Of the story of Constantine having seen the cross in the sky, Milman says:—
“The silence not only of all contemporary history, but of Eusebius himself, in his Ecclesiastical History, gives a most dangerous advantage to those who altogether reject the story.” —History, p. 287.
Neander takes the same view of the case that is given by Whelpley above:—
“But the supposition of a miracle here, is one which has in itself nothing to recommend it, especially when we consider that the conversion, as it is called, of the Roman emperor, such as it really was, could in no wise possess the same significance in the sight of God, who respected not the person, but looked upon the heart alone, as an acceptable sacrifice, as it had in the eyes of men dazzled and deceived by outward show. In this particular way it is scarcely possible to conceive that a change of heart, which is the only change which deserves to be called a conversion, could have been wrought. Much rather might we presume that, in this way, the emperor would be misled to combine pagan superstition with a mere coloring of Christianity. And were we to judge of the end which this miracle was designed to subserve, by the general consequences of the emperor’s conversion on the Christian church within the Roman empire, it might be questioned whether these consequences were really so benign in their influence on the progress of the kingdom of God, as they were imagined to be, by those persons who, dazzled by outward show, saw in the external power and splendor of the Christian church a triumph of Christianity.”
And in this connection he gives an additional fact which is of great importance, namely, that the story was varied to suit the different tastes of the different classes in his army:—
“Pagans saw, in this case, the gods of the eternal city engaged to deliver them from the disgraceful yoke. Among them, accordingly, was circulated the legend of a heavenly army, seen in the air, and sent by the gods to the succor of Constantine. Among the Christians, on the other hand, the story was propagated of an appearance of the cross.”—Neander, vol. 2, p. 9.
This proves that it was not an appearance which the soldiers professed to see, but merely the story of an appearance, varied to suit the various superstitions of the parties and to give them confidence in their leader in battle.
Waddington gives a view of the question as comprehensive as it is concise:—
“In the first place, the story which we have shortly given, is related by no contemporary author except Eusebius; next it is related in his ‘Life of Constantine,’ and not in his ‘Ecclesiastical History;’ it is related in the year 338, or six and twenty years after the supposed appearance; it is related on the authority of Constantine alone, though it must have been witnessed by his whole army, and notorious throughout his whole empire; and lastly it was published after the death of Constantine. In an age wherein pious frauds had already acquired some honor, by a writer, who, respectable as he undoubtedly is, and faithful in most of his historical records, does not even profess those rigid rules of veracity which command universal credit; in a book which rather wears the character of a partial panegyric than of exact and scrupulous history—a flattering fable might be published and believed; but it can claim no place among the authentic records of history; and by writers whose only object is truth, it may very safely be consigned to contempt and oblivion.”—Church History, pp. 82, 83.
It should be noted that the influence of “Eusebius, the great church historian,” is brought to bear in favor of the story, but it is not related by Eusebius in his history, but only in his eulogy of Constantine, which is generally regarded as not worthy of credit.
Dr. Dowling, whose subject led him to a careful examination of this and other events in connection with Constantine’s career, says:—
“For my part I have no hesitation in regarding the whole as a fable. It was not till many years after it was said to have occurred, that Constantine related the story to Eusebius, and, in all probability, he did it then by the instigation of his superstitious mother, Helena, the celebrated discoverer of the wood of the true cross at Jerusalem, some 250 years after the destruction of that city, and all that it contained, and the disappearance of the identity of its very foundations, under the plowshare of the Roman conqueror, Vespasian. The subsequent life of Constantine furnished no evidence that he was a peculiar favorite of Heaven; and the results of his patronage of the church, eventually so disastrous to its purity and spirituality, are sufficient to prove that God would never work a miracle to accomplish such a purpose.”—History of Romanism, p. 31.
The story of the vision of the cross not only rests on the authority of Constantine alone, and was varied to suit different parties, but he said the vision was seen by his army, which is beyond all question a fabrication. No writer ever mentions such a thing; it was not a matter of current report, as says Mosheim:—
“For though Constantine says that his soldiers saw what he saw, yet Eusebius derived his information solely from the emperor, and he names no other witness. In his Ecclesiastical History, which afforded the fairest opportunity for introducing so important a matter, there is no mention of it whatever. This shows that when he wrote his history, that is, prior to the year 324, he was ignorant on the subject; and that it was not then generally a subject of conversation. Again, in his ‘Life of Constantine,’ he frankly acknowledges that this prodigy seems almost incredible; but that it would be wrong to question the emperor’s veracity, which is as much as saying, ‘I believe the facts were as I have stated, because my most gracious lord bids me believe them; but if another person had told them to me, I would not believe them.’”—Hist. Com., p. 475.
