Earlier text: General ArticlesConstantine.—VIII.
By Editor
Two things will be noticed in respect to this law, namely, it was issued before he made any profession of Christian faith, and, it was the day of the sun, which was to be observed by resting from secular labor. And history furnishes abundant evidence that the sun was the especial object of adoration by the emperor, and Apollo, the sun-god, was his "tutelary deity." If this be so, then the heathen origin of the edict must be beyond question. Milman thus testifies:— "Up to this period, all that we know of Constantine's religion would imply that he was outwardly and even zealously pagan. In a public oration his panegyrist extols the magnificence of his offerings to the gods. His victorious presence was not merely expected to restore more than their former splendor to the Gaulish cities, ruined by barbaric incursions, but sumptuous temples were to arise at his bidding, to propitiate the deities, particularly Apollo, his tutelary god. The medals struck for these victories are covered with the symbols of paganism. Eusebius himself admits that Constantine was at this time in doubt which religion he should embrace; and after his vision, required to be instructed in the doctrines of Christianity."—Hist. of Christianity, p. 287. And again, of the Sunday law, he says:— "It is the day of the sun which is to be observed by the general veneration; the courts were to be closed, and the noise and tumult of public business and legal litigation were no longer to violate the repose of the sacred day. But the believer in the new paganism, of which the solar worship was the characteristic, might acquiesce without scruple, in the sanctity of the first day of the week."—Milman, book 3, chap. 1. Gibbon furnishes the following decisive evidence on the subject:— "The devotion of Constantine was more peculiarly directed to the genius of the sun, the Apollo of Greek and Roman mythology; and he was pleased to be represented with the symbols of the god of light and poetry. . . . The altars of Apollo were crowned with the votive offerings of Constantine; and the credulous multitude were taught to believe that the emperor was permitted to behold with mortal eyes the visible majesty of their tutelary deity. . . . The sun was universally celebrated as the invincible guide and protector of Constantine."—Gibbon, chap. 20, vol. 2, p. 251. "The panegyric of Eumenius, which was pronounced a few months before the Italian war, abounds with the most unexceptionable evidence of the pagan superstition of Constantine, and of his particular veneration for Apollo, or the sun."—Note, p. 251. Reference has been made to the fact that after Constantine professed his preference for Christianity he continued to hold the office and title of Pontifex Maximus, or high priest of the heathen rites; and he held it to the year of his death, in 337, and, indeed, there is no evidence existing, that we have been able to find, that he ever renounced it. His religion was not Christianity, but polytheism, and when he professed to embrace Christianity it was in union with his former paganism, and not by any means to the exclusion of it. Thus Keightley says:— "Constantine, however, was still a polytheist, and his principal object of worship was the sun-god, Apollo. At the same time, with the compliant spirit of polytheism, he held the God of the Christians and the author of their faith in respect and reverence."—History of Rome, p. 313. And Dr. Schaff testifies to the same thing:— "At first, Constantine, like his father, in the spirit of the Neo-Platonic syncretism of dying heathendom, reverenced all the gods as mysterious powers; especially Apollo, the god of the sun, to whom, in the year 308, he presented munificent gifts. Nay, so late as the year 321 he enjoined regular consultation of the soothsayers in public misfortunes, according to ancient heathen usage; even later, he placed his new residence, Byzantium, under the protection of the God of the martyrs and the heathen goddess of fortune; and down to the end of his life he retained the title and dignity of a Pontifex Maximus, or high priest of the heathen hierarchy. His coins bore on the one side the letters of the name of Christ, on the other the figure of the sun-god, and the inscription, Sol invictus."—Church History, vol. 2, pp. 14, 15. On this the "Encyclopædia Britannica" says: "The notion of conversion in the sense of a real acceptance of the new religion, and a thorough rejection of the old, is inconsistent with the hesitating attitude in which he stood towards both. Much of this may indeed be due to motives of political expediency, but there is a good deal that cannot be so explained. Paganism must still have been an operative belief with the man who, down almost to the close of his life, retained so many pagan superstitions. He was at best only half heathen, half Christian, who could seek to combine the worship of Christ with the worship of Apollo, having the name of the one and the figure of the other impressed upon his coins, and ordaining the observance of Sunday under the name of Dies Solis in his celebrated decree of March 321, though such a combination was far from uncommon in the first Christian centuries. Perhaps the most significant illustration of the ambiguity of his religious position is furnished by the fact that in the same year in which he issued the Sunday decree he gave orders that, if lightning struck the imperial palace or any other public building, the haruspices, according to ancient usage, should be consulted as to what it might signify, and a careful report of the answer should be drawn up for his use."