« PreviousContinue »
this, that Satan has power over the second person of the Trinity to pluck him out of believers' hearts! Again, in Mark v. 36, “ As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken." Here Christ himself, the second person of the Trinity, listens to himself, the logos, proceeding from the lips of those around him! And again, in Luke x. 39, “ Mary sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.” Here we must suppose Mary to have had the rare felicity of hearing the logos, or second person of the Trinity, proceeding from Christ, himself that second person ! Nor is this all; for in Hebrews ii. 2, and again, xii. 19, the phrase óyos is used to denote the Mosaic covenant ; so that it too, in like manner, as the word of Christ, must have been Christ himself, the very and eternal God! Nay, farther, the phrase is frequently used in the plural number. There are òr 20you as well as ó hóyos spoken of by the Evangelists; so that there must be not only one, but several second persons appertaining to the Trinity!
But, seriously, what an unwarrantable license to take with the words of truth, thus to pervert from its natural meaning a term of so very common use! and that, too, for the purpose of undermining the first grand truth of Revelation, the simple unity of God! But it will be said, that the Evangelist himself warrants this interpretation of the phrase in this instance; for, in the fourteenth
says, “ The word was made flesh." True, the word was made flesh. It was revealed by and in Jesus Christ. Christ, in his own person and conduct, was a living exemplification of the Gospel that he preached. He was the only-begotten of the Father; the only one “ born of God," in the true spiritual image of the Father, “full of grace and truth.” If “ the word,” however, were the second person of the Trinity, and if this were made flesh, then the second person of the Trinity is no longer a purely spiritual, but a corporeal being ; no longer “invisible, but visible; no longer immortal,” but as much mortal as humanity; no longer "unchange able," but liable to change; and therefore the second person of the Trinity cannot be God. And, further, if is the word” that was made flesh, were the second person of the Trinity, then, after it was made so, it became some
thing more ; and if it were God previously, after it was made so, it became something more; so that Jesus Christ, “the word made flesh,” is something more than the second person! something more than God !
Such are the absurd conclusions to which this supposition leads us.
But, finally, it will be said, that in the book of Revelation it is expressly affirmed of Christ that “his name is called the Word of God.” True; he is the word of God,” and therefore not God himself; he is the revealer of God's will, and therefore called God's word; in like manner as Moses was made a God to Pharaoh, that is, God's word to Pharaoh; and thus the word which God gave to Christ, Jesus gave to his Apostles, who became his word, or the preachers of his word, to all the world. All the analogy of Scripture, therefore, proves that the logos mentioned in the first of John means the Gospel, an historical account of which he is about to write. Clonmel, 26th April, 1841.
POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO TOTAL ABSTINENCE.-No. I. Abstinence versus Moderation, or Reasons for Abstaining
entirely from all Intoxicating Liquors, in preference to Partaking of them as a Beverage in Moderation.
Tue advocates of Total Abstinence are frequently addressed, by the apologists for moderate drinking, in language to the following effect:—We can see no harm in a man's enjoying moderately a cheering beverage. We would willingly and gladly go along with you in discountenancing the abuse of fermented liquors, and in recommending the use of them only within the limits of the most guarded moderation; but we see no necessity whatever for total abstinence.
The total abstainers reply ;- We recommend abstinence instead of moderation because of its greater safety, distinctness, practicability, and efficiency.