Eusebius professed to receive it from the emperor accompanied by an oath which Stanley does not consider of sufficient weight to prove it true:—
“That the emperor attested it on oath, as the historian tells us, is indeed no additional guarantee for the emperor’s veracity; because, like princes professing piety in modern times, he appears to have been in the constant habit of adding an oath to almost every asseveration.”
That the estimate which Stanley put upon Constantine’s oath is just, is shown by the following: He gave his solemn promise, and confirmed it by an oath, that if Licinius would resign his claims to the purple, he should be permitted to pass the remainder of his life in peace. And this promise and this oath were made not alone to Licinius, but also to his wife, Constantine’s own sister, in behalf of her husband. Yet for all this, only a little while after Licinius reached Thessalonica, the place appointed for his abode, he was foully murdered by Constantine’s order. And the crime was aggravated in its cruelty and perfidy by the circumstance that Licinius had already reached the allotted three score and ten years of age.—See Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, chapter 14, paragraph 38; and Encyc. Brit., art. Constantine.
And Mosheim further informs us that the artifice of inspiring the soldiers with confidence by means of pretended prodigies, was not peculiar to Constantine. Thus he says:—
“At the time the cross is said to have appeared to him, Constantine’s great solicitude most certainly was not to establish and extend the Christian religion, but to vanquish Maxentius. Besides, Constantine was not then himself a Christian; and he used this vision, not to aid the Christians, but to animate the soldiers.”
That it was “a military wile or stratagem,” he says, “receives some countenance from the example of a similar artifice employed by Licinius, for soon afterwards, when Licinius was about to engage in battle with Maximin, he pretended that an angel appeared to him by night and taught him a form of prayer, which, if his soldiers would repeat it, they would certainly gain the victory.”—Hist. Com., p. 473.
There is great question among authors as to whether there was any foundation at all for the story; some, willing to spare the reputation of Constantine and Eusebius, think that a dream or freak of a disordered imagination might have given rise to the report of the vision. Thus Mosheim:—
“Constantine was a vain man, and greedy of praise and glory, as his conduct shows; nor do his friends wholly deny it. I therefore think it will not be temerity to suppose he added somewhat to the truth; and perhaps he changed a mental and nocturnal vision into a day vision with the bodily eyes, for the sake of appearing great and favored of God in the estimation of the citizens, and particularly the bishops.”—Hist. Com., p. 476.
Socrates, who gives some credit to Eusebius, for it was easy to palm off such things in that age of “pious frauds,” states that Constantine was in great perplexity of mind when the vision was received:—
“While his mind was occupied on this subject, and he was hesitating what divinity’s aid he would invoke for the successful conduct of the war, it occurred to him that Diocletian had profited but little by the pagan deities, whom he had so sedulously sought to propitiate; but that his own father, Constantius, who had renounced the idolatrous worship of the Greeks, had passed through life far more prosperously. In this state of uncertainty, a preternatural vision, which transcends all description, appeared to him.”—Socrates’ Eccl. Hist., p. 3.
This statement of Socrates certainly gives an air of probability to the suggestion of Mosheim, in which others have concurred, that in his trouble and uncertainty the emperor had a dream, or that he was so highly wrought upon that the cross which the Christians so highly regarded was presented to his imagination as the means of triumph. And we can only reconcile the statements of historians with the supposition that a dream, which was supposed to be supernaturally given, was afterward converted into a miraculous vision. Thus Sozomen speaks as follows:—
“He regarded the cross with peculiar reverence, on account both of the power which it conveyed to him in war, and also of the divine manner in which the symbol had appeared to him.”—Sozomen History, p. 16.
These words are quite consistent with the idea that the cross was presented in a dream, which was supposed to be specially given of the Lord to lead him to reverence that cross. And on no other supposition can we understand the following testimonies:—
“Eusebius gives the narration on the sole authority of Constantine, who imagined that he had seen this cross; it was natural that in the troubled sleep of the emperor, on the eve of so eventful a battle, his dreams should be vivid, and their impression strong; but it is remarkable that Eusebius gives no evidence from the thousands of persons in the army, who must have seen it if it were really a miraculous display of divine power; neither Sozomen nor Ruffinus, who wrote so soon after, make any mention of it. And it has been thought that Eusebius, hearing the emperor narrate his dream, mistook him as narrating a fact, for Constantine always stated that he was influenced by a dream, in making use of the sign of the cross in his army.”—Foxe’s Acts and Movements of the Church, note, p. 59.
