Earlier text: Heathen Plots against NehemiahThe Doctrine of a Trinity as Related to the Atonement.
By Editor
It will no doubt appear to many to be irreverent to speak thus of the doctrine of a trinity. But we think they must view the subject in a different light if they will calmly and candidly examine the arguments which we shall present. We know that we write with the deepest feelings of reverence for the Scriptures, and with the highest regard for every Scripture doctrine and Scripture fact. But reverence for the Scriptures does not necessarily embrace reverence for men's opinions of the Scriptures. It is not our purpose to present any argument on the doctrine of the trinity, further than it has a bearing on the subject under consideration, namely, on the Atonement. And we are willing, confidently willing to leave the decision of the question with all who will carefully read our remarks, with an effort to divest themselves of prejudice, if they unfortunately possess it. The inconsistencies of Trinitarians, which must be pointed out to free the Scripture doctrine of the Atonement from reproaches under which it has too long lain, are the necessary outgrowth of their system of theology. No matter how able are the writers to whom we shall refer, they could never free themselves from inconsistencies without correcting their theology. Many theologians really think that the Atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But we fail to see any connection between the two. To the contrary, the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty which they seem anxious to avoid. Their difficulty consists in this: They take the denial of a trinity to be equivalent to a denial of the divinity of Christ. Were that the case, we should cling to the doctrine of a trinity as tenaciously as any can; but it is not the case. They who have read our remarks on the death of the Son of God know that we firmly believe in the divinity of Christ; but we cannot accept the idea of a trinity, as it is held by Trinitarians, without giving up our claim on the dignity of the sacrifice made for our redemption. And here is shown how remarkably the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death of Christ—the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians hold that the term "Christ" comprehends two distinct and separate natures: one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not possibly suffer, or die; that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity had dwelt. Both classes have a human offering, and nothing more. No matter how exalted the pre-existent Son was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only died, the sacrifice was only human. And so far as the vicarious death of Christ is concerned, this is Socinianism. Thus the remark is just, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, resting it solely on a human offering as a basis. A few quotations will show the correctness of this assertion. "As God, he obeyed all the requirements of the law, and made it honorable in the justification of sinners; as man, he bore its curse on the tree, and endured its penalty."—Manual of Atonement, p. 25. "The sufferings of Christ were endured in his human nature. Though possessing a divine nature, yet in that he could not suffer and die. His sufferings were endured in his human nature." Id., p. 88. "It is no part of the doctrine of the Atonement that the divine nature, in the person of the Saviour, suffered."—Barnes on Atonement, p. 224. "It was meet that the mediator should be man, that he might be capable of suffering death; for, as God, he could not die."—Buck's Theol. Dict., Art. Mediator. "Trinitarians do not hold to the sufferings or death of divinity."—Mattison on the Trin., p. 39. "His mediation between God and man is chiefly in his human nature, in which alone he was capable of suffering and dying."—Scott on 1 Tim. 2:5. "I know not any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the divine nature of our Lord to be begotten of God, or to be the Son of God."—Clarke on Heb. 1:8. "Is it to be wondered that the human body in which this fullness of the Godhead dwelt, and in which the punishment due to our sins was borne upon the tree, should be exalted above all human and all created things?"—Id. on Phil. 2:9. Dr. Clarke says the apostle John doubtless directed his first letter against the heretics then abounding. Of them he says:— "The Gnostics even denied that Christ suffered; the Æon, or Divine Being, that dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, according to them, left him when he was taken by the Jews," &c.