—Article Constantine. The edict referred to by Dr. Schaff, in which "he enjoined regular consultation of the soothsayers in public misfortunes, according to ancient heathen usage," was given on the eighth day of March, 321, the next day after the Sunday decree was given! Without any other evidence this fact would prove that the Sunday edict was a heathen ordinance only, and it had no more reference to Christian duties than had the consultation of soothsayers, which the Lord had expressly forbidden to his people. And Dr. Schaff clearly shows the nature of his Christianity, so-called, in the fact that he not only retained his office of Pontifex Maximus, and dedicated his residence to the goddess of fortune as well as to the God of the Christians, but inscribed on one side of his coins the name of Christ, and on the other the figure of the sun-god, with words of adoration to the sun! Dr. Schaff further says:— "He enjoined the observance, or, rather, forbade the public desecration of Sunday, not under the name of Sabbatum or dies Domini, but under its own astrological or heathen title, dies solis, familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to the worshippers of Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras, as to the Christian." But Dr. Schaff has gone further, as he well knew that Constantine had no regard for Christianity at the time when he issued this Sunday decree, and this he declares in the following words:— "He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as dies Domini, but as dies solis, in conformity to his worship of Apollo, and in company with an ordinance for the regular consulting of the haruspex (321)."—History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 31. "The rescript commanding the celebration of the Christian Sabbath bears no allusion to its peculiar sanctity as a Christian institution; it is the day of the sun which is to be observed by the general veneration."—Page 289. Although retaining the office of high priest of paganism he exercised the power of a bishop in the Christian church, and affected to preach. Dr. Schaff says one of his sermons "is still extant, in which he recommends Christianity in a characteristic strain, and in proof of its divine origin cites especially the fulfillment of prophecy, including the Sibylline books, and the fourth Eclogue of Virgil."—History, vol. 2, p. 34. Mosheim, while avowing his belief that the conversion of Constantine (such as it was) took place in 323, says that Zosimus placed it after the death of Crispus, 326; and he adds that it is difficult to determine the truth in the matter. The words of Mosheim on this point are as follows:— "How long Constantine retained these vague and undecided views of religion and religious worship, regarding the Christian religion as excellent, and salutary to the Roman State, yet not esteeming the other religions, or those of inferior gods, as vain, pernicious, and odious to God—it is difficult to determine. Zosimus, as is well known, reports that Constantine did not publicly profess Christianity, and show himself hostile to the Romish sacred rites, until after the slaughter of his son Crispus, and his wife Fausta; which truly detestable crimes were perpetrated in the year 326."—Hist. Com., p. 469. They who would gladly avail themselves of Constantine's influence in behalf of some customs introduced in his day, are anxious to save his reputation as far as possible. If his conversion could be placed after the most horrid of his crimes were committed, it would be some relief to his character as a Christian. But that is attended with difficulties, for it would place his Sunday edict farther from his professed reception of Christianity, and also present him as presiding over the first great Christian council and leading the minds of the bishops in their consultations on matters of faith before he professed regard for the Christian religion! Look at it in whatever light we will, his patronage of the church was a curse to it, and his Christianity, mixed as it was with paganism, was unworthy of the name. The title of "the great" has been accorded to him with many misgivings, by some, as the following shows:— "That Constantine had a large share of talent, and some virtues, is undeniable; but when we consider his many faults, among which was a cruelty that did not spare even his own children, his claim to the title of great becomes somewhat more than dubious."—Dictionary of Biography. And the "Encyclopædia Britannica" says:—"Tested by character, indeed, he stands among the lowest of all those to whom the epithet [great] has in ancient or modern times been applied."—Article Constantine. Dr. Schaff makes another declaration which has an important bearing on Constantine's religion, and sheds light on the statements made but a few pages before that he acted "in the spirit of the Neo-Platonic syncretism of dying heathendom." Syncretism is the attempted union of incongruous principles, and this was remarkably displayed in the actions of Constantine. Dr. Schaff there stated to what length this incongruity was attempted to be carried, even to wearing the insignia of a pagan high priest and exercising the functions of a Christian bishop; to dedicating his residence to the goddess of Fortune and to the God of the Christians; and to inscribing together on his coins the name of Christ with the figure of the sun-god and words of adoration to the sun! True Bravery
By Rochefoucauld
TRUE bravery is shown by performing without witness what one might be capable of doing before all the world.—Rochefoucauld. Plain Talk by a Veteran.
