 North and South Carolina, Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana,
Arkansas and Texas. Eleven States, with
an average in each of less than 4,000. The
true comparison between the two Churches,
as to white members is that of 42,521, to
571,241, or thirteen and a half to one.
Again: following their own statistics, de
ducting 147,921 whites, from their total
289,571, we have 141,650 colored members
in the eleven States entered since the war;
an average of less than 13,000 colored mem
bers to a State.
Or, taking the membership of these South
ern States, in whose bounds they have en
tered since the war, we have the following
result:
Whites 42,521
Colored 141,650
They have a total of 184,172
Now, the number of colored members in
the M. E. Church, South, is so small that
they are soaroely appreciable in the sum to
tal of our membership. We deduct from
E. H. MYERS, D. D., EDITOR.
WHOLE NUMBER 1816.
the total of 571,241, enough, we think, to
cover the last reported membership, say
1,241, leaving a white membership of 570,-
000. The comparison, we are cotsidering,
according to the statements of tho Northern
Christian Advocate, lies between tho white
rather than the colored membership of the
two Churches; i e., as between 42,521, aud
570,000. And it is in the light of these facts
and figures, that we are to judge of the ac
curacy and credibility of tho statement that
the M. E. Church is “quite as strong in mem
bership, social position, Church properly, and
all other respects, as the Church, South.” If
“figures do not lie,” the assertion of the
writer, as to equality, or anything else cor
rect and reliable iu comparison, cannot be
true !
We do not .deny, but we seriously doubt
the correctness of the figures, or calcula
tions that give the M. E. Church a white
membership of 42,521 in the Southern States
entered since the war. It may bo so. Wo
will not contradict the statement. Nor do
we desire to say anything to the disparage
ment of the personal character or social po
sition of the adherents, white or colored, of
the M. E. Church in these Southern States.
If they have been proselyted from Southern
Methodism, we do not know it. If they
have been gathered from “tho world that
lieth in tho wicked One,” and made spirit
ually better and liappier, we rejoice at their
success. But, except iu the perversion of
the colored peoplo, once in ourown Church,
in the management of political measures,
anil in carrying out the Stanton-Ames order,
or principle, in Church property questions
—a clause iu the Constitution of Virginia is
standing proof and memorial of their meas
ures—we confess that we know vory little of
their operations; and, besides what we learn
from their letters in Northern Methodist
papers, seldom hear anything of them in
our Southern communities. Their Virginia
Conference is put down as having 36 minis
ters, and 4,682 members. These in the
paragraph above are said to be “exclusively
white.” We are persuaded a very large
majority of these are in that part of Virgin
ia lying in “the Old Baltimore Conference,”
anil properly belonging to the classification,
before the war, as given above. Since they
crossed tho old boundaries of the Virginia
Conference of Southern Methodism, as ex
isting before the war and since, we have
never heard of but one of our ministers and
a few of his friends who have left us to unite
with them: nor of any successes to evoke iu
the breast of bigotry eveu the faintest
rivalry or dissatisfaction. Iu fact, wo doubt
whether any true members of our old, true
and historic Virginia Conference over hear
of, or meet with these Northern Methodist,
preachers, except as looking after some out
lying property, or as instigators or partici
pants in some political measures to guide or
control “the negro vote.” Wo say not
these things for disparagement, but as off -
sets to a course of letter writing from the
South, and of editorializing in the North
ern Methodist press that seemingly seeks to
make the impression that the M. E. Church
is filling tho Southern States with its con
quests, and bids fair to overwhelm, break
down and destroy the M. E. Church, South.
Asa moral anil spiritual organism wo are
hardly aware of its existence in the South.
But as a political organization, to multiply
votes, to promote strife, to energizo and
perpetuate prejudice and hostility to tho
white peoplo South, on the part of tho
blacks—from Whittemore and Mitchell to
Phelps and Peame, the worst types of a
shockingly strange class of preachers—we
hear much of evil, and very little that is
graceful in religion or creditable. in tho
ministry.— Richmond Christian Advocate.
Pulpit Eccentricities.
