Earlier text: General ArticlesTHERE are few names which have been favored with greater celebrity for a thousand years past, than that of Constantine. Almost all classes have united in styling him “the great;” though they have not always agreed as to the reasons why he should bear the title, yet all agree that he was a man of no ordinary ability, a brave and successful general, and a shrewd and politic statesman. Some have also given him credit for the qualities of a sincere and earnest Christian, but in this there is little agreement. The number of authors, that is, of creditable historians, who account him a Christian is by no means large. Constantine was born in A. D. 272. He was proclaimed emperor, upon the death of his father, in 306, at the age of thirty-four. For six years he was not fully established in the empire. Maxentius claimed or usurped dominion in Italy. He was defeated in 312, after which Constantine had sole authority. He died in 337, aged 65. Hence “the age of Constantine” properly dates from 306 to 337—a period of 31 years. His father was at least lenient toward Christianity, if not favorable to it, and enacted laws of toleration. His mother was a believer in the Christian religion, which fact may have had much to do with the mild and tolerant course of his father. His mother has by some been esteemed as a devout and intelligent Christian; while others have considered her a religious enthusiast or bigoted fanatic, full of the superstition of those times. The times in which she lived, and especially the court influences by which she was surrounded, were not favorable to the development of a high type of Christianity; and the manner in which she treated the supposed “relics” which she found in Jerusalem, or pretended to find there, shows that she was easily deceived, or tried to deceive others. She is also supposed to have moulded the mind of Constantine in favor of Christianity. But that is to be doubted, as he appears to have been actuated entirely by State policy in his first efforts in favor of the Christian religion. Or, if he was at all influenced by her position as a believer, it was no more than to this extent, that he was willing to place Christ among the gods, without according to him any supremacy. That Constantine did, for a long time, hold the Saviour in this relation, is testified by many historians. There is no room to doubt that, in the minds of many religious theorists, Constantine has occupied a position which does not at all belong to him. This false view has been aided by a few authors of the fourth century. A man is not always most correctly judged in his own day. In the case of Constantine, some of those whose writings concerning him have come down to us were his flatterers, and were dazzled by the splendor of his court or by the richness of his favors. But mostly they were blinded by the benefit which they supposed he conferred on the cause of Christianity. Some of them held him up as worthy to be classed with the apostles! When writers indulge in such senseless adulation, we must use judgment to glean the truth from a field fruitful of error. After ages, beholding the consequences of his course, the formality and hypocrisy which were introduced by his adopting Christianity as the religion of the empire, and being beyond the influence of the gaudy tinsel which he threw over that religion by which its loveliness was obscured instead of being increased, have been better able to discern the motives which led to many of his acts; and they have discovered that he was not so much the adherent to real Christianity as the patron of a religious system which was likely to give strength to his empire and to add glory to his reign. It must not, however, be inferred that it was left altogether to after ages to settle the question that he was not a true Christian. Some in his own day were amazed at the extent of his crimes. But we can easily believe it was not considered prudent to say much to disparage a monarch so illustrious, and so jealous of his fame and reputation. It is a truth learned from observation of all ages that they who exert the greatest influence in moulding public opinion are generally the interested ones, who are the most likely to mislead, and by reason of whom the more candid are held in check, or, as is often the case, the testimony of the latter class is withheld for a time from view. Also, in judging of the merits of powerful monarchs, we must remember that flatterers and sycophants are the only ones who are generally admitted to their presence. They who are too upright to dissemble soon give offense, and are dismissed from the courts in disgrace, if not condemned to death as criminals, or as men dangerous to the peace of the State. In offering historical evidence of the character of Constantine, instead of being crippled for want of testimony, we may need to apologize for offering so much. We desire the reader to bear in mind that the name and influence of Constantine have been used to give weight to certain innovations in the church, and there may be some who will be interested to bring in question the facts presented. Inasmuch as we have taken upon us to give a historical view of these things, we have deemed it fitting our purpose to cite authorities to such an extent that it may appear to all that we are moving on safe ground, and that our statements are not to be disputed as the opinions of a few, or of a minority. As a man fitted to govern an empire, or, in a worldly view merely, Constantine would not stand much behind the first rulers of Rome. Mercy, and even justice, was not often to be found in the breasts of emperors, not even for their own kindred and families, when they stood in the way of their ambitious schemes. Constantine, instead of being an exception in this respect, was jealous, cold, and vindictive. His own wife and offspring were sacrificed, apparently without compunction, to his selfishness and ambition. Even the heathen were shocked at his crimes, especially at the causeless murder of an amiable son, and considered him beyond the reach of pardon. But our chief interest in Constantine is in regard to his relation to