Review and Herald, Vol. 48, No. 22.
SYSTEMATIC BENEVOLENCE, OR THE BIBLE PLAN OF SUPPORTING THE MINISTRYPage 1
Earlier text: SYSTEMATIC BENEVOLENCE, OR THE BIBLE PLAN OF SUPPORTING THE MINISTRYTHE LAST DAY.
By Eliza H. Morton
Thick and dark the heavens seem,
Never a ray of light;
Earth is robed in deepest gloom,
Black as the blackest night. Mercy has fled; hope is gone;
Christ intercedes no more.
He that's filthy must so remain,
Probation now is o'er. Awful gloom and deep despair
Fill sinners' hearts with fear.
All eyes to heaven upturned,
Behold the sign appear. Oh! the cloud of fleecy white,
Seen all o'er the land!
Oh! the glory and the light
Of that angelic band! Oh! the city of our king,
Bright with jewels rare!
Oh! the crowns and dazzling robes
That the ransomed wear! Oh! to feel a Saviour's smile,
To hear him whisper come!
Evermore to be at rest
In an Eternal Home! ANTIQUITY OF MAN.
By Cor. of the Appeal
On the subject of the antiquity of man, it is a comfort to know that the minds of the learned are undergoing a rapid change. For the past thirty or forty years, archæological evidence of the date of man’s appearance upon earth has been accumulating. For a while that evidence seemed all to point one way, namely, in favor of a high antiquity. This was partly due, perhaps, to the natural desire of the discoverer to make his “find” the most important. Deceived by imperfect or colored reports, the learned pretty generally committed themselves to the view of a great antiquity. Sir Charles Lyell implied that man’s age is 800,000 years. Lubbock avoided figures, but expressed his views in such adjectives as “vast,” “immense,” etc. Mr. Vivian, with a fondness for round numbers, says man was living 1,000,000 years ago. Other antiquarians contented themselves with estimates of from two to three hundred thousand years. Lyell’s conjecture was founded upon the supposition that man came shortly after the glacial age. But later discoveries have been made and more careful scrutiny of previous “finds” instituted, and though archæologists, like other people, are unwilling to alter an opinion to which they, on what they supposed was sufficient evidence, had given their adhesion, yet the last four years have witnessed a great change in view on this subject. Lyell’s present view is unknown, but in his later editions he has suddenly dropped from 800,000 to 200,000 years. A collapse from 1,000,000 years, which were insisted upon with confidence in the British Association in 1871, to 20,000 in 1873, ought to put our second-hand scientists upon their guard. Perhaps in this vain-glorious year we ought to refrain from stating that the exposure of many of the mistakes upon this subject is due to the common sense and industry of Americans. Lyell’s estimate of the Mississippi delta at New Orleans was 100,000 years, and both Lyell and Lubbock approved of the estimate of 57,000 years for Dr. Fowler’s Red Indian, who was found buried sixteen feet deep in the mud; but Mr. Fontaine found a skeleton in the same neighborhood under fifty feet of earth, which had been buried but four years, and the United States engineers after careful calculation find that the whole New Orleans delta to the depth of forty feet is the product of four thousand four hundred and forty years. To Professor Andrews of Chicago is due great credit for increased knowledge in this matter. His masterly examination of the probable date of the glacial age at Lake Michigan, which date he gives at from five thousand to seven thousand years, has opened the eyes of scholars to the wild character of European guesses upon the age of ice, and his exposure of the oft-repeated blunders about the cone of Tiniere secures him the gratitude of all seekers after truth. This cone is at the mouth of the River Tiniere, which flows into Lake Omera, Switzerland, and is formed by the debris annually brought down by the torrent. By a mathematical error, which, when explained, is obvious to everybody, Mr. Moslet made the cone ten thousand or more years old, and gave the date of some stone implements found about half way up the cone, as more than six thousand years. Prof. Andrews demonstrates that the implements are not three thousand years old, and that the cone began to form some forty-five hundred years ago. The ultimate conclusions of science will of course be true, but it seems to be a law of its progress always to advance through error.—Cor. of the Appeal. WHAT TRUE LOVE IS.