The Sunday Law Agitation.
By W. N. Glenn
Not long since, the pastor of a church in Oakland, Cal., delivered a discourse on the "Sabbath Question." Some of his frank admissions, as compared with the demands of Sunday law advocates, place that class in a rather anomalous position. But such considerations have very little weight in a fanatical clamor; a law is wanted, whether there be any reason for it or not.
The speaker said that the Sabbath (Sunday) question is rapidly coming to the front in California; that it has been trodden under foot and remanded to the rear; but it cannot be kept in the rear, because it is the very foundation of good society. God has raised it up, and it cannot, by man, be put down with impunity. All over the State there is a restlessness, not merely among religious people, but among people who have respect for good society. There is a feeling that a mistake has been made in putting down our Sabbath (referring to the repeal of the Sunday law), and that "the State should send after her Sabbath and bring it back."
Now, if the foregoing asseverations be true, the query arises, Wherefore so much effort on the part of the Ministerial Union of San Francisco and Oakland, and appeals to all the pastors in the State, to agitate the subject, in order to "create a sentiment"? If there already exists such a "restlessness" not only amongst religious people, but amongst all lovers of good society, to have the Sunday observed, wherein lies the urgent necessity of "creating a sentiment" in its favor? Why is it not observed? It would seem, from the positions above assumed, that the people are very anxious to do their religious duty with regard to Sunday, but cannot until there be a law enacted compelling them to do so. Surely such a state of affairs would be "restlessness" indeed.
But the speaker gravely claimed that the position of those who sought a Sunday law is not one of coercion, but of protection; and, furthermore, that it was not protection for the day, but for themselves. He admitted that "the day is not holy, nor better than any other day; only as we set it apart for holy use;" and argued that God's requirement was a seventh part of time.
Another query: If the Sunday law agitators do not want coercion, wherefore a penal law? There is a law already in force which gives ample protection to religious worship. But their action only a little more than two years ago, just before the repeal of the Sunday law, shows how much sincerity there is in that plea. Their determined aim then was to arrest and punish every one who did not close his business on Sundays, whether he interfered with any other person's privilege or not. At that time, their practical definition of "protection" was coercion to the full extent of the law, upon every class that the law would reach, without exception. That this is still the covert idea, was manifested in the language of the minister's prayer, on the occasion hereinbefore mentioned, that we might have a restoration of the Sunday law, "and even a more stringent one."
The admission that "the day is not holy, nor better than any other day," comes in strange contrast with the assertion that God has raised it up. We have on record but one account of God having set apart a day for a weekly Sabbath, and on that occasion he made the day holy—better than any of the other days; he "sanctified" it, he "hallowed" it, he "blessed" it. But the peculiarity of the Sunday is that it is no "better than any other day, only as we set it apart for a holy use." According to this logic, God has raised up an unhallowed day in opposition to his own "hallowed" and "sanctified" one, and calls upon man to compel himself, by a human law, to observe it. Verily man has "sought out many inventions." "Who hath required this at your hands?"
It was also claimed that "a large proportion of the people" want to be protected in the privileges of the Sabbath (Sunday); and the patriotic declaration was made that the poor man shall have a right to his Sabbath, and the State that denies that right is an oppressor. In this glow of sympathetic eloquence, the speaker made the exaggerated statement that the workingmen of California are in a state of worse slavery than ever existed in the Southern States. From this imaginary state of affairs, it was argued that "we must have certain laws;" and in a community of five persons two of them have inherent rights which must be protected against the opposition of the three.
"Must have law." "Shall have right to the Sabbath" (Sunday). Mark these expressions. When the claims of the seventh day—the Sabbath of the Lord—are presented, these Sunday preachers are shocked at the idea of law. They claim that God abolished his law and his Sabbath because they were "burdensome," a "yoke of bondage," etc., which no man could bear. What shall we say, then, that God failed in his effort to establish a Sabbath and a Sabbath law, and was obliged to delegate man to accomplish the purpose? God forbid! "Shall mortal man be more just than God?"