the cause of the Christian religion. Were we to confine ourselves to the best accredited facts of his profession of Christianity, we should notice his life only from 323 to 337, a period of fourteen years. But there has been made a strong effort to present him as a conscientious disciple, as well as the courtly patron of Christianity, from the time of his battle with Maxentius. And it has been claimed that the most remarkable event of his life took place at that time, which directly led to his reception of Christianity. We refer to the reputed vision of the cross. There is, however, no need to distinguish between particular periods in his life, as historians are well agreed that his selfishness and his crimes were increased, rather than diminished, after his profession of Christianity. Eusebius, bishop and historian, is, more than all others, relied upon to prove the excellent character of Constantine, and the great service he rendered to the cause of Christianity. But it will be shown by unquestionable testimony and evident considerations that he was biased by court favors, and, like most of the eminent men of the church of that day, considered the favors shown to himself as so much in favor of the cause he professed. Passing from an age of bitter persecution, none of them seemed to realize that there could be any motive but to glorify God which could lead to the toleration, not to say to the upholding, of a religion which had been so deeply despised. The scripture says, “The gift blindeth the wise.” Constantine was not slow to attach to his court eminent dignitaries by such means. Nor were the ambitious bishops, who were already full of jealousy against each other, slow to accept the favor of the emperor and turn it to their own advantage. Eusebius was a favorite of Constantine, and in turn became his adulator. He could not, indeed, be blind to his faults nor ignorant of his crimes; but in some instances he passed over the more flagrant of them without notice, showing more of the politician and courtier than of the faithful historian. To such a degree did he manifest this disposition to gloss the character of his hero, as to greatly damage his writings as historical evidence and to bring upon himself the condemnation of just and discriminating minds. Lest the readers who have not extensively examined this subject, should think we are speaking in strong terms, we will at once proceed to lay before them some statements which we have gathered from credible and reputable sources. Without pretending to exhaust the evidence, we shall present enough to satisfy all that we have good reason for the remarks which we have here made. It will be remembered that Constantine fought the decisive battle with Maxentius in 312 under the banner of the cross. Yet there are few who pretend to think that he had any faith as a Christian at that time. It was a superstitious notion with him, believing as he did in a diversity of gods, among whom he reckoned Christ. And thus Mosheim viewed him, as the following from his Historical Commentaries will show:— “If that man is a Christian who thinks the Christian’s manner of worshiping God is a good and holy one, then I have no doubt that Constantine was, at that time, a Christian. But if no man should be called a Christian unless he believe that Christianity is the only true religion, and that all other religions are false, then I suppose Constantine became a Christian at a later period.”—Page 459. There is strong reason to doubt that Constantine ever became a Christian in that sense, unless it was a short time before his death. Stanley has the following striking passage:— “We may remember the striking remarks of Niebuhr: ‘Many judge of Constantine by too severe a standard, because they regard him as a Christian; but I cannot look upon him in that light. The religion which he had in his head must have been a strange jumble indeed. . . . He was a superstitious man, and mixed up his Christian religion with all kinds of absurd superstitions and opinions. When certain Oriental writers call him equal to the apostles, they do not know what they are saying; and to speak of him as a saint, is a profanation of the word.’”—Page 292. A MAN who unites with the church, and takes upon himself the vows which it imposes, thereby professes to be a Christian, and the world has a right to expect him to discharge the duties and fulfill the obligations which that profession necessarily implies. Every time a man acknowledges himself to be a member of the church, and approaches the communion table, he proclaims himself a Christian, and acknowledges his obligation to lead a Christian life. It is not the manner in which the profession is made, but the fact that it is made, that lays him under this obligation and gives the world a right to expect his life to correspond with his profession. Members of the church would do well to consider this, and to remember that the eyes of the world are upon them, and that men have a right to expect their lives to be in harmony with their profession, and that their inconsistencies bring a reproach upon themselves and the church.—Sel. The Secret of Misery
By Charles Kingsley
If you want to be miserable, think about yourself, about what you want, what you like, what respect people ought to pay you, and what people think of you.—Charles Kingsley. "Jesus beheld how the people cast money into the treasury." Is that true? Is his eye upon me when I give to the poor and to his cause? Did he observe how much—or perhaps how little—I contributed? Was I ashamed that any human eye should behold the pittance I cast into his treasury? And did I forget that he beheld it? True, if it was the widow's mite, he would commend and bless it. And if he beheld my avarice and parsimony, however he may bless the gift, have I any reason to suppose he will bless me? The next time I stand beside his treasury, let me behold Jesus sitting over against the treasury, and beholding what is thrown therein. Let me give under the notice of his eye! Be it much or little, may it meet his commendation, while it helps his cause or blesses his poor.—Christian Standard. Science and the Old Testament.