By Mrs. H. B. Stowe
Many women suppose they love their husbands, when, unfortunately, they have not the beginning of an idea what love is. Let me explain it to you. Loving to be admired by a man, loving to be petted by him, and loving to be praised by him, is not loving a man. All these may be when a woman has no power of loving at all,—they may all be simply because she loves herself, caressed, coaxed, as a cat likes to be coaxed and stroked, and fed with cream, and to have a warm corner. But all this is not love. It may exist, to be sure, where there is love; it generally does. But it may also exist where there is no love. Love is self-sacrifice; it is life out of self and in another. Its very essence is the preferring of the comfort, the ease, the wishes of another to one's own, for the love we bear him. Love is giving, not receiving; love is not a sheet of blotting paper or a sponge, sucking in everything to itself: it is an out-springing fountain, giving from itself. Love's motto has been dropped into this world as a chance gem of great price by the loveliest, the fairest, the purest, the strongest of lovers that ever trod this mortal earth, of whom it is recorded that He said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Now in love, there are ten receivers to one giver. There are ten persons in this world who like to be loved, where there is one who knows how to love. That, my dear ladies, is a greater attainment than all your French and music and dancing. You may lose the power of it under a load of early self-indulgence. By living just as you are all wanting to live,—living to be petted, to be flattered, to be admired, to be praised, to have your own way, and to do only that which is easy and agreeable,—you may lose the power of self-denial and self-sacrifice; you may lose the power of loving nobly and worthily, and become a mere sheet of blotting-paper all your life.—Mrs. H. B. Stowe. A VISIT TO THE COLLEGE.
By C. W. Stone
We had the pleasure, a few days since, of spending part of a day at the Battle Creek College in this city. The building itself is of a very pleasing outward appearance, and is situated in the most elevated part of the city, of which a beautiful view is obtained from the tower of the College. For several miles around, the College is the first building, from its prominent situation, to attract the attention of the traveller. As you pass along the busy part of Main St. towards the west, the College building stands directly in front of you, about a half mile distant. It is surrounded by beautiful grounds, which are being fitted up in a very attractive style. The building is in the form of a Greek cross, which is a cross whose opposite arms are of equal length. It has two main entrances in front, one upon the right wing and the other upon the left. Upon the first floor are two large and convenient school rooms, besides large entries, hat rooms, &c. These school rooms are numbered 1 and 2. On the second floor, the arrangement is much the same, and the rooms are numbered 3 and 4. On the third floor is the lecture hall extending from front to rear, over rooms 3 and 4 below. In the left wing is a recitation room, and in the right wing, the College museum. This museum is young, but it promises to become a very interesting feature of the establishment. Descending into the basement, we find another commodious recitation room where the chemical and philosophical apparatuses are stored, and where classes in chemistry, philosophy, and physiology recite. We were just returning from our hygienic déjeuner at the Health Institute, when the melodious notes of the “first bell” rang out their timely warning to teacher and pupil to repair to the scene of action for the day, and report ready for duty. Something of the power of habit impelled the writer to yield obedience to this morning summons, which for the last thirteen years has called us to the school room as teacher about fifteen hundred times; and, falling in with pupils who were bending their steps thitherward, we soon reached the College and ascended to the second floor, where we awaited the calling of the roll. This being finished in the different rooms, the pupils marched quietly to the lecture room above, to attend morning services. We cannot say that the tones which proceeded from the cabinet organ, which evidently is in its dotage, were particularly soothing; but the chorus from that assembly of young men and women, boys and girls, happy and cheerful in the enjoyment of a good school, was really inspiring. During the prayer that followed, the school all knelt down. After prayer, the majority of them went down stairs, leaving a class of about thirty, who finished the hour with a singing exercise under the instruction of Prof. Bell. This was a very interesting rehearsal. Opportunity is found here for learning the rudiments of the science and of making some progress in the art. The next hour we spent in No. 4, listening to Prof. Brownsberger’s grammar class. Prof. B., who is the principal, is a man whose pleasing manner puts you at once at ease and makes you feel at home; and while we listened to the cheerful recitation, and noted the thoroughness with which every point was discussed, we almost wished for our