of inebriating drinks is generally a pre-requisite for the acceptance of the Holy Spirit, and has been found a positive and direct means of preparation for spiritual impressions by thousands of once prodigal drunkards.

3. The objection, that since the apostle says, 'Be not drunk with wine,' he virtually sanctions a use of wine short of drunkenness, is one of those superficial inferences in which uneducated or prejudiced minds delight. It is surely possible in our day for a Christian missionary to condemn and forbid intemperance by opium, without approving of the use of that drug in any degree. If the words 'in which is dissoluteness' are joined to the word 'wine,' a powerful warning is given in respect to wine itself; and however the clauses may be construed, the passage in its entirety neither recommends intoxicating drink nor implies that its use, in the smallest measure, is either salutary or safe. The soul 'filled with the Spirit' is not supposed to crave after strong drink, but is more likely to resemble the wise man of whom Philo (Paul's contemporary) observes, that 'he will never voluntarily make use of unmixed wine, or of any drug of folly' (akraton kai pan aphrosunees pharmakon hekōn oupote). Expositors, not themselves abstainers, illustrate this text by a reference to Luke i. 14, where the promise that John should be filled with the Holy Spirit,' even from his birth, was connected with the heavenly prohibition, 'wine and strong drink he shall not drink.' Thus Olshausen, in his comment on this verse, writes, "Man feels the want of a strengthening through spiritual influences from without; instead of seeking for these in the Holy Spirit, he in his blindness has recourse to the 'natural' spirit, that is, to wine and strong drinks. Therefore, according to the point of view of the Law, the Old Testament recommends abstinence from wine and strong drinks, in order to preserve the soul free from all merely natural influences, and by that means to make it more susceptible of the operations of the Holy Spirit."

THE EPISTLE OF

ST PAUL TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

CHAPTER IV. VERSE 5.

Let your moderation be known unto all men. hand.

The Lord is at

MODERATION] Epicikees, seemliness,' or 'gentleness.' The Vulgate has modestia, which the Rheims version converts into 'modestie.' Wiclif gives 'be youre pacience known to alle men'; Tyndale and Cranmer, softness'; the Geneva V. 'patient mynde.' Had the A. V. read 'moderation-of-mind,' the ignorant perversion of this text into an objection to the Temperance movement—as if the apostle were recommending 'moderation-in-liquors '—would have been avoided. The reference is either to that propriety and consistency of conduct which Christians should ever exhibit, or to that gentleness and equanimity of soul which should ever be manifested to all, even to persecutors; for 'the Lord is at hand,'-at hand to reward His people and judge their oppressors. So far as this text can have any bearing on the use of strong drinks, it would be impossible to show that Christian moderation of disposition-whether decorum or serenityis ever increased by the use of the smallest quantity of the wine which is a mocker; while there is lamentable evidence of breaches of propriety and good temper provoked by its influence on professing Christians of every name. Cowper, who was a good Greek scholar, very well rebukes the prevalent perversion of this text in favor of sensuality :

'The selfsame word that bids our lusts obey,
Is misapplied to sanctify their sway.'

CHAPTER IV. VERSE 8.

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

This comprehensive principle is an answer to the objection that abstinence is not commanded in the Scriptures; since, if it be included under any of the 'whatsoevers' of this verse, it is as really affirmed and stamped with apostolic authority as if distinctly pointed out. Nowhere do the sacred writers profess to give an exhaustive enumeration of all varieties of virtuous conduct. In the application of

this catholic course of Christian morals, all that is necessary is to ascertain whether any particular act or line of conduct comes under the rule laid down; if it does, the scriptural application of it comes out as clearly and conclusively as, in logic, the conclusion of a properly constructed syllogism issues from its premises. This apostolic description aptly and singularly unites the two elements contained respectively in the definition of morality given by Socrates and Plato. The former defines virtue as that which is done with 'perception '-i. e. of truth and suitability; the latter, as an action in resistance of appetite, manifesting moral strength, or the control of the fleshly by the spiritual nature.* "The Christian has had to deal with a thousand things against which no Divine [verbal] intimation could have been quoted, but the evil of which conscience [enlightened by fact] would have taught him. Men practically ignore their conscience in this matter."-(A. Purey-Cust, M. A.)

The ancients laid due stress upon knowledge, and ascribed nearly all evil to ignorance. In the Neo-platonic book ascribed to Hermes (of which Arabic and Greek copies exist), there occurs the following curious passage:

"Whither are you carried, O men, drunken with drinking up the unmixed wine (akraton) of Ignorance? which seeing you cannot bear, why do you not (as with wine) vomit it up again? "Stand, drink not (neepsantes), and look up with the eyes of your heart.