—Note on 1 John 1:8. So far as that particular heresy of the Gnostics is concerned, it has become wide-spread and almost all-prevailing in the denominations of the present day. Indeed, we cannot see but Dr. Clarke himself was tinctured with it, according to the quotations given above. We trust that we have shown to the full conviction of every one who "trembles at the word" of the Lord, that the Son of God, who was in the beginning, by whom the worlds were made, suffered death for us; the oft-repeated declarations of theological writers that a mere human body died are, by the Scriptures, proved untrue. These writers take the doctrine of a trinity for their basis, and assume that Christ is the second person in the trinity, and could not die. Again, they assume that death is not a cessation of life; and between the two unscriptural assumptions they involve themselves in numerous difficulties, and load the doctrine of the Atonement with unreasonable contradictions. We would not needlessly place ourselves in opposition to the religious feelings of any class, but in order to clear the doctrine of the Atonement from the consequences of these assumptions, we are compelled to notice some of the prominent arguments presented in favor of the doctrine of a trinity. In the "Manual of Atonement," 1 John 5:20 is quoted as containing most conclusive evidence of a trinity and of the Supreme Deity of Christ. It is there claimed that he is called "the true God and eternal life." The whole verse reads thus: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." A person must be strongly wedded to a theory who can read this verse and not see the distinction therein contained between the true God and the Son of God. "We are in him that is true." How? "In his Son Jesus Christ." The distinction between Christ and the true God is most clearly shown by the Saviour's own words in John 17:3: "That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." Much stress is laid on Isa. 9:6, as proving a trinity, which we have before quoted, as referring to our High Priest who shed his blood for us. The advocates of that theory will say that it refers to a trinity because Christ is called the everlasting Father. But for this reason, with others, we affirm that it can have no reference to a trinity. Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is he the Son? or if he is both Father and Son, how can there be a trinity? for a trinity is three persons. To recognize a trinity, the distinction between the Father and Son must be preserved. Christ is called "the second person in the trinity;" but if this text proves a trinity, or refers to it at all, it proves that he is not the second, but the first. And if he is the first, who is the second? It is very plain that this text has no reference to such a doctrine. In seeking an explanation of this text, we must bear in mind the work of Christ as brought to view in this and parallel passages. These words refer to the "child born," the "son given," who, as we have seen, bears the title of God subordinate to his Father. And if an apostle could call himself the father of those whom he had begotten in the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15; 1 Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4), how appropriately is this title applied to the Prince of Peace, who is, in a peculiar sense, the everlasting Father of all to whom he gives everlasting life. The New Jerusalem is called the Bride, the Lamb's wife (Rev. 21); Christ of course is the Bridegroom, the husband. But Paul says Jerusalem above is our mother. Gal. 4:26. If so, why not her husband, the bridegroom, be our father? Surely there is nothing inappropriate in this. But, as the New Jerusalem is not the mother of the unregenerate, these being reckoned the children of the bondwoman, so Christ is not called their father. They are not his children, and he does not give them everlasting life. Therefore the title is applied to him in a subordinate and restricted sense. In its unrestricted and universal sense it applies only to the Supreme One, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:3; 1 Peter 1:3. John 12:40, 41, has been supposed to prove the Supreme Deity of Christ, and therefore a trinity. "These things said Esaias, when he saw his [Christ's] glory, and spake of him." This refers to Isa. 6, which chapter speaks of "the King, the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts," and it is thence inferred that Christ is that Lord of hosts. But those who quote this in such a manner should know (and some of them do know) that there are two words in Isa. 6 rendered Lord, just as there are in Ps. 110:1, which says: "The LORD said unto my Lord." The first is Jehovah; the second Adonai—the Father and Son. In Isa. 6:3, 5, 12, Jehovah is used; in verses 1, 8, 11, Adonai is used. Now John 12:40 is a quotation from Isa. 6:10, which refers to Adonai, the Son, and not to Jehovah. Many have been misled by a wrong application of this text. Those who know the fact above stated cannot honestly use it as it has been used in theological controversies. Jer. 23:5, 6 is supposed to afford decisive proof of a trinity, in that the "Branch" which is raised up unto David shall be called Jehovah. Clarke, in his commentary, gives the following rendering of this text, from Dr. Blayney: "And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, our righteousness." He adds:— "Dr. Blayney thus accounts for his translation: Literally, according to the Hebrew idiom,—and this is his name by which Jehovah shall call our righteousness; a phrase exactly the same as, 'And Jehovah shall call him so,' which implies that God would make him such as he called him, that is, our righteousness, or the Author and Means of our salvation and our acceptance. So that by the same metonymy Christ is said to 'have been made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.' 1 Cor. 1:30."