boyhood days, that we might be a school-boy once again. At this same hour, another class in grammar was reciting in No. 3 to Prof. Bell. At a previous visit, we heard that recitation. Prof. Bell is a teacher of great experience, and as a thorough disciplinarian and instructor, he is not readily excelled. A perfect recitation was required from every pupil in the class; and the good results of this requirement were made apparent by evidence that the lessons had been well studied. We passed most of the third hour in listening to the first reading class, in No. 2. This is one of our favorite recitations, therefore we were much interested. A good degree of thoroughness was observed in this room, the teacher Miss. Nellie Rankin, endeavoring to have each stanza read until the reading of it reached a sufficiently pleasing style. The forenoon was finished by us in the lecture room above, where another reading class was reciting to Mrs. S. M. Spicer. Considerable attention was paid to articulation, and to the definition of words. In the afternoon we took time to visit room No. 1, to hear Prof. H. J. Spicer’s arithmetic class. This class was digging out the principles of fractions. We were pleased to see that the teacher required the pupils to give the principles involved in each step, and work enough at the board to make each process clear. We were pleased also to notice the gentlemanly and lady-like decorum of the students during the recitation, and for that matter, we might say, during the day, and throughout the house. A very interesting class in physiology recites every forenoon in the basement to Dr. J. H. Kellogg, M. D. We know of no place where clearer instruction in this study would be likely to be found. Space forbids our dwelling longer upon details, but we must say of the school as a whole, that in point of order, clearness of instruction, and general regulations, it is a school of much merit, and well worthy of the patronage of our people, or of any people who would place their children under the care of God-fearing teachers, teachers who interest themselves, not only in the progress of the pupils, but in their moral behavior out of school, and in providing that proper influences may surround them at their boarding places and rooms. THE SANCTUARY.
By Uriah Smith
Forty-second Paper.—The End of Sin.
The division of the subject now under consideration, is one of exceeding interest. The great burden of the penitent, reaching out for a Saviour, is, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” And the great joy of the new convert, is, “There is now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus.” The question of becoming free from sin, and the process by which this is accomplished, has power to affect the heart of the awakened sinner, as no other question can. With scarcely less interest we go forward to the final disposition of sin, when it shall be forever put away. We have now traced it, in the work of salvation, from the sinner to the sacrificial victim, from the victim to the sanctuary, from the sanctuary to the scape-goat, which in the antitype is Satan, and are led to the conclusion that sin, of which he is himself the author, comes to its end in his destruction. But it may be asked if Paul does not show by the expression that Christ “appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself,” that he did put it away upon the cross. The answer is that that must be understood only as making provision for the putting away of sin; for sin cannot be put away in advance, and millions of those who will be saved, were yet unborn when Christ suffered. But a still stronger objection to the view here advocated, that Satan is the antitype of the scape-goat, is urged from the expression used in reference to that goat in Lev. 16: 10: “But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord; to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness.” How, it is asked, can the scape-goat be a type of Satan when an atonement was made with him? Does Satan have anything to do in making the atonement? Assuredly not; and we do not think such an idea is presented in the text. It does not read that the goat should be presented alive before the Lord that he might make an atonement for the sins of the people, or to assist in making the atonement. But the goat shall be “preserved alive before the Lord,” by whom? By the priest. “To make an atonement with him.” Who to make an atonement? The priest. Then the atonement is all made by the priest. No one shares with him in this work. But in making the atonement, or in carrying out, or completing, the work of the atonement, the high priest has something to do with the scape-goat, and that is to heap upon him the foul load of the sins of the people and send him away to be heard of no more forever. So, as the antitype, Satan has nothing to do of himself in making the atonement. He has no share in the work; but our High Priest has something to do with him in carrying out the result of his work, by making him bear away the sins which have been taken from the sanctuary, that he may perish with them, and thus a final disposition be made both of them and him. So far therefore as concerns the relation which Satan bears to the atonement, no