"God requires the seventh part of time." "The day is not holy." Mark these expressions also, for in them lies a specimen of man's justice. God plainly specified which seventh part he required, namely, the seventh day. Under the Sunday law, as history and experience has shown, that seventh part of time must be on the first day of the week, although the day be not holy. The advocates of this law claim that they do not want to coerce any one, but if any man wants to keep a seventh part of time upon the day that God appointed, he must do so at a cost of another seventh part in deference to an opposition institution. "No man can serve two masters." Again, if two persons in a community of five want to keep Sunday, the other three must do so too. But if the three want to observe the Sabbath of the Lord, they must pay tribute of another day for the "protection" of their two Sunday-keeping neighbors. "Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?"
The speaker congratulated Californians on the growing favor toward Sunday observance in the State, and said that "time must elapse before we can have our Sabbath as highly respected as it is in other States; but we have made good progress." He then added: "It is hard to be patient; but we must wait, but not long."
Wait for what? for the sentiment of the people to fully develop, which was represented as fairly gushing throughout the State in one grand demand for Sunday observance? No, not for that; for in another strain he sharply reprimanded his own people for their abuse of the day, and that, too, right here in Oakland, where it was admitted that "we have perfect quiet" so far as opposition is concerned. And judging from the tone of his appeal for their reformation in respect to the "very foundation of good society," the anticipated good time would seem to be a good way off, if approaching by that route. In fact these two positions of the speaker are decidedly hard to harmonize. We are therefore shut up to the conclusion that the matter regarding which "it is hard to be patient," and for which we are not long to wait, is the "more stringent law" for which prayer was so earnestly offered.
Just where lies the harm of treating as other days a day that is confessedly not holy, nor better than any other, is a problem which is at present hard to solve; but we may expect more light on the subject when the State shall "send after her Sabbath and bring it back." That event will supply a want that has been keenly felt in this State, namely, a pretext for Sunday-keeping.
"My Words."
By Epsilon
To REJECT the words of Jesus is to reject him. There are two ways of rejecting his words. One is to deny that he is the Son of God, and treat his words as those of a common man. The other is to say, "Lord, Lord," and then pervert his words so as to make them teach what he never taught. To thus pervert his teachings, is to make of him another Jesus, a rival of himself. He who perverts the words of Jesus in order to uphold "my church," denies him as positively as does the professed infidel.
"For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels." Luke 9: 26. "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." John 12: 47, 48. "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words. . . . He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings." John 14: 23, 24. "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Luke 6: 46.
These scriptures are too plain to be misunderstood. To reject the words of Jesus is to reject him. To say unto him, "Lord, Lord," as thousands are now doing, does not make men disciples. A disciple is a learner, and he who refuses to learn an unpopular truth has denied Jesus and his words. His saying, "Lord, Lord," does not help him.
EPSILON.
Christian Servitude.
By Methodist Recorder
LIFE is not only the time to save our souls, but also the time to serve the Lord. Salvation and service should go together. Every saved soul should be a serving soul. When Christ healed Peter's mother-in-law, she "arose and ministered unto him"—she at once began to serve him. And so should every one who is saved from his sins by the power of Christ. He should at once enter his service, and become an active worker in his vineyard. If Christ had nothing for men to do in the world after their conversion, he would at once take them to Heaven. But God contemplates more in the conversion of a sinner than simply the salvation of that one soul. He designs that he shall be a co-worker with him in the salvation of others. His command to every saved soul is, "Go work to-day in my vineyard." Begin at once. Do not put it off till to-morrow. There is work for every saved soul to do, that he can do better than any one else, and Christ requires him to do it. He will not recognize as his those who idle away their time, and do nothing to promote his glory and the advancement of his cause. A man may be converted, but if he does not begin at once to work for God, he will soon lose his sense of divine favor, and his interest in the cause of Christ.
Loudest When Least Is Said
The minister's remark that he always shouted loudest when he had the least to say was illustrative of much that we see in life—outside the ministry as well as in it. The consciousness of weakness and inefficiency produces in men a kind of frenzy that expends itself in explosives. The ruder people esteem it as a sign of greatness, but the more thoughtful observers know better. The still, small voice is often strongest—the one that has most of God in it.—Bible Banner.
