Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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,