objection exists to the view here advocated. Another query arises relative to the punishment of sin. If Satan is punished for the sins of the righteous, are not those sins punished twice, once in the person of Christ, who suffered for our sins, and again in the person of Satan upon whom they are finally laid? We answer that the sins of the righteous are no more punished twice than the sins of the wicked. Christ suffered for all alike, just as much for those who will be finally lost, as for those who will be saved. But the lost will all be punished at last for their own sins. The trouble arises from a misapprehension of the position of Christ as our substitute. The idea seems to be generally entertained that Christ in his own person suffered all the punishment due to the sins of all the saved, which they would themselves have endured had they been lost. This leaves those who believe in eternal misery to grapple with an insurmountable problem; and it leads to the most ultra Calvinism. The truth seems rather to be that Christ appeared before the law as an innocent victim to meet in behalf of others the sentence, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” The offering was voluntary, and therefore involved no injustice; it was from one of so exalted a position that God could accept it; and it was of such infinite value that the law could honorably relax its claims from all those who would accept of it, even if all the world should do so. But we have seen from the type that the removal of sin from the penitent did not cancel the sin itself but only transferred it to some other object. The forgiveness was relative not absolute; that is, as related to the sinner it was forgiven, but the sin itself was considered still in existence to be disposed of in some other way. Christ has done for us in fact what the ancient offering did for the sinner in figure; that is, he has provided a medium through which sin with its guilt may be removed from us and transferred to some other party. Thus we can be saved, but the sin must meet its just desert in some other quarter. Let us now consider where this, in the case of the sinner, would naturally fall. Sin did not have its origin with mankind. They were not the original agents of this evil, but were seduced and led away under the power of temptation by another. And this we apprehend to be the difference between the condition of men and that of Satan and his angels. With the one sin had its origin; and an outbreak so unprovoked and causeless could have no forgiveness. It would not be safe to re-instate to favor those with whom such a course could originate. But with the other, with men, sin was an evil into which they were led by another party; hence their case could be commiserated, and provision be made for their restoration. Sin may therefore be represented as a partnership business. Satan is the senior party, the sinner the junior. The latter having been seduced into that position, is allowed under certain conditions, to leave the company and step out from under the obligations of the business. Upon whom then will they fall? Upon the only remaining member of the firm, the instigator of the whole business, the senior partner, Satan. If the sinner chooses to maintain the partnership in that illegitimate business, he can do so, and receive in his own person at last the punishment of his deeds. But it is in his power, if he so desires, to leave his present relation, unite himself to Christ, and leave his former business with him who is primarily responsible for it. And this is what we are taught by the doctrine of the scape-goat. The sinner goes free, and Satan receives the sins he has incited the sinner to commit back upon his own head, to answer therefor in the settlement which he at last must meet. Viewing in this light the work of Satan among mankind, it is evident that the matter has been so overruled that he has been playing a losing game, in seducing men to sin. It would have been far better for him if he had done nothing of the kind. But having entered upon this work, we see that he has a personal interest of the most powerful kind to induce him to hold persons in sin to the last; for then they receive the punishment for their own personal sins which he otherwise must suffer. And every one who escapes from his power and secures salvation through Christ, adds an additional weight to his accumulating load of woe. And it must strike every one as right and consistent that this should be so. The sinner has been seduced into sin, but he repents. Yet standing back of the scene, there is one who is the primary author and instigator of all, the inciting agent in every sinner’s deeds; and when the transgressor awakes to the true nature of his course, and sees the enormity of his crimes, and seeks to put away his sins, what could be more fitting than that they should fall back upon the head of him who first gave birth to sin, and who has fostered the growth of every branch from that baleful root. In this, the decision of every right-minded intelligence must be, that God is just, and Satan receives no more than his due deserts. Satan, having thus received the load of sins from which the righteous have become free, and being confined to this desolate