A Society for Common Honesty
It was two and fifty years ago that Thomas Carlyle wrote in his journal that "a Society for the Diffusion of Common Honesty were the usefulest of all societies, could it take effect." Some people are of the same opinion to-day.
The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—APRIL 25.
Inheritance of the Saints.
PROMISES TO ABRAHAM.
1. When did the Lord first appear to Abraham?
“And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken: The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.” Acts 7:2.
2. What did he then say to him?
“And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee.” Acts 7:3.
3. To what place did Abraham go from Mesopotamia?
“Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.” Acts 7:4.
4. How long did Abraham stay in Charran (Haran)? Ib.
5. After the death of his father, where did he go? Ib.
6. Locate, as nearly as possible, all these places on the map.
7. Where do you find the record of these events of which Stephen speaks? Gen. 12:1–5.
8. How old was Abram when he went into the land of Canaan?
“So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.” Gen. 12:4.
9. How old was he when his father died?
10. When the Lord told Abram to leave his native country, what promise did he make?
“And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Gen. 12:2, 3.
11. What expression shows that this promise was not merely a local affair?
12. How extensive was it?
13. What will be the condition of the world when this promise meets its fulfillment?
14. Who are they who are blessed?
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.” Ps. 1:1, 2.
15. Then what will all the world do when this promise is fulfilled?
16. And when God’s will is thus perfectly performed, what will be on this earth?
“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven.” Matt. 6:10.
The answer to question 9 will be readily seen by those who connect Gen. 12:4 with Acts 7:4. He went out of Charran [or Haran] into Canaan when his father was dead, says Stephen. Moses says that he was seventy-five years old when he went into Canaan. So he was seventy-five years old when his father died.
From a single expression in the promise contained in Gen. 12:2, 3, we know that it was not a local affair. That expression is this: “In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” It embraces all the inhabitants of the earth. But it is not fulfilled until all the inhabitants of the earth are blessed. That condition does not now exist, and has never yet existed. Now we learn in Ps. 1:1, 2 who are blessed,—those who love and obey the law of God. Of course; if the curse came because of sin, the blessing will come only when there is obedience. Therefore, when this promise is fulfilled, every inhabitant of the earth will be delighting in the law of the Lord. In harmony with this are the words of Christ in his prayer (Matt. 6:10), showing that such a state exists only when the kingdom of God exists on earth. E. J. W.
AFTER they had drifted fourteen days, tossed up and down on the heaving waves of Adria, a weltering plaything for the gale, suddenly on the fourteenth night the sailors, amid the sounds of the long-continued storm, fancied that they heard the roar of breakers through the midnight darkness. Suspecting that they were nearing some land, and perhaps even detecting that white phosphorescent gleam of a surf-beat shore which is visible so far through even the blackest night, they dropped the lead and found that they were in twenty-fathom water. Sounding again, they found that they were in fifteen fathoms. Their suspicions and fears were now turned to certainty, and here was the fresh danger of having their desolate hulk driven irresistibly upon some iron coast. In the face of this fresh peril the only thing to be done was to drop anchor. Having done this, they could only yearn with intense desire for the dawn of day.
All through the remaining hours of that long wintry night, they stood face to face with the agony of death. In its present condition, the leak constantly gaining on them, the waves constantly deluging them with spray, the vessel might at any moment sink, even if the anchors held. But they did not know, what we know, that those anchors had dropped into clay of extraordinary tenacity, which, indeed, was the sole circumstance between them and hopeless wreck. Gradually through the murky atmosphere of rain and tempest, the grim day began to dawn upon the miserable crew. Almost as soon as they could see the dim outlines of their own faces, haggard and ghastly with so much privation and so many fears, they observed that they were anchored off a low point, over which the sea was curling with a huge and most furious surf. Ignorant that this was Point Koura, on the northeast side of Malta, and not recognizing a single landmark on the featureless shore, the only thought of the selfish heathen sailors was to abandon the hulk and crew to their fate, while they saved themselves in the boat which they had with such trouble and danger hoisted on board.
Pretending, therefore, that they could steady the pitching of the ship, and therefore make her hold together for a longer time, if they used more anchors, and laid them out at full length of the cables instead of merely dropping them from the prow, they began to unlash the boat and lower her into the sea. Had they succeeded in their plot, they would probably have been swamped in the surf upon the point, and all on board would inevitably have perished from inability to handle the sinking vessel. From this danger alike the crew and the sailors were once more saved by the prompt energy and courage of St. Paul. Seeing through the base design, he quietly observed to Julius, who was the person of most authority on board, “If these sailors do not stay in the ship, ye cannot be saved.” He says “ye,” not “we.” Strong in God’s promise, he had no shadow of doubt respecting his own preservation, but the promise of safety to all the crew was conditional on their own performance of duty.