By T. L. Cuyler
AN attendant upon the meetings of the Presbytery of Brooklyn would be struck with the resemblance which one of its members bears to the portraits of John Wesley. The high brow, thin nose, placid expression, and whole contour of the countenance recall at once the founder of Methodism. The venerable Presbyterian with the Methodist physiognomy is good old Dr. James M. Sherwood, once the editor of Hours at Home, and for many years the editor of the Presbyterian Review. An old war-horse does not like to be unsaddled and turned out to grass; neither does a veteran reviewer like to lay down his pen. Dr. Sherwood's brain is as active as it ever was, and increasing years have only increased the intensity of his convictions on all religious questions. He doesn't believe that all the young crop of ministers are in advance of their predecessors in either grace, or grit, or gumption; in short, he feels towards them as the senior Spurgeon (who is now nearly eighty) felt toward his extraordinary son, when he said playfully to a friend, "My boy Charley does not always know as much as he thinks he does." Accordingly Dr. Sherwood has kept his busy pen from rusting by writing a very vigorous volume entitled, "The Lamb in the Midst of the Throne; or, the History of the Cross." The main idea of the work is to present the evangelical view of redemption. It glows with the most fervent love of the incarnate Saviour, and is in fullest accord with the core-truths of the gospel as held by the reformers of Geneva, Scotland, and the Westminster Assembly. My friend Sherwood does not believe that the new things in theology are the true things, or that any "modern improvements" have been made on the fundamental points of the faith once delivered to the saints. To which the present writer doth heartily say, Amen. It is about time that ministers made up their minds that the Bible system of salvation and its code of daily conduct are as perfect as their divine Author could make them; therefore they had better be done with tinkering the system, and preach it with all their might and main. What troubles my friend—and very reasonably, too—is that the great central doctrines of human depravity, full vicarious atonement by Jesus Christ, thorough conversion by the Holy Spirit, probation in this world alone, and a Heaven or hell in the next world, are not proclaimed as faithfully and pungently by the average pulpit of to-day as they were by the pulpit of the days gone by. His righteous soul is stirred and vexed by modern attempts to mangle God's word by irreverent "higher criticisms," especially by everything that tends to belittle either the sinfulness of sin or the sufficiency of the Saviour. On two or three practical questions I am glad that the veteran "relieves his mind" in a very pithy and perspicacious fashion. He has no patience with the sermons and sentimental style of hymns with which our Sunday-schools are flooded. Some of them are imported into the prayer-meetings of too many churches; in comparison with the genuine and Bible-inspired hymns of Toplady, Cowper, Wesley, Watts, and Palmer, they are pious slip-slop. The tunes are a mixture of Scotch reels and plantation melodies; the words are hardly above the doggerel sung by the "Salvation Army;" their language often describes the heavenly inheritance of the saints as a sort of celestial picnic on the banks of a stream that throws up its "silver spray," and is lined with innumerable orchestras. The author tells us that when he listens to the popular piece, "Along the River of Time We Glide," it produces no more spiritual emotions in his mind than to witness the antics of a man swimming! We sympathize fully with the venerable author, who was brought up on the strong meat of the immortal hymns of ages, and cannot be turned off with such baby-treacle as modern Sunday-schools are taught to swallow. He is right. Many of the hymns now temporarily popular, breed a gross, sensual, and self-indulgent conception of eternal things; they are as much below the standard of a revealed gospel as Mrs. Stuart Phelps' "Gates Ajar" is below the apostle John's descriptions of the New Jerusalem. The currency of such pious trash is a symptom of demoralization. As might be