"I doubt not that some persons will be offended with me, for depriving them by this translation of a favorite argument for proving the Divinity of our Saviour from the Old Testament. But I cannot help it. I have done it5with no ill design, but purely because I think, and am morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have so translated it before me in an age when there could not possibly be any bias or prejudice either for or against the forementioned doctrine—a doctrine which draws its decisive proofs from the New Testament only." On this Dr. Clarke remarks: "I prefer the translation of Blayney to all others. . . . As to those who put the sense of their creed upon the words, they must be content to stand out of the list of Hebrew critics. I believe Jesus to be Jehovah, but I doubt much whether this text calls him so." We must be careful to distinguish between a criticism and an opinion. After clearly defining the doctrine of the text, Dr. Clarke tells us what he believes, which is not the doctrine of the text. And we are constrained to question its being the doctrine of the Scriptures. There must be a distinction between the Father and the Son; and that must be precisely the distinction between Jehovah and his Anointed One, Jesus the Christ. We have recently read an argument by a man of undoubted ability, who endeavors to prove that Jesus is Jehovah, by comparing the words of the prophets with those of the New Testament. Thus, the prophets say that Jehovah is the Saviour of men, and the New Testament says that Jesus is the Saviour; therefore Jesus is Jehovah. That is apparently, but not really, an argument. They who speak thus seem to forget the teachings of the New Testament, that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." 2 Cor. 5:19. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. And again Jesus said: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." "He that sent me is with me; the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." John 7:16; 8:29; 14:10. God hath indeed spoken unto us in these last days, but it is "by his Son." Heb. 1:1, 2. It is very true, "that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son." 1 John 5:11. The Son comes in the name of the Father; he represents the Father to the world; he accomplishes the will and purpose of the Father in redemption. As Christ is the Son of God, and the only representative of the Father, it could not be considered strange that he should bear the name and title of his father; "for it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell." Col. 1:19. But the Son is not the Father; and therefore it cannot be that Christ is Jehovah, but was sent of Jehovah to do his will and work, and to make known the counsels of his grace. As before remarked, the great mistake of Trinitarians, in arguing this subject, is this: they make no distinction between a denial of a trinity and a denial of the divinity of Christ. They see only the two extremes, between which the truth lies; and take every expression referring to the pre-existence of Christ as evidence of a trinity. The Scriptures abundantly teach the pre-existence of Christ and his divinity; but they are entirely silent in regard to a trinity. The declaration, that the divine Son of God could not die, is as far from the teachings of the Bible as darkness is from light. And we would ask the Trinitarian, to which of the two natures are we indebted for redemption? The answer must, of course, be, To that one which died or shed his blood for us; for "we have redemption through his blood." Then it is evident that if only the human nature died, our Redeemer is only human, and that the divine Son of God took no part in the work of redemption, for he could neither suffer nor die. Surely, we say right, that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the Atonement, by bringing the sacrifice, the blood of our purchase, down to the standard of Socinianism. EDITOR.
(To be continued.) Literalism.
By W. N. Glenn
IN closing a paragraph regarding the communion and feet-washing at a recent gathering of the Dunkers, the Christian at Work remarks: "There is nothing like literalism." Whatever idea the writer may have intended to convey by the remark, he spoke a literal truth. The great fundamental truths set before us in God's word are literal. The history of the world as given in the Bible as a literal history, and all its spiritual teachings are based upon literal facts. The popular religious teaching of the present day has a tendency toward "spiritualizing" everything, and especially that which calls for obedience. The effect is to place the spiritual in contrast with the literal in religious duty, as though the two were opposed to each other. The fact is, true spirituality comes of literal obedience. The literal and the spiritual in the affairs of God all harmonize. All duty is literal; there is no such possibility as obeying a command spiritually and rejecting it literally. Note the dealings of God with our world. In the first place he is a literal God. His very name (I AM) expresses his existence. Ex. 3:14. His whole creation was literal. The fall of man was the result of literal disobedience. He was literally expelled from the garden, and the penalty of death was literally executed. The flood that Noah preached was literal; so was the destruction of the cities of the plain. The slavery in Egypt was literal, so also the plagues upon the Egyptians, and the deliverance through