"For the malice of Ignorance overrunneth the Earth, and corrupteth the Soul. Seek where the clear light is, that is pure from darkness, where not one is drunken (methuei), but all are abstinent, sober" (neephousin).—The Pomander, lib. vii.

THE EPISTLE OF

ST PAUL TO THE COLOSSIANS.

CHAPTER II. VERSE 16.

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.

OR IN DRINK] Ee en posei, 'or in drink.' Codex B has kai en posei, 'and in drink. '

The apostle is not alluding to a distinction of drinks as intrinsically wholesome or unwholesome, dangerous or safe, but to certain arbitrary and ceremonial fancies founded on Jewish ideas of 'clean' and 'unclean.' Some expositors suppose the existence at Colosse of a strong pseudo-ascetic party, such as afterward developed into the Gnostic sect, which affirmed that hulee, 'matter,' was 'inherently evil'; and if this conjecture be correct, the caution of St Paul is intelligible, and in perfect harmony with the Temperance doctrine that whatever God provides for the food of man is 'very good.' The text, observe, has a dual reading,—for if I am not to judge my neighbor in eating or drinking, neither must my neighbor judge me in abstaining from meat or drink. If people would first consider what this text does not mean, they would more accurately comprehend what is its true scope and purport. For instance, it cannot be supposed that it forbids that exercise of reason concerning the quality and consequences of action which the apostle himself is enforcing. He is bringing a certain wilful self-regarding conduct before the church for judgment. He cannot, then, mean that the Christian is not to judge in such matters, for he is himself judging, and has elsewhere, on this very case, come to a conclusion which he puts as an interrogatory-How then walk you charitably, if you do these things?' Still less can the apostle be understood to affirm that we are to exercise no discrimination as to the qualities of food or drink, for that would be equal to saying that the laws of physiology are abolished to the Christian! Nor can 'the liberty' so often pleaded for be sustained by this text as being 'the power to act, or not to act, according to one's own pleasure.' True 'liberty '—Christian 'liberty'—has no such test as 'pleasure' or wilfulness. It must be based upon 'the ought,' and be guided by the reasonable and the imperative—the imperative because the reasonable. The will must be the servant of the reason, not the slave of the passions. In a Christian sense, we are only 'free to act rightly,' or, as it is poetically and proverbially expressed,—

'He is the freeman whom the Truth makes free.'

Obey conscience first, for it is God's proximate organ of truth; but, beyond and above all, seek the truth which gives authority to conscience and direction to the will. "Looking upon my neighbor's conviction, I say, If you esteem such a course best (not pleasantest) and right (not comfortable merely), you will do well to pursue it; but as for me, THE TRUTH seems the highest obligation, and therefore I follow it, whether it be pleasant or painful.”

20

CHAPTER II. VERSE 20-22.

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men ?

21

This passage has been foolishly quoted as condemnatory of the Temperance reform, as thus:-"The language of ver. 22 is at times applied to strong drink; but St Paul quotes it to condemn it; ergo he condemns the modern application"! Can anything be more puerile? By parity of unreason, if the words were applied to the common use of laudanum, St Paul would become, logically, ranged on the side of the opium-eater!

It is said that Temperance advocates, like the persons censured by St Paul, insist upon self-mortification and compliance with absurd ordinances of restraint; but,

(1) No one can be more emphatic himself than St Paul (1 Cor. ix.) in exhorting Christians to self-mastery and subjugation of mere animal desire; and no one dealt more copiously than he in the spirit and language of prohibition; does he therefore come under his own rebuke?

(2) It is altogether contrary to truth to affirm that the abstinence principle is based on the theory of neglecting or emaciating the body; the opposite is the fact; abstinence is expressly founded on the injurious nature of alcohol.

Correctly construed, the passage is favorable to the Temperance reform, for the apostle repudiates ordinances springing from the theory of a moral or immoral quality in things themselves, irrespective of their actual effects,—putting superstitious fancies in the place of observed results; whereas the Temperance principle ascribes rightness and wrongness solely to responsible agents, and proscribes intoxicating drinks as unfit for use on the ground of a want of physical appropriateness, and their injurious influences upon the body, and only through it upon the mental and moral nature. Hence the apostle's argument is, that as material things are perishable, to identify religion with material observances is to degrade it, with all its immortal treasures;-an excellent reason, so far as it goes, against that blind attachment to intoxicating liquors which is the only religion that many persons acknowledge, while over many men, who profess better things, these drinks exert a witchery that Christianity fails to command. Truly, 'extremes meet'; and the superstitious rejection of good or neutral things is well matched by the senseless and sensual esteem in which bad and dangerous things are held.