Year: 1877

Ephesan whom they had supposed that Paul
had brought into the temple.-Acts 2l, 29.


We learn from the incident Of which this
verse is in part descriptive that when principle
is not at stake 1t Is best sometimes to yield our
personal opinions TOR the sake OF peace. Re-
port had been circulated that Paul had not been
keeping the law of Moses but he had openly
spoken against it. This prejudiced the Jews
against him. To do away with this prejudice
he conforms himself to that ceremonial law.
He regarded it of no avail one way or the other,
but il prejudice could be removed he would
conform himself to the customs OF the people
among whom he moved. " L nto the Jews /
became as jew, that might gain the Jews;
to them that are without law as without law,
that ! might gain them without law. ! am
made all things to all men, that | might by all
means cave some." Not that Paul would yield
where principle was involved, but in matters
non-essential he would not stubbornly urge his
ewn opinion.


How much Of this spirit is needed in every
church. There are hundred questions COM
ing up regarding which we cannot all agree.
How can two or three hundred OF us remain in
the same church and yet Disagree about such
questions as, shall we have choir or congrega-
preach for US, shall we rent the pews? Evil
IDENTIFY there must be a yielding on the part Of
some one. To have a church where all things
should be managed just according to our idea,
would require that each man have church Of
his owD. Let the aim Of each member be. not
to see how frequently he can have his own way
but how often he can cease urging his own
personal opinion for the sake OF the general
good. Don't be mulish church member


2. Again, under the plea OF party, deeds may
be committed that would not be tolerated for a
moment in an individual. These Jews raise
the watch-cry, Men of Israel" They appealed
to party in their effort to develop mob against
Paul 1t would have been wrong for an ind-
vidual Jew to have killed Paul, but under the
guise Of party great company OF them might
have killed him with impunlty. What is wrong
for en- individual is not wrong for large col
lection of individuals. Here is railroad owned
by company consisting of five hundred men.
An accident occurs involving the loss Of many
lives. The responsibility os that accident is
not brought home very forciby to any one OF
them They divide the responsibility. Each
stock holder SAYS am only one fve-hundredth
part to blame A church hires janitor. They
get behind in their payments. The bill is pre-
sented TO the church. Each member says, oh,
well, that is not my debt-that is the church
debt. Yes but, bless you, who or what is the
church if 1t is not the individual members of
which it is composed? Each s-ould feel as
morally bound to pay that debt as though he
we're the only member.


3. Great harm is sometimes done by suppos-
ing things that we have no business to suppose.
Guessing is sometimes fraught with very great
evil. This is the man that teacheth all men
everywhere against the people. and the law and
this place, and further, brought Greeks also
into the temple, and hath polluted this holy
place. For they had seen before with him IN
the city Tropmmus, an Ephesian, whom they
supposed that Paul had brought into the tenn
ple." II was contrary to jewish law and cus-
tom to allow foreigner to enter their temple.
Over the temple door was written, " No for
eigner can enter here on pain OF death" They
had seen Paul in company with Greek out in
the city. then they see Paul in the temple with
J
This is the occasion OF great revolt that comes
very near costing Paul his life All this trouble
brought about by suppositlon.' There is
great difference between fact and inference. In
going down the street tomorrow find dead
man on the Sidewalk with his throat cut from
ear to ear. make that statement to our Mar
shal. Another man comes along and seeing
the dead man, reports to the Marshal that q
MURDERED man is lying on the sidewalk An
other passes by and reports that SUICIDE is
living there. These last state inferences and
not facts. 1t is fact that q dead man lies
there with bis throat cut, but that he was muir
dered or committed suicide are mere differences
from that fact.


These differences may do great injustice to
the parties to whom alluson is made. A re-
markable CAGE OF this kind occurred many
years ago in North6eld, Summit county, Ohio.
Mr.. Viers and Mr.. Chsrlesworth lived neigh
bors Charlesworth suddenly disappeared.-
Careful search failed to discover bis where
sbouts. Suspicion of foul play began to APP
pear. This eliminated in the arrest and trial
of Mr.. Viers for the murder OF Charesworth.
Suspicious circumstances without number were
found. After lengthy trial Viers was acquit-
ted, solely for the want of positive evidence.
Nearly everyone believed him guilty OF the
crime charged. Mr.. Viers SAID that he could
not rest with that stain upon his reputation
He began an interchangeable search for the miss
/ ing Charleswortb, visited all parts of this
country aud even went to Europe lie Found
the missing man in a hotel in Detroit. lie took
him back to Nortbfeld and appointed a day for
the people TO come aud satisfy themselves as
TO Che identity OF Charesworth AL save one,
we're convinced chat this WAS the real Charles
worth, and that yiers had been wrongly ac-
cused. In this case there we're one or two facts
but great many differences. These differences
came very near costing Viers his life.


Our everyday life abounds in these infer
ences. The merchant gives you the wrong
change, making the mistake in his own favor,
and you Immediately infer that he intended to
cheat you. In going down the street you meet