the Red Sea. The promised Messiah came literally in the flesh to his people. John 1:1-14. His temptations were literal (Heb. 4:15); the prophecy of his humiliation (Isa. 53:7, 8) was literally fulfilled; his passion and crucifixion were literal; his resurrection was literal, of which more than five hundred brethren were witnesses (1 Cor. 15:4-7); his ascension was literal; and he promised a literal return "in like manner." Acts 1:11. It is true that the Lord has sometimes taught by "shadows," but they were shadows of literal things, as history has proven. He has taught by figurative representations, but these represent literal times and powers and institutions, as history has shown and present occurrences are giving evidence. As to his ordinances, they are literal emblems of literal events, of which his own example in observing them ought to be deemed abundant proof. The record of his baptism is given in Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21, 22. This represents his burial and resurrection. Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12. The institution of the Lord's Supper is recorded in Matt. 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26. The last reference tells us that as often as we do this we show the Lord's death till he come." Do what? Do as the Lord and his disciples did when the supper was instituted—partake of the literal emblems of this literal event. But the ordinance emblematic of his humility—the feet-washing—is the one which most of all is rejected. It is very hard for man to memorialize humility, literally. The natural man cannot do it. But the institution is recorded in John 13, and the proceedings are minutely described, showing a very literal transaction. And the Lord enjoins them (verse 15), "I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you." Now how could anyone do as he had done to them in any but a literal manner. Verily, "there is nothing like literalism," when it comes to obeying God's commandments. And the spiritualism that is antagonistic to literal obedience is not of the Holy Spirit.
W. N. GLENN. “Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.” God is weighing you, my brother!
And his balances are true;
Dare you trifle with him longer,
Thoughtless that he's weighing you?
Should he find you wanting, brother,
When the final test is given,
Sad, indeed will be the sentence:
Banished evermore from Heaven. God is weighing you, my brother!
By the standard of his word,
By your faith in his own promise,
By your love for Christ, the Lord.
Does he find you wanting, brother?
Do you all his law obey?
Is your faith in him unwav'ring?
Do you serve him day by day? God is weighing you, my brother!
Weighing every secret thought,
Weighing every word and action,
Every deed your life hath wrought;
Does he find you wanting, brother?
Oh, let ev'ry thought be pure;
Gentle words and loving actions.
These his favor will secure. —Selected. Homely Illustration of Faith.
SAM JONES was talking to a man of weak faith the other day. The doubter asked if Mr. Jones could not give him a demonstration of religion. "None," was the reply. "You must get inside the fold, and the demonstration will come of itself. Humble yourself, have faith, and you shall know the truth." "In other words, I must believe, accept it before it is proved, and believe it without proof." "Now, hold on right here. Out West they have a place for watering cattle. The cattle have to mount a platform to reach the troughs. As they step on a platform their weight presses a lever, and this throws the water into the troughs. They have to get on the platform through faith, and this act provides the water and leads them to it. You are like a smart steer that slips around to the barn-yard and peeps in the trough, without getting on the platform. He finds the trough dry, of course, for it needs his weight on the platform to force the water up. He turns away disgusted, and tells everybody there is no water in the trough. Another steer, not quite so smart, but with more faith, steps on the platform. The water springs into the trough, and he marches up and drinks. That's the way with religion. You've got to get on to the platform. You can't even examine it intelligently until you are on the platform. If you slide around the back way, you'll find the trough dry. But step on the platform, and the water and the faith come together without any trouble—certain and sure, and abundant."—Detroit Free Press. Against Believing Evil Reports
It is a remarkable fact that while the apostolic injunction reads: "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good," a goodly portion of the world seems to read that injunction, in its application to witness-bearing concerning others, "Prove nothing; catch at that which is evil." It is one of the unexplained facts in the natural history of humanity, that persons will receive with perfect trust any story of wrong-doing on the part of another, while they are cautiously incredulous regarding anything which may be said to that other's advantage. Here is an opportunity for one to distinguish himself from his fellows. Let him refuse to credit the story of another's sin until he has some better evidence for it than irresponsible rumor and mischievous tale-bearing, and unless the world improves very rapidly, such a person will find himself a member of a small minority of the human race, but in the very best of company. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—JAN. 12.