By George R. Brister
WE are told that science disproves many of the Old Testament statements; that instead of six days, the world required billions of years in building; that the sun could not stand still for a brief hour, because the sun does not move at all, and so on through a long list of objections. It does not satisfactorily answer to say that the mission of the Bible is not to teach science, but to save men's souls. The fact is true, but as an argument it is a begging of the question. While the Bible may not teach science, it must not teach a lie. If a book claiming inspiration announces as a fact what later science proves to be false, all the claim of inspiration is destroyed. Yet the falsity of the Book must not be accepted upon the mere claim of science. And the church need not fear from science's errant boast. A student of science does not graduate into a theologian. A superficial knowledge of stones and soils does not necessarily give knowledge of the mind of God. When so-called science announces her facts, let us be chary of following her conclusions into theological fields. The larger part of the science of to-day heralds itself with a false cry. Its voice is to be heard, it declares, and its conclusions heeded, because it stands not upon intuitions, but upon deductions from clearly proven facts. But is this true? Then science stands only upon facts, never upon inferences. Let us remember, however, against this, that it was the science of the day that taught that baser metal could be changed into gold; that read the future by the stars; that gave to necromancers their silly authority; it was the science of his day that put out Galileo's eyes because he declared the earth moved. Then it is insisted that science deals only with the tangible, the seen, while the Bible deals with Heaven, and angels, and faith, the unseen; and therefore the dicta of science are sure and reliable, while the statements of the Bible are uncertain and visionary. But science tells me that yonder apple falls to the ground by the law of gravitation. Show me gravitation. Do you answer by pointing to the apple on the ground? That is a result merely, not the attraction. So while I cannot show you the Spirit of God, of which the Bible speaks, yet I can point you to where the mourner has from contact with him had a new song put in his mouth, even of praises unto God. Science talks of power. Who has seen it? The answer is: A moment ago that man stood upon his feet, but from the power in the fist of his opponent he now lies bleeding and bruised. A result again, not the thing itself. And while I cannot show you biblical faith, yet I can show you its result in the miserable drunkard, by it transformed into a sober disciple of Jesus. Science announces that the ball discharged from a Minie rifle describes a parabola. No human eye ever saw that parabola. So faith in the processes and conclusions of science, is as necessary as faith is requisite in believing God. To believe in man's growth from the tadpole or protoplasm requires faith in Darwin or his coadjutors. None else have found the connecting link. Between faith in Darwin's word and the word of the living God—not of man's interpretation, however—certainly but one reasonable way is open.—Geo. R. Brister, D. D. Any of the Rulers?
By Epsilon
"Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" John 8:48. THIS question, asked by the opposing rulers, opens to the mind a great lesson in human nature. It carries the idea that the common people must follow the rulers instead of searching the truth for themselves and for the truth's sake. The rulers insinuated that, as none of themselves nor the Pharisees had believed on Jesus, therefore he must be an impostor; and that as the common people could not know the law, they were in consequence cursed by being led astray by this one on whom the rulers would not believe. This large class of people do not love truth, and no amount of proof will induce them to leave the popular current and accept that which is unpopular. But another very small class are lovers of truth. "These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth." Two of the Jewish rulers, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, were Christ's disciples; but they did not confess their belief. They doubtless wished to retain their high office. But they were watching the truth, and probably hoped that their positions might some day help the cause. The Lord knows his work, and would not have his church burdened by swarms of time-servers and favor-seekers who have no real love of truth, but would join any popular church for the sake of society, or the hope of being helped in business. A church would better weep than rejoice at the increase of such members. Jesus, knowing that the great mass of people would walk in the broad and popular road that leads to destruction, says to the "little flock." "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:19. Following the church from the cross of the crucified Redeemer down through the book of Revelation, to the coming of the King in his glory, we cross many a stream of blood and tears, verifying the Saviour's words, "And ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." Matt. 24:9. What shall we say of the wisdom of those Protestants who are now trying to popularize the churches by law? At the time the Roman Church was established by law, it was an untried experiment; but Protestants now have all the history of the past before them, and yet seem willing, yea, anxious, to repeat the history of that ignoble church. The idea of trying to convert people by law is like saying, "Rather than have people receive truth because they may happen to love truth, we choose to have the church freighted down with mere pretenders." A large crop of hypocrites is an inevitable result of a popularized church. But the true church, "hated of all nations," will stand for pure principles, let the majority act as they may. It is no other than the "false prophet" of Rev. 13:11 that is preaching the world's conversion, and imploring the help of the civil law in making a "Christian nation." The true Prophet says, "Ye shall be hated of all nations," and that the "man of sin" will be consumed by the brightness of the Lord's coming; that men will cry for rocks and mountains to fall on them; that they that worship the beast and his image, or receive his mark, will suffer the seven last plagues, and die the second death. Religion.