The soldiers, crowded together in the vessel with their prisoners, heard the remark of Paul, and—since he alone at that wild moment of peril had kept calm, and was therefore the virtual captain—without the smallest scruple drew their swords and cut through the boat’s ropes, letting her fall away in the trough of the sea. But the daylight had now increased, and the hour was approaching in which everything would depend upon their skill and promptitude, and on the presence of mind of all on board. Once more, therefore, the apostle encouraged them, and urged them all to take some food. “This is the fourteenth day,” he said, “on which you are continuing foodless, in constant anxiety and vigilance, without taking anything. I entreat you, then, all to join in a meal, which is indeed essential to that preservation, of which I assure you with confidence, for not a hair of the head of any one of you shall perish.”
And having given them this encouragement, he himself set the example. Making of the simplest necessity of life a religious and eucharistic act, he took bread, gave thanks to God in the presence of them all, broke it, and began to eat. Catching the contagion of his cheerful trust, the drenched, miserable throng of two hundred and seventy-six souls, who had so long been huddled together in their unspeakable wretchedness and discomfort, as their shattered vessel lay rolling and tossing under the dismal clouds, took fresh courage, and shared with him in a hearty meal. Knowing that this was the last meal they could ever take in the dismasted vessel, and also that it would be impossible to save the cargo, they lightened and righted the vessel by flinging overboard the wheat, which in the long drift of four hundred and seventy-six miles from Clauda in the storm must have shifted much to one side and made the vessel heel over in a dangerous manner.
When the full daylight enabled them to examine the shore, they saw no recognizable landmark—since the present Valetta, the harbor of Malta, at which ships often touched, was seven miles E.S.E. of the point where they were wrecked; but they saw a bay, at one extremity of which the cliffs sank down into a flat beach, and the only thing which they could hope to do was to thrust the ship out of her direct course, and strand her at this spot. They therefore cut away the anchors, letting the ropes drop into the sea, unlashed and let down the paddle-rudders, hoisted the foresail to the wind, and steered straight for the beach. But their maneuver was a failure.
They had unconsciously anchored off Ras el Koura. The opposite point looked like another promontory, but was in reality the island of Salmonetta, separated from the mainland by a deep, narrow, and precipitous channel. Through this channel, about a hundred yards in width, ran a current, and in the stormy race where the waters of this current met the waters of the bay, the vessel would not answer to the helm, and all they could do was to run her ashore. Happily for them she drove, not upon a rock, but deep into a bank of mud, such as still exists at that very spot. Here the prow stuck immovably fast, while the stern was free. The crew rushed to the prow, while the waves, which broke with fury over the unsupported stern, began instantly to batter it to pieces.
Here, even at this extremity, there rose for Paul and the other prisoners a new, unexpected, and yet more terrible danger. It was the duty of the soldiers to be responsible with their own lives for their prisoners. The Roman law was stern, rigid, and unbending, nor did it admit of any extenuating plea. So long as death seemed imminent, and every hand on board might be useful in averting it, the prisoners must have been left unchained; but in such a crisis as this, what was there to prevent any one of them from taking a dive into the sea, and so escaping? It would have been a horrible thing that blood and butchery should stain the planks of a shipwrecked199vessel at the very moment when safety seemed within reach, and that this human sacrifice of lives which God had rescued should be the only thanksgiving of the survivors.
From this peril the prisoners were again indirectly saved by him whose counsel and encouragement had all along been the direct source of their preservation. If the prisoners were to be killed, equal justice, or injustice, must be dealt to all of them alike, and Julius felt that it would be dastardly ingratitude to butcher the man to whom, under God's providence, they all owed their rescued lives. He therefore forbade the design of the soldiers, and gave orders that every one who could swim should first fling himself overboard, and get to land. The rest seized hold of planks and other fragments of the fast-dissolving wreck.
