Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

In the United States, a few years ago, this text was a favorite argument for the toleration of slavery; and the criticism employed might be exactly paralleled by the arguments of English divines in favor of strong drink. The claim for gratitude and obedience made by God upon His people—and allowed in their triumphant songs-was for deliverance from slavery-deliverance from the house of bondage; and the mission of our Lord was announced as that of opening the prison-doors that the oppressed might go free. Is it credible that the Christian apostle could mean to approve the institution of slavery? Is it a correct inference that, because, in the then state of the world, when the people had no political power to wield,— when it would have been sheer madness to attempt to disturb the social framework of political despotism,-therefore Paul held that people, under constituted governments of their own, ought not to abate an infamous and inhuman system? He was preaching another Gospel, which, however, held seminally in its principle the doom of all slaveries; and even then, in the exhortation to Onesimus to exercise patience, Paul does not forget to teach Philemon that, in the light of Christianity, fraternity and fetters are incompatible.

The principle is applicable to the question of drinking. No amount of historical permission can ever make the use of alcoholic liquor right. Every tree is known by its fruit, and the fruitage of drinking is evil, and that continually.

THE GENERAL

EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

CHAPTER XIII. VERSE 16.

But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

God is well-pleased with well-doing and almsgiving because He is Himself ever doing good and communicating blessings to his creatures; and in imitation of Him we should not forget to present Him with such sacrifices,—the most grateful and becoming that can be offered. We may conclude from this passage, that wise efforts such as the Temperance Reform really is, for the prevention of poverty and suffering,—are well-pleasing to the Most High; for they seek the welfare of body, mind, and spirit, and they never fail to realize their ends whenever they are permitted to operate. In the offering of such sacrifices, all Christian churches and Christian professors would be most consistently engaged; and if so employed, how immensely would the well-being of the human family be promoted!

John Wesley, in January, 1763, preached a sermon before the revived Society for the Reformation of Manners, in which he says, "For this end a few persons in London, toward the close of the last century, united together, and incredible good was done by them for near forty years. But then, most of the original members being gone to their reward, those who succeeded them grew faint in their mind and departed from the work, so that, a few years ago, the society ceased." As the formation of this society manifested true Christian zeal and virtue, and the falling away from its support evinced unfaithfulness and coldness; so to refuse to do almost 'incredible good' in the cause of Temperance is to incur the condemnation of the text; "He who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

THE

GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST JAMES.

CHAPTER I. VERSES 13-15.

13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

Obs. 1. As God cannot tempt men to evil, we may be fully assured that He cannot approve the use of that which is intrinsically an insidious temptation to evil, involving the ruin of millions of our species. Dr Thomas Reid, Professor of Moral Philosophy, nearly a century ago, pointed out the true causation of the drinker's lust and the drunkard's appetite:-"Besides the appetites which Nature hath given us, for useful and necessary purposes, we may create appetites which Nature never gave. The frequent use of things which stimulate the nervous system produces a languor when their effect is gone off, and a desire to repeat them. By this means a desire of a certain object is created, accompanied by an uneasy sensation. Both are removed for a time by [the use of] the object desired; but they return after a certain interval. Such are the appetites which some men acquire for the use of tobacco, for opiates, and for intoxicating liquors" (Works, Hamilton's Ed., P. 553). God creates no deceitful meats or drinks.

2. As subjective temptation lies in human lust (¿. e. illicit or ill-regulated desire of any degree), it becomes our plain and positive duty to avoid whatever stimulates this lust; but who can name a stimulus to the chief vices of mankind comparable to intoxicating drink?

3. The craving for drink is most prolific in bringing forth sin, and of sin the issue is death, physical and moral, temporal and eternal. Strong drink is a deceitful but ceaseless destroyer; and as every lust of the flesh finds in it its appropriate fuel and fire, its aggregate influence on human seduction and ruin baffles alike calculation and conception.

CHAPTER III. VERSE 8.

But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

AN UNRULY EVIL] Akatascheton kakon, an 'uncoercible evil.' Codices Aleph, A, and B reads akatastaton kakon, 'a disorderly (or seditious) evil.'

