The cross shall fright all ill away, Away fearful forms, flee-flee; All frightful dreams hence, hence from me! Away thou wily Serpent, who Away! for Jesus Christ is here; This sign, which thou but knowest too well, Whether this was piety or superstition, depends in our opinion very much upon the views which underlay it, and the spirit in which it was practiced. "We would do great injustice to these church fathers," says Dr. Alt in his Cultus, "if we should conclude from such like expressions that they attributed a magical efficacy to the making of the cross. In connection with the use of it they thought only on the saving efficacy of Christ's death upon the cross, and the making of the cross was designed merely as a token of their rememberance of it. As a means of bring their wandering thoughts ever back again to a contemplation of that miracle of divine love, it might certainly bestow protection and power in hours of temptation, and as such could not be too earnestly commended. But at a later period, when it got to be merely a mechanical act of the fingers, it certainly had no power to frighten Satan away; but rather mocked him with the verse : ‹ Signa te, signa! temere me tangis et angis,” * which, on account of its skillful construction (since it reads the same backwards and forwards) was regarded as devils' poetrytaunting them thus with their dependence on so helpless a refuge." That it was often superstitiously used, Church History abundantly reveals. Some of the ancient monks, taking the words of our Saviour, "He that taketh not up his cross and followeth me, is not worthy of me," literally, made and carried wooden crosses, hanging them to their necks. These they wore as they did their sackcloth, slovenly garments, and chains tied round them, more from desire of vain singularity than from thoughtful intent to honor the death of Christ. In the same manner no doubt is the cross worn in our own day, in many cases, for the sake of jewelry rather than for the sake of Jesus; as a matter of pride rather than of piety. The cross was used as a symbol at first over against all heathen * The sense of which may be given thus: "Cross yourself--cross! You touch me at randon, and tease me." ism, and later against the Crescent as the standard of Mohamedanism. The conquest of a heathen or Mohamedan city or country was commemorated by the erection of the cross. In like manner was it used on flags, helmets, shields, crowns, sceptres, imperial globes, as emblems of imperial Christian power; and memorially it was placed on seals, coins, and coat of arms. Unfortunate persons, who desired to bring complaint of grievances before emperors or kings, bore a cross in their hands or upon their shoulders, as an emblem of their innocent sufferings, and at the same time of that mercy and charity for which they were sueing. It was also customary to build churches in the form of a cross. Before a cross, or under one, investigations and decisions in delicate and doubtful cases were made by Judges. Church books, and vessels used in the churches for sacred purposes, were ornamented and distinguished by the cross upon them. It was also used superstitiously in charms, incantations, on amulets, and in magical formularies. Even in some protestant countries a cross over the door of a house or stable is supposed to drive away evil spirits, and to be a sovereign preservation against all wicked powers and wicked men. Boundary lines, or landmarks were also marked with the cross upon them. The use of the cross in graveyards is ancient, though not, as would seem, so ancient as its use in other places. Of its appropriateness to mark the resting places of the "dead in Christ" no one can doubt. The custom of using it as an ornament on monumental stones in graveyards is growing in protestant favor both in Europe and America. In literary use, as well among protestant as among Romish writers, the cross † is used in connection with the date, to signify, "died." The custom of using the cross, in connection with signatures in binding documents, which is still used in legal papers in the case of such as cannot write their own names, but make "their mark ,"dates from the sixth century. "How many of those who daily see the appended to a doccument by those who are unable to write, ever take the trouble to discover its signification. The mark which persons who are unable to write are required to make instead of their signature is the sign of a cross, and this practice, having formerly been followed by kings and nobles is constantly referred to as an instance of the deplorable ignorance of ancient times. This signature is not, however, invariable proof of such ignorance; anciently, the use of this mark, was not confined to illiterate persons; for amongst the Saxons the mark of the cross, as an attestation of the good faith of the person singing, was required to be attached to the signature of those who could write, as well as to stand in place of the signature of those who could not write. In those times, if a man could write, or even read, his knowledge was considered proof positive or presumptive that he was in holy orders. The word clericus or clerk was synonymous with penman; and the laity, or people who were not clerks, did not feel any urgent necessity for the use of letters. The ancient use of the cross was therefore universal, alike by those who could and by those who could not write; it was, indeed, the symbol of an oath from its holy associations, and generally the mark. On this account Mr. Charles Knight, in his notes to the Pictorial Shakspeare, explains the expression of "God save the mark" as a form of ejaculation approaching to the character of an oath. This phrase occurs three or more times in the plays of Shakspeare; but hitherto it has been left by the commentators in its original obscurity. With these associations clustering round it, the sign of the cross should not be made a subject for ridicule, but rather be treated as having an important meaning when appended to a document; being at once a signature and an affirmation to the truth of what is there written.” On account of the use, and perhaps abuse, of the cross by Roman Catholics, there has grown up gradually a prejudice against it in protestant minds. At the time when the legates of the Inquisition made such fearful and cruel havoc among the Reformed in France and Holland, they bore with them a banner ornamented with a blazing cross. It