earth, is reserved to the day of perdition. The thousand years at length expire, the lake of fire prepared, for the devil and his angels, appears. They are cast therein, and all the wicked in league with them, share the same fate. Then every sin ever committed is punished, and in the persons of the wicked, evil angels and Satan, it perishes forever. The Restitution is still exceedingly annoyed at the union existing both in sentiment and practice among S. D. Adventists, and in a recent number makes another attempt to show that facts are not facts, or, in other words, that we are changing our expositions when we are not, and that we are at variance on points where we most fully agree. It asks why Eld. Waggoner's work on the Law is now omitted from our list of publications. For the very good reason, we answer, that the edition was long ago exhausted, and it has since been out of print. Did the Restitution never have any of the editions of its works run out of print, by being sold out and thus exhausted? Or is there so little demand for the works which it publishes, that when an edition is once issued, it lasts forever! We are happy to say that Eld. Waggoner has re-written his work on the Law; it has already appeared in the Review; and we hope to see it in book form in due time. But the principal object of the present effort of the Restitution is to array Eld. Waggoner and the writer against each other. It refers to our late article on the Two Covenants, in which we show that the ten commandments were not the old covenant, then quotes from the work of Eld. W., to show that the ten commandments were the old covenant; a position which Eld. W. has never held nor advocated since he became an observer of the seventh day. The quotation given is this: “These commandments [the ten173 commandments] are all that were comprehended in the expressions, ‘Obey my voice,’ and ‘keep my covenant,’ as we have seen that these constituted the covenant which he spake with his voice and wrote on two tables of stone; and it is said in Deut. 5:22, ‘He added no more.’” Now this is exactly what we said in the article above referred to; namely, that God had a covenant antedating the covenant made with Israel; that that was called his covenant; that this was the ten commandments, the covenant commanded, not the covenant made. The two are just as distinct as any two objects can be, as both Eld. W. and myself have held, and still do hold. Yet the Restitution holds this up as a great contradiction between Smith and Waggoner, and asks which the S. D. A. people will follow; whereas, if in all other things we shall always be able to agree as fully as we do in this, there will be no need of any prayer in our behalf that we may be one. Now our heading applies; and we just wish to say that if people will not or cannot examine subjects more carefully than the Restitution has examined this matter, if they will not or cannot go any deeper below the surface than it has done in this instance, it is no wonder that the Sabbath truth and its kindred doctrines, which are as clear as the noon-day sun, are still before their clouded vision but a mass of mist and moonshine. But this state of things denotes a condition of the head or heart sincerely to be commiserated. U. S. DEDICATION AT ROCHESTER, MICH.
By Uriah Smith
This meeting was held according to appointment, Nov. 18 and 19. The brethren of the Rochester church have, at considerable labor and expense, which they have assumed with a commendable spirit of self-sacrifice and devotion, moved their church building from where it was first erected, some years ago, and rebuilt it in the pleasant and enterprising village of Rochester. They have secured a fine location, and the church, as now fitted up, affords an exceedingly pleasant and comfortable place of worship, nearly equal to any in the place. Commencing Friday evening, seven meetings were held, closing Sunday evening, besides social meetings and several sessions of the Tract and Missionary Society. The dedication services were held Sunday, at 10:30 A. M. Unfavorable weather, and other special services in the place, reduced the attendance from without below what was expected, but there was a good representation of the citizens of the place, and all things considered, the occasion was a very satisfactory one. Elds. Haskell, Lawrence, and Lamson were present to assist in the services. In dedicating the place of worship which they had prepared, to the service of the Lord, the church also dedicated themselves anew to him, this being after all the matter of real importance, and entered into a covenant with the Lord and each other, which, if they will carry out, their own spiritual prosperity will be assured, and a gathering influence will be exerted through all that community in behalf of the truth. Quite a number of brethren and sisters were in from adjoining churches, who seemed to enter heartily into the spirit of the occasion. The cause in Oakland County has, in past years, labored under some adverse influences, which have hindered its advancement. But these are passing away, and with these, prejudice is fast disappearing. The brethren there think it a good time now for a course of lectures to be given in their new house of worship, and are anxious for this to be done. We think such lectures might be given with good prospects for the most cheering results. We trust a light has now been established in R. which will shine with ever-increasing luster till the end. WHAT THE METHODIST DISCIPLINE SAYS.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
