trine, holding the whole body in the bond of peace and in righteousness of life. I speak from experience; for so harmonious has been our entire history, so without root of bitterness springing up to disturb our peace for half a century, that I think I can safely challenge any community to bring a like history for a like period. From first to last I have been sustained by a kind and forbearing people. There has been a uniform and cheerful acquiescence in all that has been suggested, and a helping hand in all that has been undertaken. To have borne with the infirmities of one man for half a century without stirring up discontent and opposition; to have listened to the same teachings from one mind; to have submitted to the ruling of one rector without a ripple of disaffection for fifty years, in these days of constant change and disquietude, ought really to make this congregation of St. Mark's a worthy example of imitation throughout the land; but I think it may be repeated wherever a long pastorate can be found.

In all that I have said I have drawn from my own experience as to the blessings, the joys, and the benefits to pastor and people of a long pastorate; and I think those who have enjoyed a like prolonged rectorship will agree with me.

There is another strong argument in favor of remaining in one parish. After a clergyman has remained long enough to establish his good character and to get thoroughly acquainted with his congregation and they with him, strong attachments grow up between him and them, the young and the old. Year by year the bond grows stronger and stronger. The pastor becomes interlinked with all their families as the one who has been with them in their joys and sorrows; the one who has baptized their children; the one who has married and buried members of their families. He is to them as a father and as a confidential friend, and not a generation will have passed before there will be a strong desire to have that same pastor perform all official acts for them

selves, their children, and their children's children. Now when such a pastor breaks the ties that bind him to his flock, who shall compensate them for their loss? And can he ever be requited for the breach of such bonds?

We only wish that a larger portion of our clergy would practise the teaching of the Catechism, to "learn to do their duty in that state of life to which it shall please God to call them." We wish that more of them would stand in the lot in which God's Providence has placed them, and learn by experience the practical meaning of being shepherds of the flock. We wish they might know by fruition all the joys and rewards, spiritual, social, and temporal that come to a long and faithful shepherding of one fold. The reaping of the spiritual barvest from their own vineyard is the richest reward this side the eternal world.

Pauline Tact.

BY REV. O. P. EACHES, HIGHTSTOWN, N. J.

PAUL was a man of large mental and moral dimensions. He was a born leader of men. He may have been "Paul the little," in bodily stature-he was a genius in all the qualities that command the respect of men. There was also the endowment of the Holy Spirit, so that he was an inspired apostle of Christ. And yet with all his natural and acquired powers there was an attention to the details of his life and work that we usually associate only with the commonplace life.

The possession of ten talents, the power of leadership, the endowments of the Spirit did not render needless the possession and exercise of a wonderful degree of tact. He did not press his way to the front simply by sheer force of will and ability. If we look at his life and writings we discern his inspiration shining through everywhere, and alongside of this his tact, his knowledge of men, his power of controlling men.

Genius and piety if dwelling alone in a man will be a partial failure. Tact, an insight into the minds of men, the study of men, the skilful approach to men that comes from a knowledge of men are essential to the highest success. In the address on Mar's Hill Paul would not have struck his hearers full in the face by saying, "I perceive that you are full of superstition." This would have closed the doors of their attention against him. He could say, "I perceive that you are reverent, devout." This would win their attention and respect. A plain, blunt truth spoken in bluntness may irritate and embitter. Truth must be wrapped up in tactful words and manner.

In his letter to the Corinthians he begins by uttering words of praise. In this he has the mind of Christ, as we see in the letters to the seven churches. After he praises he brings against them his accusation of wrongdoing. His inspiration did not cause him to forget the fundamental laws of human nature and the method of approach to men. The words, I praise you, naturally precede the words, I condemn you.

The Apostolic Council in Acts xv. was a critical time in the history of the Church. To human appearance, it was never in more peril. If the Council had sided with Peter the Church of Jesus Christ would have been simply a Jewish sect. Christianity would not have been an enthusiastic conquering force, but an enfeebled and crippled truth walking with crutches. The truth of Christ was with Paul in this controversy. Paul knew the strength of his position, but he was not willing to trust the result to the enthusiasm and the bitterness that arise in the public discussion. He therefore had a private conference before the Council with the pillars of the Church and the leaders of thought (Gal. ii. 2). This is not an exhibition of cowardice, or the arts of the politician, but the wise forethought and tact of a man who has the truth and desires to win all men to its acceptance, Paul had wonderful power over

men because he knew how to handle them.

In 2 Cor. ix. 3 we find Paul endeav oring to secure a large contribution from the churches in Greece. He reminds them that he had spoken of their liberality to the Macedonian churches. He urges them not to disappoint him and them by narrowness of heart and littleness of contribution. Duty is held up before them. They ought to give, because Jesus Christ gave all of Himself. There is also the tact of a man who knows how to influence men.

Paul was not a man who held the truth lightly. He kept hold of the truth with a firm grasp. He was not a trimmer, or a timeserver; and yet what a marvellous power he had to adapt himself to men! In 1 Cor. ix. 20 we see how he became al things to all men that he might win them. He could stand like a rock when duty impelled him. He would not circumcise Titus; under different circumstances, that the work might not be hindered, he circumcised Timothy. Duty kept Paul firm in the truth; tact showed him how to conform the truth in a helpful and unconstrained way to the conditions of all. Paul did not understand the meaning of underhandedness or finesse. He did not walk in crooked ways. He was placed in trust with truth to see that it was not injured. He was put in trust also with men to see that they were brought to know and love the truth; and therefore he studied how he might in the best way bring the truth and men together.

