WHERE TWO OR THREE ARE MET TOGETHER.
By Christian Union
WHEN only two or three are present, is it worth while to have the meeting? This is a question which is often asked by the minister, or his deacon, or by the two or three, and sometimes discouragement gets the better of faith, and the very ones who for their loyalty and effort ought to have been rewarded with sermon or address, or whatever the expected provision was to be, are sent empty away. We believe it is always best to hold the meeting that has been appointed, even if there is only an audience of one. Two incidents have lately come to our knowledge which we proceed to narrate in illustration of this thought. Not many days since a missionary meeting was appointed for one of the wealthiest congregations of Boston's Back Bay. A foreign missionary was to be present and speak of his work. The evening came. Unfortunately it was the evening of a great and overpowering attraction elsewhere, and a congregation of only about twenty persons assembled. The pastor was more than disappointed; he was disgusted. The missionary, used as he was to impediments, would have preferred to proceed, but the pastor had lost all heart. It was no use, he said, in that great church, to hold a missionary meeting with only twenty persons, and no meeting was held. The twenty people who had come went away. Now, among those twenty people, as we happen to know—we cannot believe that the minister in question knew it—were, first, a lady, the near relative of a very distinguished official who sustained very close and important relations to the foreign country represented by the missionary who was to speak, and who had come from a considerable distance in order to furnish herself with materials for exerting a quiet influence in behalf of the mission; second, the distinguished pastor of a neighboring church, whose congregation, a Sunday or two previous, had made an offering of between $4,000 and $5,000 for foreign missions, and who certainly was in a favorable position to influence the giving of more; and third, a wealthy and liberal Boston merchant, who out of his own pocket is now building a church in one of the suburbs of Boston, which is to cost probably not less than $150,000. These were three of the twenty people who came to that missionary meeting, and for whom it was thought not worth while to hold it. Was it not an unfortunate mistake? The late Bishop Randall was wiser and more fortunate on a somewhat similar occasion, which forms our second incident. He was announced to preach in an Eastern church in behalf of his missionary work in Colorado. The evening came and proved dreadfully stormy. Only six persons appeared. For a moment the good Bishop hesitated. Finally he concluded that it was his duty to carry out his appointment; the question of congregation was none of his business. Accordingly the service went on, and he preached his sermon to the six people. In the collection which followed was an offering alone of $200. This amazed him. The next day he received a note from a gentleman asking him to call at such an office. The Bishop responded. "I am the one," said the gentleman, "who gave you the $200 last night. But after getting home I did not feel quite satisfied with doing that. I propose to make the sum up to $1,000; and here is my check for the balance." What Bishop Randall felt at this we will not venture to say, but he never after had any doubts as to his duty in the face of a small congregation. And if this article should meet the eye of other clergymen who have similar doubts, we trust it may help to remove them. Among the two or three who gather together of a stormy evening may be the very one to whom God has appointed you a messenger.—Christian Union.