was, as of old, only too truly the sign of death to the innocent! No doubt much of the prejudice which exists in protestant minds against the cross, is to be traced to the cruel use made of it in the bloody days of Romish intolerance. But this does certainly not justify a wholsale prejudice against the true symbol of Christianty. Rather should we glory in those martyrs, who suffered death for the truth under a banner, which, after the manner of the testimony of Pilate to the innocency of Jesus whom he yet condemned, stood over their martyrdom as a silent testimony thus coming from their enemies, that they were in fellowship with Christ's sufferings, being made conformable to His death! It is a trite but true saying, that the abuse of a thing is no argu ment against the proper use of it. True protestants are the last persons that should suffer themselves to be controlled by a mere traditionary prejudice. We shall never forget the creeping horror we felt come over us, when once on a time a clergyman said to us with an emphasis which we easily saw was rather carnal than spiritual: "I hate the cross! I hate the sight of it!" We replied with calm unction: "I do not hate it. I love the sight of it!" If hatred to the cross is a test of orthodoxy, we here frankly confess that we are far from being sound. We love to see it anywhere. Even a cross, meekly worn as an ornament, by a Christian man, woman, or child, is to us proper, decent, and beautiful. We should like to have this blessed and glorious symbol of Christianity over our grave, when once our labors are done, and we shall lie with our fathers. If any one should choose to anathamatize us for this our taste and preference, we should even in that case prefer that he should do it with the sign of the cross. If to be a true Christian requires us to discard whatever a Romanist approves, we had better give up Christ Himself; for they also profess to honor Him. But protestantism has never surrendered its interest in the cross as the symbol of Christianity. "It is not long," says Dr. Alt, "since, among protestants, the minister in baptisms, in the consceration of the bread and wine for the Lord's Supper, and the pronunciation of the blessing, and also church members in the church and in their houses, were in the habit of making the cross." In Luther's smaller Catechism, under the head of, "How the father of a family is to teach his household, and bless themselves every morning and evening," he directs: "In the morning when thou risest from thy bed, thou shalt bless thyself with the holy cross, and say: This grant, God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Amen." Though Luther thus preserved its use, yet he inveighs against the "jugglery and idolatry" often connected with its use; and says that "the Roman clergy preferred to carry the cross in gold and silver to carrying it in their hearts." In some parts of the Protestant Church, as in Wurtenberg, the General Superintendents still wear the golden "prelate-cross,' fastened with a gold chain on their breasts, as a part of their official insignia. As this number will reach our readers before Good Friday, when we again commemorate the mystery of our Saviour's sufferings, this may be regarded as our wreath for the blessed cross. In the language of the celebrated Hymn of Bonaventure, we close our present article: Cross! thou tree of purple blooming! All thy fruit with grace is rife; Millions on this fruit have flourished, Jesus! O Thou crucified! REDEEMING THE TIME. Another part of the work which we call you to is, to redeem this little time that is allotted to you; to make the best of it, and improve it to the greatest futherance of your salvation; to lose none of it upon unprofitable things; to spend it in those works which will comfort you most when time is gone. If it will be more comfortable to you in the judgment that you have spent your time in plays, and sports, and idleness, worldly cares and pleasure than in serving God, preparing for another life, then hold on, and do so to the end; but if it will not, then spend none of your time in idleness and unfruitful things, till you have time to spare from more important work. This is our request to you that you would not lose one hour of your precious time, but spend it as those who have lost too much, and have but little more to spend in preparation for eternity,-Baxter. THOUGHTS ON EASTER. BY L. H. 8. * Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hearts to Heaven and voices arise; "Christ is risen, Christ the First fruits of the holy Harvest-field, Another Easter festival is at hand! The joyous festival, when the Church celebrates the resurrection of its Lord from the bonds of death, and His reunion with the human body, which He was still further to glorify by bearing it with Him to the right hand of the Father! The world may occupy itself with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye and the pride of life, may indulge in disobedience of laws or endeavors to punish the insurgent and unruly; but the Church calmly and dignifiedly divides the year into fasts and feasts, which shall serve to keep alive in the Christian's heart the principal incidents in the human life of his Lord, and to be periods of refreshing to his wearied spirit. The Ecclesiastical Calendar hallows days and seasons by consecrating them with sacred associations, and gives us a binding link, in each one of these epochs, to the central fact of Christianity, the person of Christ Himself. Who dare say, then aught against our fasts and festivals, our sad days and our bright seasons of rejoicing? "For where Christ dwells by love, and where He reigns alone, there days and hours, and years are His, and ought to speak of Him; and symbols and memorials should delight whene'er they point to Him." Easter is the great festival of the year, and so has been regarded from the early Christian ages. The Romish Church has always considered it a high-day, and their gorgeous ritual has been overburdened with ceremonies, meaningless now to most of her members, whatever they might have indicated when first employed. Forms divested of substance are always meaningless, and the purity of Christian doctrine is always sullied by the veneer of mere worldly glare and show. Other Churches, have rushed, as is the wont of mankind, from this extreme to the other of absolute neglect of any observance of Easter. Assuming that the day observed is not the |