We may not get up to the level of Paul's genius; we cannot share in his inspiration; we may walk in the footsteps of Paul's tact. His life was made up of deep piety, native genius, the endowments of the Holy Spirit, plus tact, care in the conduct of his life and the use of his powers.

John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay were both leaders of men, both incorruptibly honest; both had the welfare of their country at heart. Both had genius. Adams in refusing a request

rael's descent into Egypt, Paul's statement is clearly irreconcilable with the other texts. The explanation is to be sought in the apostle's use of the Septuagint, which in Ex, xii. 40 reads, "The sojourning of the sons of Israel, which they sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was 430 years." Whether Paul knew that this statement did not accord with the Hebrew text or with the facts mentioned above, we have no means of knowing. The most probable supposi tion, I think, is that he simply adopted the number given in the version of the Old Testament which his readers used, inasmuch as it made no difference with his argument whether the time was 430 years, or, what is most probable, about 650.

The simple explanation of the admission of such discrepancies into the pages of the Bible is to be found in the principle that the Inspiring Spirit did not interfere with the human factor so far as to correct unimportant details of history or of other subjects not directly related to the plan of salvation.

The acknowledgment of this principle cannot detract an iota from the value of the Bible for those who go to its holy pages for salvation; but, on the other hand, its candid application would save the world from a vast deal of bad exegesis. F. D. TUBBS.

PUEBLA, MEX.

Should a Church Ever Contract a Debt?

A GOOD many tell us that no church should. They say that it is dishonoring to God and a curse to the Church. But, like many other questions, there are two sides to this one. It depends a

great deal on circumstances as to whether a church should be in debt at all, and also as to how largely in debt it should get; and, still further, how long it should remain in debt. Another element to be considered is: What are the prospects for paying the debt, should one be contracted? If a new edifice be needed, the church should so plan that, if possible, no debt shall remain after dedication. But it is often the case that, after using all precaution and exerting every energy, there is a debt. Is this a curse or a blessing? That depends upon the largeness of the debt, and also the attitude of the Church toward it. If the debt be comparatively small, it may prove a blessing, provided the Church will continue to exert itself in paying it. The members will pray over the matter, and this will do them good. They will exercise economy and the spirit of consecration, and this, too, will do them good. Sometimes a debt will draw out the best powers of a man to cancel it. Years ago there was a farmer neighbor of mine, who had during the first twelve or fifteen years of his farming worked farms on shares, and at the end of each year he came out about even. Then he bought a farm, running in debt for the greater part of it. But he resolved that he would pay for it, and in a few years he did. He often said that if he had not run in debt for that farm he never would have come to own one. His debt stimulated him to special thoughtfulness and activity. He had one definite object before him-that of paying that debt. I should say, then, that a church may sometimes contract a debt, but they should not fool with it. C. H. WETHERBE.

By the one hundred and forty-nine houses not inspected, alluded to in the above analysis, are meant what are known as first-class apartment houses, where those in affluent circumstances reside. Nothing need be added to the above figures to emphasize the truth that New York is a homeless city; but a very insignificant portion of her population may be said to have homes of their own. A tenement cannot be called a home in any true sense of the word. According to the law's definition of it, it is "a house occupied by more than three families living independently and doing their cooking on the premises." A tenement is simply a hold, as the word implies; but the name home" suggests sweet and sanctifying influences-influences which are rendered almost impossible by the circumstances surrounding the tenement. That privacy of the family which is an essential of the true home life is awanting of necessity where two or three or more families are under the same roof. Not to speak of the sanitary aspects of the question, there are moral considerations which cannot be overlooked. Well wrote Mr. Edward Crapsey some years since in his book on "The Nether Side of New York,"

The civic virtues decay in a community where, in any true sense of the

word, one half of the people have no home at all." Hidden beneath the figures given above are all manner of unspeakable things-nameless vices, woful miseries, abominable oppressions. Even the eyes of men see enough to blind them with tears. What must the eyes of the all-seeing God behold! What opportunities here for those manifestations of affection which have so much to do with making life worth the living? What opportunities here for the proper up-bringing of children? What inspiration here to any true ambition? The wonder is that profligacy is not more open and shameless than it is; that virtue can endure at all.

It is this condition of things which confronts the Church of Christ with one of its most perplexing problems today-a problem which needs to be solved soon or it will become forever insoluble. That problem is, How to reach these "holds" and make them homes of the Christ, where His saving, uplifting, sanctifying influences shall be known. It certainly will not be by standing off at arm's length and endeavoring to "communicate" without contact. Love requires a visible embodiment as truly as does gravitation. There is no such thing as love in the abstract. There is a most suggestive thought in our use of the word " touching." To be touched by the miseries of another means to come into contact with them, to be where they can lay hold upon one. This was one of the lessons which our blessed Master taught by His example when on earth. He laid His hands upon those who were in trouble with any complaint, and healed them. The mere preaching of sermons, the mere giving of alms, the mere talking about what ought to be done-these, while necessary, are not enough. The ringing of church bells, the establishment of coffee-houses, the providing of opportunities for social pleasure or intellectual improvement or moral advancement, all well enough in their way, are inadequate without the personal exhibition of love, the personal