expected, Dr. Sherwood waxes indignant over sensational sermons which betray greater familiarity with the daily newspapers than with God's word and the vigorous treatises of the great Master of divinity. Right again. All this style of handling the word deceitfully, or of handling some popular topic in place of the word, is a direct bribe to the love of self-gratification, and degrades both pulpit and pew. The more popular it becomes, the worse for the church of God, and the worse for society, whom the church is set to purify and spiritualize. Every success of "sensationalism" is an obstacle to the entrance of a high order of brain and heart into the ministry. When God's ministers turn "show-men" on the Sabbath, their hearers will play the fool during the week. If the fervent, intelligent, powerful, and prayer-steeped preaching of God's message of life will not attract souls, then our skirts are clear, and we must leave people to settle it with God. We have done our duty, whether "men will bear or forbear." This suggestive book of my veteran friend Sherwood abounds in blunt and manly utterances which will set God's people to thinking. It is the voice of age, and of wisdom taught by the "wisdom from above." Jesus Christ is honored on every page.—T. L. Cuyler. Israel's Rejection of Samuel.
By W. N. Glenn
THAT the ancient prophets were fallible men, there is abundant Scripture evidence. That God has chosen to reveal his will to man through men does not prove that the instruments are perfect in themselves; nor do the personal imperfections of a well-accredited messenger, justify his rejection by those to whom he is sent. To reject a representative is to reject the authority which he represents. No prophet ever bore more emphatic evidence of God's recognition than did Samuel; yet perhaps no judge in Israel ever gave the people a more plausible excuse for the rejection of his administration than he did, in his old age. When he became too infirm to attend to all the duties of his office, he appointed his sons to judge the people. It was natural that he should desire to promote his sons, and to have them forward in the service of God. His own undeniable integrity forbids the idea that he had any suspicion that they would reproach his administration. Whether he was utterly ignorant of their real characters, and their unfitness for the position which he wished them to occupy, or whether, knowing their failings, he had hopes that active participation in the service of God would lead to their reformation, we are not told; but supposing him to have been totally blind concerning their dishonesty of heart, that was not proof, as the sequel shows, that Samuel himself was unfit for the high calling to which God had assigned him. Samuel's sons "were judges in Beer-sheba. And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment." This was very aggravating to the people, and it is no wonder they were dissatisfied; nor is it surprising that they should remonstrate against such conduct. But was the extreme course pursued by the elders therefore justifiable? The divinely inspired word answers, No. We are not told what Samuel would have done had they merely set forth their cause of complaint in a proper manner. There is no intimation that he was offended because of the remonstrance, but it is stated that he was displeased "when they said, Give us a king to judge us." However ignorant he may have been as to the true character of his sons when he promoted them, he was not ignorant regarding the consequences of the remedy proposed by the elders of Israel. Now it is quite probable that many of the people concluded that if Samuel were a true prophet he would have discerned the unsuitableness of his sons for so prominent a position in the nation of God's people. They saw only this weakness, and overlooked everything else. Although Samuel's personal character was undeniably above reproach, and the evidences of his recognition by the Lord were abundant, they utterly rejected him on account of his sons, and demanded a king. But what did the Lord say, when the matter was presented before him? "And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee." 1 Sam. 8: 7, 8. This action, though based upon aggravated circumstances, which presented apparent good reason, is compared with the worst acts ever committed by the children of Israel. And Samuel continued to be the honored and trusted minister of God, living to reprove the king so peremptorily demanded, and finally to announce to him his rejection by the Lord. The record of Samuel's rejection by the Israelites, and the ostensible cause of the action, should be heeded as a standing warning to all who would disregard any faithful messenger of God because of some, perhaps unconscious, weakness, or the inconsistent action of some one else, however intimately connected. 