Some preachers of tho sensational school
select texts that shall be remembered for
their singularity. Thus in March, 1858,
Rev. G. W. Condor preached from the
words “Aha! aha !” On Feb. 3,1861, from
All Saints; Magaret street, London, Dr.
Wolf preached from the old word “Saul !”
(Acts ix. 1.) Rowland Hill once preached
from the words “Old cast clouts and rotten
rags!” (Jer. xxxviii. 2,1 and on another
occasion from the woms, “I can do all
things,” beginning Iris sermon by a flat de
nial of tho Apostle’s proposition. In the
same style was Sterne’s exordium, when ho
preached from the text, “It is better to go
to the house of mourning than to the house
of feasting,” and exclaimed, “that I deny !”
This secured the attention of his hearers;
and, for a like purpose, Cecil commenced a
sermon by saying “A man was hanged at
Tyburn this morning.”
Whitefield gave out his text, then paused
and shouted “Fire ! fire! fire !” as a pre
lude to his discourse on eternal punishment.
Rowland imitated this by crying, “Matches!
matches !” but he excused himself for say
ing what he termed out-of-the-way texts
and out-of-the-way observations because he
preached to out-of-the-way sinners. It is
said that he called his Wapping hearers
whapping sinners. “Hang the law and tho
prophets !” was the mutilated test of a cele
brated Scotch divine who began his sermon
thus: “So says practice; the profession says
otherwise.”
A Shrewsbury dissenting minister preach
ed a funeral sermon for the Rev. John An
gell James, of Birmingham, from the com
bined texts, “A man sent from God, whoso
namo was John. I saw tho Angel fly in tho
midst of heaven; James the servant of
God.” “There is no foollikeThe fool-hardy,”
was the text of the Rev. Dr. Williams, who
had a quarrel with a parishioner named
Hardy. “Adam, where art thou ?” was the
text of the probation sermon of Mr, Low,
who, with a Mr. Adam, was a candidate for
lectureship ; “Lo, here lam !”was tho re
sponsive text of his rival, Mr. Adam. Mr.
Joseph, curate of the Isle of Man, remind
ed the Lord-Lieutenant Butler, Duke of Or
mond, of his forgotten promise to assist
him with the preferment, by preaching be
fore him the text, “Yet did not the chief
Butler remember Joseph, but forgot him.”
Prayer Meetings.
There are few subjects that more noed a
thorough and wise overhauling—wo can
think of no other word—than that which is
introduced by tho following communication.
Wo publish it in the hope that someone
may be moved to respond, who will furnish
practical hints as to the best method of con
ducting prayer meetings to edification. No
doubt the grand defect is in the want of
fervid, glowing hearts, and intense desires
for special blessings. But then this defect
is an effect as well as a cause of much of the
frigidity, formality and barrenness of too
many. of our devotional meetings. The
theme is an inviting one to those who can
throw light upon the best way of conducting
these services.
“Allow me through your paper, to ask at
tention to the manner of prayer followed in
our weekly prayer meetings in many of the
churches. We meet to spend one hour in
devotional exercises, consisting chiefly of
singing and prayer, a member being called
upon from time to time, by the conductor of
the meeting, to lead the congregation in
prayer. Now it seems to have become a
fixed habit of those who lead, to specify
definitely in their prayer every object that,
they can call to mind, which is worthy of
our Heavenly Father’s attention, thus occu
pying from five to ten minutes each. It is
a question with me, whether a man can
thirst for, or desire so many objects with
sufficient earnestness to call down au answer
to fifty separate petitions at one time; and
again, whether the congregation can agree
touching all these things, or follow the
lender in prayer. They also use almost in
variably Buch expressions as this, “Forgive
our sins, pardon our iniquities, and remem
ber our transgressions no longor against us. ”
I like any one of these petitions, very much;
but when taken together, are they in accor
dance with the injunction of our Saviour,
“Use not vain repetitions as the heathen do,
for they think to be heard by their much
speaking?”
‘ ‘Mv purpose in writing this, is, if possible,
to call forth from some of your able corres
pondents, a few hints concerning prayer
meetings, that may be profitable to our
smaller churches.”— lnterior.
Those who in the day of sorrow have
owned God’s presence in the cloud will find
him also in the pillar of fire, brightening
and cheering the abode as night comes on,