By R. F. Cottrell
"Religion! What treasures untold
Reside in that heavenly word!
More precious than silver or gold,
Or all that this earth can afford." To THESE words of the poet we heartily respond, Amen! But what faculty, propensity, or sentiment of humanity has been more abused and perverted than the religious? That part of our nature which was intended to be the greatest blessing to man by allying him to his Maker, by being turned from the channel of truth has been turned to a curse, degrading him below the level of the beasts that perish; for beasts never thought of offering their own kind in sacrifice to appease the wrath of an offended, tyrannical deity. Attracted by the sound of music, I entered a Catholic church building, just in time to witness the closing scene. There, before a splendid altar, made radiant by lighted candles, stood the priest arrayed in costly, though clumsy, regalia, attended by a considerable number of lads in white livery, to attend his nod, and bend the supple knee as they passed his august presence, or as he passed them. But the scene soon closed; and the devout worshipers, bowing the knee as they passed out of their seats, and dipping their fingers in the fonts of holy water near the door, and making the sign of the cross upon themselves, while they cast a farewell glance back to the altar, left the house. "And this," said I to myself, as I walked away, "is religion! These dupes of a blind superstition without any doubt feel that all is well with them. They have attended the confessional, paid the priest, and heard mass; and what more do they need?" The ancient pagans, from whom the Roman Church derived their doctrines and rites, were ostensibly pious and very devoted. They had "a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." Their blind credulity and devotion led them to the most barbarous and inhuman acts, even to the sacrificing of the life of their own children. Such was their religion. Were they lacking in religious zeal? Witness their tremendous shrieks and cries as they call aloud to their gods, till very hoarseness forbids the utterance of articulate sounds. See them leap upon the altar, and cut their flesh with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out and trickled down their persons to the earth. Zeal is not the ingredient that is wanting. It is lack of knowledge. It is the lack of a faith, calm and reasonable, based upon facts, such facts as are revealed in the glorious gospel of the Son of God. The religion of the Bible consists in a calm and steadfast faith in clearly revealed and proven facts, a firm reliance on the promises of God, and obedience to his commandments. Those who are in the exercise of such a religion as this have a right to be zealous; they have a right to shout the high praises of God. But their zeal will be tempered with reason. "The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets." "God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." All things are to be done "decently and in order." Order implies a regular arrangement and succession of things. All may prophesy "one by one," that all may learn; not all at once, for that would tend to confusion and not to edification; and in case "there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?" The Lord would not have his people give the impression to outsiders that they are madmen. Christians are the most sane and reasonable persons in the world. They are the light of the world. Profiting by Wants and Infirmities
BLESSED is the man who learns to profit by his wants and infirmities, and who, in all the privations he endures, is still submissive to the will of God.—Sel. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—MARCH 28. Inheritance of the Saints.—Continued.
THE FIRST DOMINION FORFEITED.