1. READ the Bible regularly. A good man of old says: "I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food." This is the true idea. The Bible is daily bread, to be taken regularly that the soul may grow thereby. 2. Read the Bible attentively. The meaning of the Bible is in the Bible. Unless he that reads gets the meaning, it will do him no good. Hasty reading of a great many chapters at once is of no advantage. Read slowly, a little at a time, and think on what you read, and you will understand and remember it. 3. Read the Bible as God's book, not merely because father or mother wishes you to read it, but for a better reason,—because God speaks to you in the Bible. When I have seen a little girl run, her eyes sparkling with joy, crying, "O mother! here's a letter from father to me, for my name is on the outside," I always wish she might thus look on the Bible, for it is a letter from our Father in Heaven. So feel and read, and you will not grow weary of the Good Book. These few hints are enough for once. Will not our young readers remember them, and read every day with great attention, the Book of God? I love to see a child, as I do sometimes, take her little Bible every morning and sit down to read a chapter, without waiting for any one to tell her to do it. This is a better habit than Willie's, for he only read occasionally, and had to be reminded often of his duty. Read often, and love to read, children, and you will not forget it.—The Golden Lesson. Advice Like Snow
By Coleridge
ADVICE is like snow: the softer it falls, the longer it dwells upon, and the deeper it sinks into the mind.—Coleridge. "For this is right." This is the reason that Paul gives as to why children should obey their parents; and in it is embodied the true principle of all proper obedience, whether to parents or to God. Is a thing right? do that thing because it is right. Is a thing wrong? refuse it because it is wrong. This is the principle laid down by the apostle, to be inculcated by the parents, on the minds and hearts of the children. So that whenever they meet the temptation to do this or that, there will be just one only question to be decided, Is it right? But is this done? Is this principle cultivated in the hearts of the children, that it may grow as they grow, and so become a part of themselves—ingrained in the very nature? Training Children Properly
The failure, however, is not in the Scripture, but in the mistaken application of it. The text says, “Train up a child,” &c., but the child is not trained and does not go in the right way, and thus the failure is charged to the Scripture. To let the child run subject to hap-hazard influences247all the week and then take him to meeting or Sabbath-school, or both, on the Sabbath, is that to train him? Is that the way in which men train themselves, their horses, or any of their animals? No, the term "train" would never be applied to such treatment of anything—but a child. When a man wants to train a colt, he spends hours at it every day. If he wants to train himself for a foot-race, a boxing match, or any other athletic sport, he puts himself through severe discipline every day. And so everybody understands and applies the word "train," except in the application of this text of Scripture. But here, as a general thing, all special instruction is given on the Sabbath alone, and then in most cases by others than the parents. Such is not to train up a child in the way he should go, and so he has no fixed habitual principle to keep him in the way he should go. LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—MAY 16.
Inheritance of the Saints.
PROMISES TO ABRAHAM.—CONTINUED.