1. First, we say, to abstain entirely from intoxicating liquor is safer than to partake of it in moderation. In abstinence we are farther removed from drunkenness than in moderation, and consequently are less in danger. In passing to intemperance, we go up to a certain point on the line of moderate drinking, and when we have ar'rived at that point, when we have reached the boundary mark, beyond which is excess, we are certainly nearer to intemperance, we are more in danger of being swept into its fatal circle than before we started. In total abstinence we are safe at anchor; in moderation we are on a dangerous stream, that for a while gently, almost imperceptibly, carries us on, but which is usually found to increase in the strength of its current, till it conducts into the first large circle of a somewhat distant but most destructive whirlpool. In this circle, little suspecting danger, how many are carried along in a state of fascinating excitement! They are soon brought imperceptibly within the narrowing circumference and the strengthening current of the second circle, and of the third, the fourth, and onward, till, at last, bewildered, helpless, lost, they are swallowed up in the vortex of intemperance. Intoxicating drinks possess a peculiar property which renders them dangerous. If you are hungry, and partake of food, the hunger abates in proportion to the quantity of solid food you take, and you soon become satisfied, and cease eating. But how is it in the case of drinking intoxicating liquors for the purpose of quenching thirst ? We all know that these liquors excite and stimulate in such a manner, that the more you partake of them, the more you want; and the more you drink, the more thirsty you become. This is not the case with unfermented liquors, as water or milk. Nature teaches you to know when you have had enough of them, by giving you a feeling of satisfaction in the quenching of thirst. Generally speaking, you will feel no desire to take more of them than is good for you; for they do not excite, like intoxicating liquor, what may be justly styled an unnatural, an artificial appetite. It is certainly safer to let alone altogether a liquor which possesses the dangerous quality of increasing the desire for it, in proportion to the increased quantity taken. Does not every one see, that to take none at all is the only plan of perfect safety? Will not those who have degraded themselves by intemperance tell you, that it was not their intention, when they took the first draught, to go beyond moderation ? but the first draught called for the pleasure of a second, the second whetted the appetite for a third, the third
loosened the barriers of prudence and discretion, and the next swept away all self-control, washed down all good resolution, and they were then prepared for any quantity, having become reckless as to excess and to everything. Now, if they had resolved to act upon the principle of total abstinence, would there not have been a greater probability that they would have preserved their sobriety; would not their resolution have been more effectual against temptation, and would not the temptation have had less force than when the appetite had been strengthened, and the conscience weakened, by partaking of the insidious draught in moderation ? Will not every one admit, that the safest way of avoiding drunkenness is to abstain from that which causes drunk. enness ?
To abstain must certainly be more safe than to partake. This appears self-evident; so completely so, that it is difficult to find any illustration to make the matter more plain. However, let us endeavour to illustrate the subject, by supposing the master of a household to have a certain article in his house that is pleasant to the taste, but if partaken of freely, productive of death. We will suppose it, when taken in very small quantities, to produce the most pleasant sensations, and delightful fancies, and a keen, irresistible craving for more. Which would the master of that house recommend to its inmates as the path of safety,--moderation or abstinence? What, supposing him to be a kind master, would be say to his servants whom he loved and valued; still more, what, if he were a father, would he say to his children ? Would he say: Take of that pleasant luxury in great moderation, else you will fall victims to its deadly qualities; observe, you are safe only in the most guarded "moderation? Oh! would be not rather, in the urgency of anxious affection, exclaim; “My friends, my children, touch not, taste not, it is poison, it is death; to partake at all is fraught with peril; abstinence alone is safety.” Such, we cannot question, would be the language of strong and wise affection. Such is the language we would address to our fellow-men, our brethren of the human family, in reference to the use of the poison alcohol, with whatever ingredient it may be mixed, under whatever name it may pass. We know the danger that lurks within it. We know, from the most painful and frequent observation, its powers of destruction; its innate energies of ruin, not only to health, but to intellect, and affection, and the immortal soul; and therefore, in brotherly love to all
, we would exclaim, “ Abstain, abstain!” We speak to you not in hostility, but in affection. We presume not to dictate; we wish to convince, to persuade you in behalf of your own good, for the sake of yourselves, of your families, of your neighbours, to abstain from that which causes so much individual, domestic, and social suffering; to deny yourselves a luxury which is so full of danger, and which entails such an appalling amount of crime and wretchedness.
CONTRAST OF CHRIST'S TEACHINGS AND OF
PAUL'S WRITINGS. To the Editor of the Christian Pioneer. SIR,— The title of these extracts does not fully embrace the subjects treated of in the papers from which they are selected, although it expresses the specific object to which I wish at present to draw the attention of your readers. The general argument involves, among other things, the doctrine, or question, of the Apostolic inspiration and authority at large; and as some of our author's remarks on this topic, are requisite to understand his estimate of Paul's writings in particular, I now select part of a chapter on that head.
CHRISTOPHILUS. * To avoid misapprehensions and unnecessary discussions, let it be observed once for all, that no question is made as to the inspiration of the Apostles in a certain manner and degree. They were inspired with the gift of tongues-with the power of working miracles-occasionally with the discernment of spirits, and with prophetic notices of “things to come.” They were also invested with a special authority and powers for the government of the infant Church, when it was required. Upon these, and some similar points, we need not expatiate, because they do not affect our argument, and we have no objection to the views generally entertained on the subject. More particularly, no question is made of the Apostles having