I have read the Methodist discipline through several times, and always with much profit, not for the sound doctrine it teaches, but for the good practical advice it gives. No one can read it now without being forcibly impressed with the fact that this once devoted church has now terribly apostatized from its original standard. Take the following upon dress, once strictly enforced in that church:— “Ques. Should we insist on the rules concerning dress?” “Ans. By all means. This is no time to encourage superfluity in dress. Therefore, let all our people be exhorted to conform to the spirit of the apostolic precept, not to adorn themselves with ‘gold, or pearls, or costly array.’ 1 Tim. 2:9.” Our own people will do well to read and heed this. Here is also some good advice about singing; but popular choirs have about superseded all this. May we never do the same. “THE SPIRIT AND TRUTH OF SINGING.
“Q. How shall we guard against formality in singing?” “A. 1. Choose such hymns as are proper for the occasion, and do not sing too much at once; seldom more than four or five verses. “2. Let the tune be suited to the sentiment, and do not suffer the people to sing too slow. “3. In every society let due attention be given to the cultivation of sacred music. “4. Let one or more be chosen in each society to lead the singing. “5. As singing is a part of divine worship in which all ought to unite, therefore exhort every person in the congregation to sing, not one in ten only.” Here follows some most excellent advice to ministers. I hope all our own ministers will read it and lay it to heart and carry it out. Our success would be much greater than it is if we would. “RULES FOR A PREACHER’S CONDUCT.
“Q. 1. What are the directions given to a preacher?” “A. 1. Be diligent. Never be unemployed; never be triflingly employed. Never trifle away time; neither spend any more time at any place than is strictly necessary. “2. Be serious. Let your motto be, Holiness to the Lord. Avoid all lightness, jesting, and foolish talking. “3. Converse sparingly, and conduct yourself prudently with women. (1 Tim. 5:2.) “4. Take no step toward marriage without first consulting with your brethren. “5. Believe evil of no one without good evidence; unless you see it done, take heed how you credit it. Put the best construction on everything. You know the judge is always supposed to be on the prisoner’s side. “6. Speak evil of no one; because your word, especially, would eat as doth a canker. Keep your thoughts within your own breast till you come to the person concerned. “7. Tell every one under your care what you think wrong in his conduct and temper, and that lovingly, plainly, and as soon as may be; else it will fester in your heart. Make all haste to cast the fire out of your bosom. “8. Avoid all affectation. A preacher of the gospel is the servant of all. “9. Be ashamed of nothing but sin. “10. Be punctual. Do everything exactly at the time. And do not mend our rules, but keep them; not for wrath, but conscience’ sake. “11. You have nothing to do but to save souls; therefore, spend and be spent in this work; and go always, not only to those that want you, but to those that want you most. “Observe! it is not your business simply to preach so many times, and to take care of this or that society, but to save as many sinners as you can;—to bring as many sinners as you can to repentance, and with all your power to build them up in that holiness without which they cannot see the Lord. And remember a Methodist preacher is to mind every point, great and small, in the Methodist Discipline. Therefore, you will need to exercise all the sense and grace you have. “12. Act in all things, not according to your own will, but as a son in the gospel. As such, it is your duty to employ your time in the manner in which we direct: In preaching and visiting from house to house; and in reading, meditation, and prayer. Above all, if you labor with us in the Lord’s vineyard, it is needful you should do that part of the work which we advise, at those times and places which we judge most for his glory. “Q. 2. Are there any smaller advices that might be of use to us?” “A. Perhaps these: 1. Be sure never to disappoint a congregation. 2. Begin at the time appointed. 3. Let your whole deportment be serious, weighty, and solemn. 4. Always suit your subject to your audience. 5. Choose the plainest text you can. 6. Take care not to ramble, but keep to your text, and make out what you take in hand. 7. Take care of anything awkward or affected, either in your gesture, phrase, or pronunciation. 8. Do not usually pray extempore above eight or ten minutes (at most) without intermission. 9. Frequently read and enlarge upon a portion of Scripture; and let young preachers often exhort without taking a text. 10. Always avail yourselves of the great festivals, by preaching on the occasion. “THE DUTY OF PREACHERS TO GOD, THEMSELVES, AND ONE ANOTHER.