1. After Abraham had obeyed the command to offer up Isaac, what did the Lord swear to do? “And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Gen. 22: 16–18. 2. How numerous did he say Abraham’s seed should be? Ib. 3. Where have we found similar expressions? “And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.” Gen. 13: 16. “And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them; and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.” Gen. 15: 5. 4. What did the Lord say that Abraham’s seed should possess? “That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” Gen. 22: 17. 5. What is indicated by the statement that his seed “shall possess the gate of his enemies”? 6. Then with what other scriptures already learned, is this parallel? “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” Gen. 12: 3. “For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever.” Gen. 13: 15. “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Rom. 4: 13. 8. Why did the Lord now say that he would do this thing? “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.” Gen. 22: 18. 9. And what have we before found was the condition on which the promise was based? “For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.” Gen. 18: 19. “And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession; and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.” Acts 7: 5. 11. What do we know concerning all of God’s promises? “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” 2 Pet. 3: 9. “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.” 2 Cor. 1: 20. 12. Then what must we conclude concerning these promises to Abraham? Possessing the Gates of Enemies
"THY seed shall possess the gate of his enemies." Gen. 22: 17. Ancient cities, as is well known, were surrounded by walls, and the only means of entrance was by means of gates, which were well guarded. Whoever controlled those gates, controlled the city. If an enemy could gain possession of the gates of a city, they could keep the inhabitants closely confined within, or could admit whomsoever they chose. So to possess the gate of one's enemies would signify supreme rule. When it was promised that Abraham's seed should "possess the gate of his enemies," we understand that his seed was to eventually occupy all the territory then occupied by those who were antagonistic to him. But this was equivalent to the inheritance of the earth, thus showing that this text is parallel with Gen. 12: 13; 13: 15; Rom. 4: 13, which have already been considered. Abraham’s Promised Inheritance
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
NOTWITHSTANDING these promises, which were made to Abraham as well as to his seed, Abraham died without seeing their fulfillment. Stephen says that God did not give him enough of the land to set his foot on, although he promised that he would give him the whole of it. But we know that the Lord is not slack concerning his promises, and that all his promises are yea and amen; they cannot be broken. Every one will be fulfilled to the letter. This being the case, we must conclude that the Lord did not intend that Abraham should receive the inheritance immediately, but that the promise should be fulfilled to him at some future time. When we read that Abraham died “in faith,” although he had not received the inheritance, we know that this was the way he understood the Lord. Had Abraham not thus understood the Lord, he would have died discouraged, instead of “in faith.” E. J. W. NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
“CHILDREN, obey your parents in the Lord.” Thus is given the command for the obedience of children. But children have to learn obedience, as they have to learn everything else; and this must be taught them by those whom they are to obey. Happy are those children whose parents know, and understand, and practice, the principles of true obedience; that so, they may properly instruct the children in this first duty, and all-important principle of life. Until the children become old enough to know God; until they reach the age of accountability to him; until they become old enough to be personally responsible to him in the choice which they make, whether it be for good or ill,—until this stage is reached in the lives of the children, so far as obedience and their knowledge of right and wrong are concerned, the parents are to the children in the place of God. Happy are those parents who realize and fulfill this great responsibility. And happy, thrice happy, are those children whose parents, realizing this, shall have so taught them the way of truth and right, that when this time comes, when they shall be as it were delivered to themselves, it may be easy for them to “refuse the evil and choose the good.” Command, Do Not Hire, Children
How stands the fact? Is it not rather the truth that this principle is seldom thought of, and still more seldom inculcated? Is it not the truth that almost as a general thing when a child shows hesitation in obeying, or a disposition to not obey, a reward of some kind is promised if he will do it, so that he is really hired to obey? It was the Lord's commendation of Abraham that "I know him that he will command [not hire] his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." Gen. 18: 19. Here we see that the fulfillment of the Lord's promise to Abraham was dependent upon how his children should conduct themselves, and their proper conduct was assured by the fact that Abraham would command them, and thus they should keep the way of the Lord. Another notable instance is that of the house of Eli, where parental laxity forfeited the promise of God. “And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord.” “I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me forever; but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” 1 Sam. 2:27, 30. Wherein had Eli not honored the Lord? “And honorest thy sons above me.” Verse 29. How was this? “Because his sons made themselves vile and he restrained them not.” 1 Sam. 3:13. “And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house; when I begin, I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile and he restrained them not. And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering forever.” 1 Sam. 3:11–14. Two Ways of Training Children
HERE are the two ways of the dealings of parents with their children, and the results that follow each. Abraham commanded his children and they kept the way of the Lord, and an eternity of blessedness and joy came to Abraham and to his seed. Eli restrained not his children, and experienced the truth that children left to themselves bring their parents to shame; he forfeited the promise, and turned away from his house the blessing of God forever. In these two instances are illustrated two very important texts of Scripture. In Abraham, this one, "Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old he will not depart from it." Prov. 22: 6. In Eli, this one, "The rod and reproof give wisdom; but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame." Prov. 29: 15. These texts are both strictly, literally, true, and neither of them more so than the other. But it would seem that if there is any one particular text of the Scriptures, the truth of which is doubted, it is this one of Prov. 22: 6. Preparation in Teaching.
