p. 92 | Untitled article by M. W. HOWARD.

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · July 23, 1867

DOES THE REVIEW SEEK THE IMPROVEMENT OF ITS WRITERS?

By M. W. HOWARD.

I think it does. It is a silent teacher however, upbraiding not the lack of knowledge; but nevertheless an effectual teacher, leading onward and upward, those who are willing “to follow on to know the Lord.”

Who has not in times gone by, often had their attention directed to some point, desirous of greater information, and observed how soon that needed information would develop, either from reading or from social intercourse. How gratefully that instruction is welcomed, when it comes so unostentatiously, that our own lack of knowledge is not exposed, thereby wounding that self-love inherent in every breast. Two little instances of the kind now occur to mind and I will go into detail to illustrate what I mean.

Long years ago in my school-days I was reading a paragraph in which occurred the word, sword. In pronouncing it, I gave the full sound to the w (which I still prefer.) The teacher made no correction to interrupt me; but when the class was through, he made several general corrections among which was this—“The word sword was pronounced sword which is a very vicious pronunciation.” Few of the class noticed it, perhaps, or knew to whom the correction applied, but to my sensitive heart the word vicious so grated, that its memory is daguerreotyped there forever.

Not long since in penning an article for the readers of the Review, I used the expression, “The great arch-angel who kept not his first estate in Heaven,” &c. I did this in ignorance, having often heard of the “arch-angels”—yea, with some a common favorite expression of prayer in addressing God is, “Thou before whom angels bow and arch-angels veil their faces.” Sometimes in hearing this, I have advanced so far as to query, “From what authority comes the last assertion?” for I have always questioned the propriety of informing God, (I speak reverently) of what he has no where informed us.

When the article was published the prefix arch was dropped. There was significance here, I was confident; but what, came not to my dull comprehension. Still the absence of the little prefix made me think; and when enlightenment came it was indelibly fixed. But did I solve the little problem alone? Oh no! A kind judicious teacher came to the rescue, giving the desired intelligence through a few lines inwrought into an editorial, showing us that Christ is the arch-angel and there is but one arch-angel;—even as the name would indicate, but for my ignorantly preconceived opinions. The chord was struck and it has vibrated to many a pleasing and profitable thought.

It is thus the Review seeks the improvement of its writers, as well as its readers. And last but not least do I feel another help. We may not seek after praise, but who is not encouraged by a degree of approbation? Indeed this is needful to our full development, and very gratefully do I acknowledge the measure of this granted me from the readers of the Review.

M. W. HOWARD.