“Q. 1. What is the duty of a preacher?” “A. 1. To preach. 2. To meet the societies and classes. 3. To visit the sick. “Q. 2. How shall a preacher be qualified for his charge?” “A. By walking closely with God, and having his work greatly at heart; and by understanding and loving discipline, ours in particular. “Q. 3. Do we sufficiently watch over each other?” “A. We do not. Should we not frequently ask each other, Do you walk closely with God? Have you now fellowship with the Father and the Son? At what hour do you rise? Do you punctually observe the morning and evening hours of retirement? Do you spend the day in the manner which the Conference advises? Do you converse seriously, usefully, and closely? To be more particular: Do you use all the means of grace yourself, and enforce the use of them on all other persons? They are either instituted or prudential. “1. Prayer: private, family, and public; consisting of deprecation, petition, intercession, and thanksgiving. Do you use each of these? Do you forecast daily, wherever you are, to secure time for private devotion? Do you practice it everywhere? Do you ask everywhere, Have you family prayer? Do you ask individuals, Do you use private prayer, every morning and evening in particular? “2. Searching the Scriptures, by “(1.) Reading: constantly, some part of every day; regularly, all the Bible in order; carefully, with notes; seriously, with prayer before and after; fruitfully, immediately practicing what you learn there. “(2.) Meditating: At set times. By rule. “(3.) Hearing: Every opportunity. With prayer before, at, after. Have you a Bible always about you? “3. The Lord’s Supper: Do you use this at every opportunity? With solemn prayer before? With earnest and deliberate self-devotion? “4. Fasting: Do you use as much abstinence and fasting every week as your health, strength, and labor will permit? “5. Christian conference: Are you convinced how important and how difficult it is to order your conversation aright? Is it always in grace? Seasoned with salt? Meet to minister grace to the hearers? Do you not converse too long at a time? Is not an hour commonly enough? Would it not be well always to have a determined end in view? And to pray before and after it? “II. Prudential means we may use either as Christians, as Methodists, or as Preachers. “1. As Christians: What particular rules have you in order to grow in grace? What acts of holy living? “2. As Methodists: Do you never miss your class? “3. As preachers: Have you thoroughly considered your duty? And do you make a conscience of executing every part of it? Do you meet every society and their leaders? “These means may be used without fruit. But there are some means which cannot: namely, watching, denying ourselves, taking up our cross, exercise of the presence of God. “1. Do you steadily watch against the world? Yourself? Your besetting sin? “2. Do you deny yourself every useless pleasure of sense? Imagination? Honor? Are you temperate in all things? Instance in food: (1) Do you use only that kind and that degree which is best both for body and soul? Do you see the necessity of this? (2) Do you eat no more at each meal than is necessary? Are you not heavy or drowsy after dinner? (3) Do you use only that kind, and that degree of drink, which is best both for your body and soul? (4) Do you choose and use water for your common drink? And only take wine medicinally or sacramentally? “3. Wherein do you take up your cross daily? Do you cheerfully bear your cross, however grievous to nature, as a gift of God, and labor to profit thereby? “4. Do you endeavor to set God always before you? To see his eye continually fixed upon you?” “Never can you use these means but a blessing will ensue. And the more you use them, the more you will grow in grace.” This is just what we all ought to do, and must do, if we prosper in the Lord. [The following article from the Youth’s Companion is a careful digest of the present political relations of Turkey and Russia, and as such is worth preserving by all who would have clear views in reference to the painfully interesting “Eastern Question.” G. W. A.] Let us recall three facts. One is, that Constantinople, the present capital of Turkey, was the seat of the Greek church, of which Russia is now the head, before the Turks invaded Europe. The second