1. WHEN the earth was created, to whom was given the dominion over it? "And God said, Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Gen. 1: 26-28. 2. What was its condition at that time? "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." Gen. 1: 31. 3. Did man also share in this perfection? "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Gen. 1: 27. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Eccl. 7: 29. 4. What further shows that the dominion which God intrusts to man must be preserved spotless? "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in Heaven." Matt. 6: 10. "And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." Dan. 7: 27. 5. Then until what time only, could Adam hope to retain the dominion given to him? 6. When the dominion was given to Adam, what prohibition was put upon him? "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen. 2: 17. 7. Did he heed this prohibition? "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Gen. 3: 6. 8. Since the dominion given to Adam was a perfect one, what was the necessary result of his sin? 9. By what agency was Adam's fall accomplished? "And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." Gen. 3: 12, 13. "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years." Rev. 20: 2. 11. If a man is overcome by another, what is the result? "While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." 2 Peter 2: 19. 12. By whom was Adam overcome? 13. Then to whom did he become subject? 14. What becomes of a man's possessions, if he himself is overcome by another? "How can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house." Matt. 12: 29. 15. Then when Adam was overcome by Satan, what must have become of the dominion which he held? 16. What title does Paul apply to the one who blinds men concerning the gospel? "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost; in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Cor. 4: 3, 4. 17. What is the name of the one who performs this work of deception? "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." 2 Thess. 2: 9, 10. 18. Then who is "god of the world"? 19. What other title does Paul apply to the one who works in the children of disobedience? "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." Eph. 2: 2. 20. Although Satan usurped the dominion from Adam, did he become absolute ruler? "That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Dan. 4: 25. NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
ONLY a day or two had elapsed after Paul's appeal, when Agrippa II., the last of the Herods, and his sister Bernice came down to Cesarea to pay their respects to the new procurator. It was a compliment which they could never safely omit, and we find that they paid similar visits to each procurator in succession. The regal power of Agrippa, such as it was, depended on no popular support, but simply and solely on the will of the emperor. As a breath had made him first king of Chalcis (A. D. 48), then of the tetrarchy of Philip (A. D. 52), and finally of various other cities (A. D. 55), so on any day a breath might unmake him. During the visit of Agrippa and Bernice to Festus, he took the opportunity of referring to the perplexing case of the prisoner Paul. He told Agrippa of the fury which seemed to inspire the whole Jewish people at the mention of his name, and of the futile results of the trial just concluded. However much the Jews might try to misrepresent the real questions at issue, it was clear that they turned on Mosaic technicalities, and “on one Jesus who was dead, whom Paul alleged to be alive”—matters about which Festus had no jurisdiction, and could not be supposed to know anything. The prisoner, however, had refused to be tried again by the Sanhedrim, and had appealed to the decision of the Augustus. “I should have liked myself also to hear this person,” said Agrippa. Festus eagerly closed with the wish, and fixed the next day for the gratification of the king's fancy. It was not, as is commonly represented, a new trial. That would have been, on all grounds, impossible. Agrippa was without judicial functions, and the authority of the procurator had been cut short by the appeal. It was more of the nature of a private or drawing-room audience—a sort of show occasion designed for the amusement of these princely guests, and the idle aristocracy of Cesarea, both Jewish and Gentile. Festus ordered the auditorium to be prepared for the occasion, and invited all the chief officers of the army, and the principal inhabitants of the town. We are expressly told that Agrippa and Bernice went in state to the pretorium, she, doubtless, blazing with all her jewels, and he in his purple robes, and both with the golden circlets of royalty around their foreheads, and attended by a suite of followers in the most gorgeous apparel of Eastern pomp. Did Agrippa think of his great-grandfather Herod, and the massacre of the innocents? of his great-uncle Antipas, and the murder of John the Baptist? of his father Agrippa I., and the execution of James the Elder? Did he recall the fact that they had each died or been disgraced soon after, or in direct consequence of, those inflictions of martyrdom? Did he realize how closely, but unwittingly, the faith in that “one Jesus” had been linked with the destinies of his house? Did the pomp of to-day remind him of the pomp sixteen years earlier, when his much more powerful father had stood in the theater, with the sunlight blazing on the tissued silver of his robe, and the people shouting that he was a god? Did none of the dark memories of the place overshadow him as he entered that former palace of his race? It is very unlikely. Extreme vanity, gratified self-importance, far more probably absorbed the mind of this titular king, as, in all the pomp of phantom sovereignty, he swept along the large, open hall, seated himself with his beautiful sister by the procurator's side, and glanced with cold curiosity on the poor, worn, shackled prisoner—pale with sickness and long imprisonment—who was led in at his command. Festus opened the proceedings in a short, complimentary speech, in which he found an excuse for the gathering, by saying that on the one hand the Jews were extremely infuriated against this