THE eighth and ninth chapters of Paul's second letter to the Corinthian church, contain instruction in regard to the necessity and blessedness of contributing to the support of the cause of God, and especially of ministering to the necessity of the saints. The apostle had been requested by the elders at Jerusalem to remember the poor, "which," he says, "I also was forward to do." Gal. 2:10. In his first epistle he gave the Corinthians the same directions for making this collection for the poor, that he had previously given to the churches in Galatia, and now he writes to stir them up to activity in this respect. In the seventh chapter he had admirably paved the way for the introduction of this subject. Having commended them for the readiness with which they had accepted his reproofs, he closed with the words, "I rejoice therefore that I have confidence in you in all things." Paul never descended to flattery, but he knew that by an honest expression of his confidence he could deepen his influence with the church. The subject so near to the heart of the apostle is introduced thus: "Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of [i. e. we make known to you] the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia, how that in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality." Paul does not mean that the Macedonians gave large sums, for their deep poverty would make that an impossibility. He means that God had enabled them to give according to their means, and even beyond it, as is stated in verse 3. This was the grace which God bestowed upon them. Selfishness is natural to the human heart, and has two opposite effects,—it blinds its possessor, and also enlarges his vision. It makes him blind as to his ability to do good, causing him to think that his means are not sufficient to allow of his giving more than a trifle; and it magnifies his little offerings, so that he imagines that he has given far beyond his means, and is exceedingly generous. The work of the Spirit of God is to remove this selfishness by helping us to see things just as they are,—to realize what a priceless gift has been bestowed upon us, and how undeserving we are. THE ability to give, then, is a special gift of God. Paul says: "Therefore as ye abound in everything, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also." We often hear people wish that they had wealth, so that they could give liberally to the poor, or to the cause of God. Now while it is true that prosperity comes from God, and it is he that gives power to get wealth, this is not the gift of which the apostle speaks. What the class just referred to ought to earnestly long for, is not means, but the grace to give according to that which they already possess. The Macedonians were exceedingly poor, yet God gave them grace to give. In their case Paul did not have to do any urging; on the contrary, they urged him with much entreaty to accept the gift. THE fifth verse gives the key to their liberality: they had first given themselves to the Lord. When a person realizes that he is not his own, and freely acknowledges the fact, giving will be an easy matter. In fact, giving freely will be the natural result of consecrating ourselves wholly to the Lord, so that the readiness with which we give to the cause of God indicates in a great degree the measure of our consecration to him. It may help us to understand this matter if we consider how the apostles regarded themselves. When they speak of themselves as servants of the Lord, they use the Greek word doulos, whose primary meaning is, a bondman, a slave. Literally, Phil. 1:1 reads, "Paul and Timotheus, the slaves of Jesus Christ." Now a slave is not able to hold property in his own right; everything belongs to his master, and he himself cannot acquire a title to anything. It is in just this way that we should consider ourselves related to God. The only difference between earthly servants and masters is, that although we do belong to God, whether we acknowledge it or not, we are not compelled to serve him. All our service must be voluntary. To be sure, in the end there will be a punishment for those who defraud the Master of his just dues; but on the other hand, there will be a glorious reward for those who simply restore that to which they have no right at all. "FOR IF there first be a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." No doubt many persons take great comfort from this text, for they repeatedly wish they could give, and therefore imagine that they are very acceptable to God. And as if to atone for their not giving anything, they usually wish to give very large sums. But this verse was written with the understanding that the individual had acquired the grace of giving according to his means. If all had this grace, all would give something, for very few are poorer than the widow who had only two mites for her support. When men give in this way, willingly, the gift is valued by the Lord, according to the proportion which it bears to the means of the giver. The poor widow's gift was considered as greater than all the gifts of the rich men, because she gave more in proportion to her means. This idea is carried out in the following verses. "For I mean not that other men should be eased and ye burdened." He did not design that a few should do all the giving, but that all should share in it. He meant that there should be an equality. This equality would be gained if each gave according to what he had. "As it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack." This quotation is from Ex. 16:18, and has reference to the gathering of the manna. The Israelites were allowed an omer for each individual. This was all that could possibly be used in one day. If one on account of superior activity gathered more, he was to divide it with one whose circumstances did not allow him to gather a sufficient quantity for his