is, that a large portion of the inhabitants of Turkey are not only Christians, but are Sclaves, that is, of the same race and blood as the great body of the Russians themselves. The third fact to be kept in mind is, that for two centuries the Russians have coveted Constantinople, for two reasons; because she has her ambition that that city should once more be the capital of the Greek church, and because she desires to be a great naval power. Now the possession of Constantinople would give her the command, not only of the Black Sea, but also of the Eastern Mediterranean. Peter the Great left it as an injunction on the Czars who should succeed him, to conquer Constantinople; and this has accordingly been the aim of the Czars ever since. The Crimean war was the result of an attempt to make this conquest on the part of the Czar Nicholas; but England and France came to the Sultan’s rescue, and Russian ambition was checked by the fall of Sebastopol. Russia still covets Constantinople, and is believed to be, at this moment, taking advantage of Turkey’s difficulties with that end in view. She has encouraged the rebellions in Bosnia and Bulgaria, and undoubtedly urged Servia to declare war against Turkey, and the Servian army is full of Russian officers and soldiers. But what concern has England, so far distant, in this trouble between Russia and Turkey? What cares she whether Russia takes Constantinople, or what becomes of the Sultan’s rule? She has two reasons for being deeply interested in the quarrel. In the first place, England is the foremost naval power in the world. She boasts that her navy is the greatest, and that her fleets rule every sea. She dreads to see Russia in possession of the Bosphorus, with a great port at Constantinople, rising to be a rival naval power. But she has a yet more powerful reason than this. England rules over the great empire of India. She is most anxious to maintain that rule, and will fight to the last to maintain it. Now Russia has been for years approaching India with her troops by way of Central Asia; and now her armies are almost in sight of the Indian frontier. There is little doubt that Russia is ambitious to possess India, as well as Constantinople. Well, it happens that the nearest route for England to India is through the Mediterranean, and by the Suez Canal. Suppose, then, that the Russians had Constantinople. Her fleets could sail freely on the Mediterranean, and would prove an immense obstacle in the way of English ships going to India. She might be able to cut off English communication with India by this nearest route altogether. In case of a war, then, we should see the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean stopping the way of the English, while with her armies in Central Asia she made an attack on India. It is mainly this fear of losing India, and of Russia’s getting it, that impels England to sustain the Sultan, and to resist a Russian conquest of Constantinople; thus she fought for Turkey in the Crimean war, and will probably fight for her again, if the worst comes to the worst. Austria has a deep interest in the Eastern problem, though which side she would take in the event of war is doubtful. Her empire is composed of several races which do not live very amicably together under one rule. Within her limits are Germans, Magyars, or Hungarians, Czechs, and Sclaves. Each of these races distrusts the others, and fears that one of the others will gain the ascendancy in the empire. The Austrian Sclaves border upon the Servians and Bosnians, who are also Sclaves. Austria is afraid of the latter’s becoming independent, or part of Russia, for then she might lose her own Sclavic population. So Austria has always sided with Turkey, and would be very likely to do so now. Besides, Austria would not like to see Russia become more powerful, and become mistress of the Danube. Neither Germany nor Italy have a direct interest in the Eastern difficulty; their course, in case of a war, would be dictated by their alliances, and the gain they might expect from the promises of a power—probably Russia—in return for their aid. Both would be inclined to favor Russia; for Germany desires Belgium, Holland, and Denmark, and Italy craves a part of the Austrian Tyrol; and Russia would probably consent to aid in fulfilling these ambitions.