man, and that on the other he was entirely innocent, so far as he could see, of any capital crime. Since, however, he was a Roman citizen, and had appealed to Cæsar, it was necessary to send to “the lord” some minute of the case by way of elogium, and he was completely perplexed as to what he ought to say. He was, therefore, glad of the opportunity to bring the prisoner before this distinguished assembly, that they, and especially King Agrippa, might hear what he had to say for himself, and so, by forming some sort of preliminary judgment, relieve Festus from the ridiculous position of sending a prisoner without being able to state any definite crime with which he had been charged. As no accusers were present, and this was not in any respect a judicial assembly, Agrippa, as the person for whom the whole scene was got up, told Paul that he was allowed to speak about himself. There is not a word of his address which does not prove how completely he was at his ease. The scarlet sagum of the procurator, the fasces of the lictors, the swords of the legionaries, the gleaming armor of the Chiliarchs, did not for one moment daunt him—they were a terror, not to good works, but to the evil; and he felt that his was a service which was above all sway. Stretching out his hand in the manner familiar to the orators whom he had often heard in Tarsus or in Antioch, he began by the sincere remark that he was particularly happy to make his defense before King Agrippa, whose anxiety to conform to the law, both written and oral, was well known. He begged, therefore, for a patient audience, and narrated once more the familiar story of his conversion from the standpoint135 of a rigid and bigoted Pharisee to a belief that the Messianic hopes of his nation had now been actually fulfilled in that Jesus of Nazareth, whose followers he had at first furiously persecuted, but who had won him, by a personal revelation of his glory, to the knowledge that he had risen from the dead. Why should that belief appear incredible to his hearers? It once had been so to himself; but how could he resist the eye-witness of a noonday vision? and how could he disobey the heavenly voice which sent him forth to open the eyes both of Jews and Gentiles, that they might turn from darkness to light, and the power of Satan unto God, that, by faith in Jesus, they might receive remission of sins and a lot among the sanctified? —Farrar's Life of Paul. THE following is from Dio Lewis' new book, "Our Digestion," and is worthy of consideration:— "A clergyman comes to see me a dozen times a year about his biliousness. I know a great many people who are bilious. They have no dyspepsia, they never had a symptom of dyspepsia in their lives; they are only bilious. "Now, this word biliousness is a sort of respectable cover for piggishness. Reader, are you bilious? (Rather a hard question after the above remark.) Let me prescribe for you. If you follow my prescription, and don't get speedily well, write me, and in the next edition of this work I will announce my error. "First, on getting up and going to bed drink plenty of cold water. Eat for breakfast until the bilious attack passes, a little stale bread, say one slice, and a piece half as large as your hand of boiled lean beef or mutton. If the weather is warm, take instead a little cracked wheat or oatmeal porridge. For dinner take about the same thing. Go without your supper. "Exercise freely in the open air, producing perspiration, once or twice a day. In a few days your biliousness is all gone. This result will come, even though the biliousness is one of the spring sort, and one with which you have, from year to year, been much afflicted. Herb drinks, bitter drink, lager beer, ale, whisky, and a dozen other spring medicines, are simply barbarous. "I had a friend, a lawyer, living at Buffalo, N. Y., who was famous for bilious attacks. Once or twice a month he had an attack of bilious headache, and sometimes was obliged to ask the postponement of an important suit. At length, tired and disgusted, he came to me and asked if nothing could be done, for really it was getting to be the torment of his life. I told him how to eat and drink and exercise, and promised him if he would follow my prescription he should never have another bilious sick headache. My prophecy proved true as to two or three years, but after a time he got back into the ale, strong coffee, sausage, buckwheat cakes, hot rolls, melted butter, and other abominations, and of course his old headaches. But he knew the remedy, and when it became too hard to bear, he fell back upon the prescription, and has never failed to obtain relief. "A great many persons seem to be quite willing to suffer a constant depression of spirits, constant indigestion, with its innumerable torments—entirely willing to suffer all this for the momentary pleasure of slipping down their throats something which tastes good. I can think of nothing else which so strikingly exhibits man's undeveloped condition. "Is it not funny to see a dyspeptic whose life is one unbroken torture, who wishes himself dead, who never has a good night's sleep, and never a single happy, social hour, whose whole life is a failure, both as to enjoyment and usefulness, but who, three times a day, shovels into his stomach a quantity of greasy, hot, indigestible trash, to keep up the flame, producing and reproducing the suffering? Assure him that this is the cause of all his suffering, and he replies, in the spirit of a martyr:— "Oh, I suppose, doctor, it is so, but then, after all, I go for a short life and a merry one." "Short life and a merry one, indeed! That's a grim joke. Merry! Why, a temperate man, who eats just what he needs, and enjoys the harmonious play of all his powers and faculties of body and soul, has more happiness in one day than one of these 'short-and-merry-life' fellows has in a year. The temperate man's life is one of constant flow of solid enjoyment. He is conscious of usefulness, of filling a place in the world, while this short-and-merry-life gormandizer and drinker is afflicted with the thought that his life is blasted. What the dyspeptic means by 'a short life and a merry one' is the momentary tickling of his palate with plum pudding, followed by six hours of groaning."