daily support. This begot a feeling of mutual sympathy among them,—such a feeling as should exist among those who are members of the family of Christ. The parallel that the apostle draws should be well considered. In their case the tendency to hoard up that which they had gathered more than their actual present need, would be checked by the knowledge that on the morrow another ample supply would be given. So in our cases, the same God who supplied them with manna is our Father, and knows that we have need of food and clothing. See Matt. 6:30-34. We are commanded to pray, "Give us this day our daily bread," and that command implies the fact that the prayer will be answered. Again, those of the Jews who gathered more than they could use, and saved it for future need, had a mortifying check put upon their greed when they found their hoarded provision a mass of corruption. In our case the parallel still holds good, for however much property a man may acquire, he himself can use only a small part. As a certain millionaire said, when envied by a poor man, "You are as well off as I am, for all I get is my board and clothes." In other words, with all his wealth, he could no more than live. Then, too, riches often vanish in a moment. Nothing can be devised that will insure a man's property from going as quickly as did the Israelites' hoarded manna. And whether misfortune should come or not, the end will certainly come soon, and then that which is treasured up will, in many cases at least, be worse than nothing. See James 5:1-3. That this mutual distribution of means is what Paul designed, is shown by verse 14: "But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want; that there may be equality." We can readily see that in the case of the Jews, such a course was the best one for them to pursue, since if they did lay up provision it would be to no profit, and by their accommodation to a needy friend, they would secure to themselves a like favor, should they be in similar circumstances. If we cannot as readily see that it is the best thing for Christians to do now, it is because we have not the faith in God that we should have, and are blind as to the future. AS WE have already stated, Paul did not feel at liberty to make any commands in the matter of giving, but to appeal to their sense of obligation, that what they gave might be "as a matter of bounty," and not something forced from covetous dispositions. One of his strong points is that he has boasted of the forwardness of the churches in Achaia, and had used their readiness in pledging as an incentive for others. Now, said he, if some persons should come with me from Macedonia, and find that you have done little or nothing, we would both be put to shame. The Macedonians will think that I have deceived them, and they will think slightly of you. We have here an instance of the remarkable tact which Paul exercised in dealing with the churches. "BUT this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully." 2 Cor. 9:6. From this text nothing more or less can be made than that our present welfare, at least, depends largely upon the cheerfulness with which we give. A study of Luke 16:1-12 will convince us that our liberality is not an unimportant factor in determining our fitness for our future inheritance. Not that we can buy Heaven; but one who has not so vivid a sense of the magnitude of Christ's sacrifice for him, that it will lead him to feel like following the same example, certainly has not much of the love of Christ in his heart. THE apostle continues: "And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye always having all suffering in all things, may abound to every good work." This is a plain statement that God is able to make that which they sow yield a bountiful harvest. How that will be accomplished is in part stated in verses 12-14: "For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God; while by the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto them, and unto all men; and by their prayer for you, which long after you for the exceeding grace of God in you." The idea is, that their service of love would produce abundant thanks to God, on the part of those who were benefited. It would also produce another result. It would move the saints to pray for their benefactors, and this would be of incalculable value to them. James says that the prayer of the righteous man avails much. The amount of money which the Corinthians would give, if retained7for their own use, would be of far less value to them than would the prayers of the saints whose wants they might relieve. Barnes truly says that "he who has secured the pleadings of a child of God, however humble, in his behalf, has made a good use of his money." "THANKS be unto God for his unspeakable gift." This is an appropriate closing to this sermon on giving. The idea in the mind of the apostle was doubtless that expressed in the beginning; that a liberal spirit is due to the grace of God. But the grace of God is manifested in its fullness in giving his Son to die for man; and as Paul was speaking of gifts, his mind would naturally turn to the first and greatest of all gifts. It is an "unspeakable gift;" no tongue can tell its value; even the angels are unable to comprehend it. And it is the only real gift that was ever made; for whereas our fellow mortals have a claim on our charity, man had no claim on God. "God commended his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom. 5:8. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us." 1 John 4:10. Compared with God's gift to man, the most that we can do is nothing; and as the contemplation of a gift tends to produce gratitude, we should stimulate our liberality by constant meditation on this unspeakable gift, and an earnest desire to have as clear a sense of its value as it is possible for the human mind to possess. E. J. W. Temperance.