By John O. Corliss
KNOWLEDGE is indispensable in teaching, as it is impossible to teach that which we do not know ourselves. Neither can we teach that well which we understand but imperfectly; hence the first and most essential thing for a teacher, is to become thoroughly acquainted with the subject to be taught. To do this, every teacher should keep for reference a supply of publications covering the entire ground of the subjects he expects to teach. Another important point, and one quite as essential, is to be able, after becoming acquainted with the lesson, to impress its truths upon the hearts and consciences of others as vividly as they appear to his own mind. To accomplish this, the subject must be illustrated in the clearest and most simple style, in language adapted to the capacity of the pupil. Otherwise, he not only will not understand it, but he will lose all interest in the lesson and become restless, and impatient for the close of school. The habit of reading the lesson in the class is a pernicious one, and should never be indulged, because it tends to indolence and slackness in preparing the lessons. All teachers know this very well; and the only successful way to provide against it is for the teacher to set a good example by committing each lesson to memory himself. This he can never effectually do who utterly neglects his lesson all the week, and on Sabbath morning, the last thing before going to the class, sits down and hurriedly reads it over once or twice. How painful to listen to the minister who is unacquainted with his subject as he struggles along, blundering here, making a wrong quotation there, or frequently repeating certain portions of his subject in vain attempts to conceal his confusion arising from a lack of well-prepared matter, when all this might have been prevented by a little study and forethought. "John," said a minister rather boastingly after service, "did you know that I never thought of that sermon before entering the desk?" "Well," said John, "that's just what Mr. Brown and I said while you were preaching." Children are no less slow to set a just estimate on those who attempt to instruct them; and the teacher who habitually goes to his class without preparation will soon be made to see—if not entirely devoid of judgment—that he has committed a serious error. He who would secure the respect of his pupils, and thus have an influence over them for good, must avail himself of the ample provisions afforded him for qualifying himself for his work; the lesson and class-work must be made subjects of close thought and earnest prayer. Then, though he should ever feel that his "sufficiency is of God," he will manifest a degree of confidence that will enliven and animate his class in a corresponding manner. A Sabbath-school teacher, above all others, should be provided with the very best helps that can be procured. After studying those works treating on the subject matter of the lessons, articles especially devoted to the wants of teachers, offering suggestions from Sabbath-school workers from all parts of the country, such as will appear from time to time in the Sabbath-School Worker, and such as are frequently found in the best Sunday-school papers, could be read with much profit. But with all the methods, helps, and expedients that can be devised, there is one requisite without which success cannot be expected. Each one connected with this work must love God fervently, and have an earnest desire for the salvation of perishing souls. A constant nearness to Christ, an unwearying activity in his service, will keep the fire of love aglow. Sowing the seed faithfully, with earnest prayer, will bring the desired result, and "we shall reap if we faint not." Nurture and Admonition of the Lord
But how shall it be done effectually? Paul tells us plainly: "Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Nurture, is fostering care. Admonition, is counseling against a fault or error, instruction in duties. This direction of the apostle's, therefore, is to bring or train them up in the fostering care of the Lord, in the counsel and instruction of the Lord. The Lord, in his word, has given full directions in regard to the fostering care, the counsel, and the instruction, in which he will have parents to train up the children: "Therefore shall ye lay up these my words in your heart and in your soul, and bind them for a sign upon your hand, that they may be as frontlets between your eyes, and ye shall teach them your children, speaking of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thine house, and upon thy gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth." Deut. 11:18-21. A. T. JONES
By Alonzo Trévier Jones
"FINALLY, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."