It has been argued that "as the tongue is not to be cut out or unused, although it is so strongly denounced, therefore wine, though styled 'a mocker,' is not to be renounced." The reply is twofold:

1. That St James uses the word 'tongue' figuratively, and as the mere organ of that evil disposition which he describes as 'a deadly poison.' A child can perceive that the tongue-the physical instrument-is not meant, and that were it cut out the evil disposition would remain, and find expression another way. But when it is said 'wine is a mocker,' the figure does not lie in the 'wine' but in the word 'mocker,' the force of the figure consisting in the fact that wine itself, actually and directly, exerts an effect upon the drinker entitling it to the name of 'mocker'; so that by the removal of the wine the whole of this effect must cease, and so much of sin and misery be spared. If instead of 'wine' we should say 'the cup is a mocker,' we should have a figure corresponding to the one in this text, as 'cup' would stand in the same relation to 'wine' which 'tongue' holds to the 'evil heart,' whose venom it gives forth. Hence,

2. This text, rightly understood, carries with it a conclusion directly opposite to that of the objector; for as the 'poison' complained of is not to be tolerated or tampered with, so neither is the wine whose quality is described in analogous terms. Get rid of the real moral agent—the bad disposition—and the tongue will become pure; so get rid of the real physical agent-the wine-and the cup that contained it will be harmless.

CHAPTER IV. VERSE 17.

Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth if not, to him it is sin.

The original word translated good' is kalon, 'beautiful' excellent; and to him who knows what is suitable to be done, and does it not, the omission is counted as sin. (1) No positive act of evil is required-simply the neglect of what is good. The first and worst neglect of Men is the neglect of the Truth; and it is now, as in the days of the Redeemer, the great condemnation, that though truth has come into the world, men love darkness rather than light. The first duty of man is truth-seeking, the second truth-doing. (2) No positive command is required, Divine or social; it is enough that the act would have been excellent or useful to render the neglect, sin to the neglecter. (3) Knowledge is, of course, presupposed, for he who does not know what is kalon, cannot consciously do it; but men are responsible for the possession of this knowledge, especially where it is easily attainable. St Paul had said that "whatever is not of faith," i. e. is not done from a sense of right, "is sin"; and St James here presents the counterpart truth, that it is also sin to know what is morally loveable and not to do it. This principle effectually disposes of the objectors who refuse to recognize the duty of abstinence, unless an explicit and universal command can be shown for it! Others fondly think that so long as they do not admit' the duty of abstinence, it is no duty to them!—as if idle 'opinions' could overrule the law of God! St James affirms a doctrine quite different from this. According to him, a perception of the excellence of abstinence-its suitableness and utility-constitutes a rule of duty which cannot be neglected without guilt. Much care and charity is called for in applying this rule to others, but non-abstainers cannot be too candid and faithful in applying it to themselves. Nor will the plea of want of knowledge avail for the past, unless the ignorance has been unavoidable, without prejudice, and honest.

THE FIRST

GENERAL EPISTLE OF ST PETER.

CHAPTER I. VERSE 13.

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

BE SOBER] Neephontes, 'being abstinent.' Codex B reads nephontes. The ancient tradition which identifies St Peter with the Nazarites, gives peculiar force to this use of necphontes; as also does the figure employed-that of racers who brace themselves up to their task, and who, exercising a complete control over their appetites, hope on as they run, looking for the prize. In full accordance with this view are the injunctions against former lusts' (ver. 14); to the practice of holiness and fear (ver. 15-17); the figure of a holy priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices' (chap. ii. 5); 'a royal priesthood' (ver. 9); and the warning against 'fleshly lusts which war against the soul' (ver. 11). Why should Christians, as a race of priests, be found less careful than were the priests of Levi, who were forbidden to use wine and strong drink when in attendance in the temple, lest they should transgress and displease God? If fleshly lusts are to be avoided, what else but common wisdom is it to renounce their most subtle and dangerous excitement? [On the opposition of the neephonist soul to strong drink, see the quotation from Philo, in Note on 1 Thess. v. 6.]

CHAPTER II. VERSES 13, 14.

13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

[ocr errors]

If a parenthesis be placed before 'whether' and after 'by him,' or even a comma after him,' a good sense will be realized, and the contradiction of the doctrine, that as to some ordinances ('idolatry,' to wit) we must obey God rather than men,' will disappear. The word translated 'ordinance' is literally 'creature' (ktisis); but the context shows the absurdity of understanding it without limitation. Tested by the rule of this text (that the institution Christians must contentedly accept, is

« ÎnapoiContinuă »