The wind threw them landwards, and at last by the aid of the swimmers all were saved, and—at a spot which, owing to the accurate fidelity of the narrative, can still be exactly identified—a motley group of nearly three hundred drenched, and shivering, and weather-beaten sailors and soldiers, and prisoners and passengers, stood on that chill and stormy November morning upon the desolate and surf-beat shore of the island of Malta. Some, we are sure, there were who joined with Paul in hearty thanks to the God who, though he had not made the storm to cease, so that the waves thereof were still, had yet brought them safe to land, through all the perils of that tempestuous month.
THE TEACHERS AND OFFICERS.
By J. O. Corliss
These should be chosen with reference to their adaptability to the work, rather than to their position in the church or society. A superintendent is needed. Who shall fill the place? Well, there is Bro. A; he is an influential citizen, besides he is one of our oldest members. His good standing in the community and long connection with the church certainly entitle him to our consideration. And there is Bro. B; he is well acquainted with the truth, as is well attested by his many victories, when "contending for the faith" on the street-corners and in other public places. Then there is Bro. C, who once thought he had a call to preach, but his sermons were so long and so dull that his congregation all left him and never came back again. A superintendent must do a great deal of talking any way, and why would not this be just the place for Bro. C to exercise his gift? The children could not run away till school was out, for you know it would not be allowed.
Such men are not the ones for the place. There are other things to be considered besides age, learning, or fluency; and in the absence of these qualifications, place one in the position of superintendent (if he can be found) who has the peculiar faculty of teaching and of attracting all, old, young, and little children, and making them feel that they are working with, rather than under him. Old or young, rich or poor, it matters not; if devoted, let him take the place because he is qualified to fill it.
J. O. CORLISS.
A Mistake to Exclude the Old Testament from the Sabbath-School.
By W. Henry Green
It is my opinion that it would be a serious mistake to exclude the Old Testament from Sabbath-school instruction or to disparage it as a factor in that instruction. Because—
1. It is a part of the inspired word of God, which has not been abolished nor superseded by the New Testament; and as such it is pronounced by the apostle "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." Even its typical rites and institutions, which have ceased to be obligatory as outward forms, point as directly as ever to their great Antitype, and in their substantial meaning are of permanent force and value.
2. The New Testament is based upon the Old, and the knowledge of the latter is essential to a correct understanding of the former.
3. The elementary and preliminary character of the Old Testament adapts it in a remarkable degree for the instruction of the young, for whom its narratives have a special attraction, while its facts and institutions serve as object-lessons under proper teaching, and convey the truth more widely even than didactic statements.
4. The prevalent disposition to undervalue the Old Testament, and even to set aside its authority and historical character, will be best counteracted by its more diligent and thorough study. The truth of God and his revelation is one in all ages and under both dispensations; his church is one; true religion is the same, and the method of salvation is the same. And it is very important that this unity should be perceived and the whole Bible be recognized as the standard of faith and the rule of duty.
5. Many prevalent errors and misconceptions are traceable to an undue neglect of the Old Testament. False views of the nature of salvation and an inadequate sense of man's absolute need of a divine Saviour and his absolute dependence on divine grace result from a failure to emphasize the fall of man and the consequent corruption of the race as set forth in the Old Testament. The mercy and love of God are set in a false light by him who fails to insist upon the law and justice of God dwelt upon in the Old Testament.—W. Henry Green, in Old Testament Student.
Sabbath-School Hints.
That the Sabbath-school, when properly conducted, is a valuable accessory to the church, its past history has fully attested. It has also shown that when carried on carelessly or without any particular object in view, the tendency has been not only to discourage the young in the work of the Sabbath-school, but to lessen their interest in religious services generally, and to make the Sabbath a dull and tiresome day. As a result, they soon become wayward, and are finally lost to the cause. This, however, is not necessary. Children are very much like grown people. That which is not made attractive, soon ceases to interest them. Truth should be made plain and interesting to the children, and then it is food for them the same as it is to us; the Bible and Sabbath-school become attractive, and the Sabbath itself the best day of the seven, to which they will continually look forward with delight.
There is one other consideration which yields consolation here and the promise of joy hereafter. Children that have been well trained in the Sabbath-school almost invariably at the proper age present themselves for baptism, and become valuable members of the church. A prominent Baptist minister once said that during a pastorate of twenty years over one church, he baptized two hundred and twenty-eight pupils from its Sabbath-school, from whom only seventeen had been disfellowshipped. Corresponding steadfastness would no doubt be seen among young converts in all churches were Sabbath-schools faithfully sustained in their midst.