By Ellen G. White
Temperance a Christian Duty.
MAN came from the hand of God perfect in every faculty of mind and body; in perfect soundness, therefore in perfect health. It took more than two thousand years of indulgence of appetite and lustful passions to create such a state of things in the human organism as would lessen vital force. Through successive generations the tendency was more swiftly downward. Indulgence of appetite and passion combined, led to excess and violence; debauchery and abominations of every kind weakened the energies, and brought upon the race diseases of every type, until the vigor and glory of the first generations passed away, and man began to show signs of decay in the third generation from Adam. Successive generations after the flood degenerated more rapidly. All this weight of woe and accumulated suffering can be traced to the indulgence of appetite and passion. Luxurious living and the use of wine corrupt the blood, inflame the passions, and produce diseases of every kind. Parents leave maladies as a legacy to their children. As a rule, every intemperate man who rears children, transmits his inclinations and evil tendencies to his offspring, and the evil does not end here; he gives to them disease from his own inflamed and corrupted blood. Licentiousness, disease, and imbecility are transmitted as an inheritance of woe from father to son and from generation to generation, bringing anguish and suffering into the world which is no less than a repetition of the fall of man. The continual transgression of nature's laws is a continual transgression of the law of God. The present weight of suffering and anguish which we see everywhere, the present deformity, decrepitude, disease, and imbecility now flooding the world, make it, in comparison to what it might be, and what God designed it should be, a lazar-house. The present generation is feeble in mental, moral, and physical power. All this accumulated misery from generation to generation is because fallen man will break the law of God. Sins of the greatest magnitude are committed through the indulgence of perverted appetite. The effort made to create a taste for the disgusting, filthy poison, tobacco, leads to the desire for stronger stimulants, as liquor, which is taken, on one plea or another, for some imaginary infirmity, or to prevent some possible disease. Thus an unnatural appetite is created for these hurtful and exciting stimulants. The increase of intemperance in this generation is alarming. Beverage-loving, liquor-drinking men may be seen everywhere. Their intellect is enfeebled, the moral powers are weakened, the sensibilities are benumbed, the claims of God and Heaven are not realized, and eternal things are not appreciated. The Bible declares that no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God. Every intemperate person renders himself accountable, not only for the sins which he commits in his own person, but for the evil results that his dissipated course of life has brought upon his family and upon the community. The race is groaning under a weight of accumulated woe, because of the sins of former generations. And yet with scarcely a thought or care, men and women of the present generation indulge intemperance by surfeiting and drunkenness, and thereby leave, as a legacy for the next generation, disease, enfeebled intellects, and polluted morals. Intemperance of any kind is the worst sort of selfishness. Those who truly fear God and keep his commandments look upon these things in the light of reason and religion. How can any man or woman keep the law of God, which requires man to love his neighbor as himself, and indulge intemperate appetite, which benumbs the brain, weakens the intellect, and fills the body with disease? Intemperance inflames the passions, and gives loose reign to lust. Reason and conscience are blinded by the lower passions. It is not an easy matter to overcome established habits, to deny the appetite for narcotics and stimulants. In the name of Christ alone can this great victory be gained. Our Saviour paid a dear price for man's redemption. In the wilderness of temptation he suffered the keenest pangs of hunger; and while emaciated with fasting, Satan was at hand with his manifold temptations to assail the Son of God, to take advantage of his weakness and overcome him, and thus thwart the plan of salvation. But Christ was steadfast. He overcame in behalf of the race, that he might rescue them from the degradation of the fall. Christ's experience is for our benefit. His example in overcoming appetite points out the way for those who would be his followers, and finally sit with him on his throne. The Son of God sympathizes with the weaknesses of man. His love for the fallen race was so great that he made an infinite sacrifice to reach man in his degradation, and through his divine power elevate him finally to his throne. But it rests with man whether Christ shall accomplish for him that which he is fully able to do. MRS. E. G. WHITE.