« VorigeDoorgaan »
good is to have good; and that to love our neighbor, is in reality wisely to love ourselves. Unless the economical laws of the universe are not only distinct, but diverse, from those of morality,—a Manichean doctrine which we at least repudiate -this consummation must be yet realized by the human race. It has been the undying faith of prophets in every age, and is beautifully expressed by perhaps the greatest of our living poets-Wordsworth.
I exult to see
BY W. J. LINTON,
Nightingale ! why singest thou in May,
Amid the tender leaves,
Of sultry eves ?
O Nightingale! why singest to the moon,
The full-orb’d moon of May ?
Upon the feet of Day;
Trilling thy sweetest plaint, thou Ecstasy forlorn!
O Nightingale! O Life so sweetly sad !
Singing 'mid yellow buds that may not leaf;
Borrow'd its dearest eloquence from grief:
Solve the sad quest of these melodious agonies !
'INFIDELITY, JUDAISM, AND OPPRESSION'
the basis of
Teetotalism ; involving Infidelity, Judaism, and Oppression. By MORTLOCK DANIELI,' Baptist Minister. 1841.
Ditto ; repreached without acknowlegement, in the Baptist Church at Elgin, by WILLIAM TULLOCH,' ex-Pastor of the said Church. 1849.
There are several things about Mr. Daniell which claim our admiration. He is 'a talented young man,' but, we must confess, he has the faults and failings of youth and inexperience. He would be almost eloquent, but for a certain foppery and affectation of style which mars his oratory. He is, too, full of a burning zeal, but, unfortunately, it is a zeal not sufficiently tempered with knowlege. Among his virtues we may also rank sincerity; and tho he has, beyond question, sadly committed himself in this controversy, yet honesty of purpose, combined with a certain degree of prudent foresight and laudable dis. cretion, have stript his opposition of that air of ultra extravagance which has distinguished a Bromley, an Osborne, and a Stanley.
Yet, notwithstanding these comparative excellencies, Mr. Daniell is more unfitted for the post he has assumed, as the apologist for Strong Drink, than any of his luckless predecessors. If he is superior in suavity and courtesy bin gentle elegance of manner and lady-like eloquence of speech—he is immeasurably inferior to an OSBORNE in tact and learning, and even to a BROMLEY in the semblance of bold and manly argument. He has more of the suaviter in modo, but less of the fortiter in re. The 'intoxicating wine' of his opposition, is indeed mixed with water'!
Mr. Daniel enters on his subject with a firm predetermination that it shall be settled by scripture, and by scripture only. He reminds one of those enlightened friends of the bible -the Grand Inquisitors—who consigned Galilei, the precursor of our own Newton, to the sacred keeping of their gaolers, until he should blaspheme his own convictions, and declare that the alleged words of Joshua in commanding the sun to stand still upon Gibeon-were an inspired announcement of the true principles of the solar system! Shades of the Inquisitors! ye have disciples yet, and a ‘Daniell, yea, a Daniell' is amongst them! Hear the oracle,
"I have treated it [i.e. Teetotalism] simply Caye, simply enough !] as a moral question, upon which no book but the bible can arbitrate. I have ONLY ONE text book, and that is the bible. This will account for my not having read what may be termed human authorities, either for or against teetotalism.”
The bible is a book of RELIGION: and had all this been said concerning a doctrine of religious faith- -an article in the creed of redemption-our answer would have been ‘Holy scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation. But when this sound protestant principle is applied to what is primarily a mere physical question-applied to settle a problem in astronomy or to determine a rule of dietetics-we enter our protest against the proceeding, as being an outrage on the canons of true criticism, as great, if not as pernicious, as the doctrine to which that noble principle stands opposed—we mean, the insusli
This refers to his conduct at the Ramsgate discussion, in 1841. He did, howerer, subsequently lose his temper, and indulged in personality against Dr. Lees.
ciency of the bible for salvation! Mr. Daniell would destroy a great and valuable truth by unduly extending its application-transferring it from the sanctuary of religion to the laboratory of science—thereby stripping it of its peculiar glory and its exalted excellence. Such a perversion alike disgraces reason, which is God's gift, and dishonors the bible, which contains God's word.
The simple question to be resolved is this:-Are beverages impregnated with a narcoticoacrid poison, pernicious or wholesome? This can only be legitimately determined in one of two ways. Theoretically, from a comparison of the nature and effects of alcohol with the wants and conditions of the healthy human structure-Experimentally, from a broad and extensive trial of the relative effects of its use and disuse. It has been determined in both ways. Science and Experience have united to demonstrate, beyond all competent questioning, the truth of the general dietetic principle—that the use of beverages containing alcohol in perceptible quantities, is a violation of the natural laws of health. Knowingly to violate God's law is sin.
The book of nature--the Lord's own work, the oldest and most universal indication of his will—has been examined. Its chemistry and physiology, and their outworkings in actual experience, have been all referred to—and whatever page has been opened in the great volume of nature, the decision has been recorded in characters broad, clear, and indelible. It has arbitrated on the point. But Mr. Daniell, with an amazing force of scepticism, unnaturally rebels, not only against the decision, but against the authority of nature! On this question, says he, ‘no book but the bible can arbitrate'!
It is well for Mr. Daniell and his Ditto, that they have selected divinity for their profession. Only conceive of their advocating these crotchets in the college of surgeonsand maintaining, before a knot of astonished doctors, that the bible only can arbitrate on the physical tendencies of opium, alcohol, and arsenic! Query-would not such an applicant for honors, be transferred from the board of examiners to the commissioners of lunacy ?
Mr. Daniell is equally unhappy in the next position which he occupies.
We are scarcely sure that we rightly apprehend our lecturer, for he is one of that class who, as they 'see thrö a glass darkly,' and never grasp any subject strongly, cannot by consequence express it clearly-literary unfortunates who frequently mean widely different . from what they say. For our part, we profess to belong to the common-sense-school of politics, philosophy, and religion. If a thing works well, we say, support it: if it can work better, make it. The object of every institution either is or ought to be, the production of GOOD—the realization of human happiness. We say—'If it brings forth no fruit, why cumbereth it the ground ? cut it down.' But Mr. Daniell is of another school. He says “The inutility of its workings is no argument against it! We say, with one greater than Daniell, 'A TREE IS KNOWN BY ITS FRUIT ’: but a second Daniell has come to judgment, and he says that a tree is not to be known by its fruit ! We had always thought that the apparatus of physical and moral life was valuable only for the sake of its 'OUTWORKINGS,not for itself--that the loom was made for weaving the cloth, the mill erected for grinding the corn, and the hospital for alleviating pain and curing disease,—but he has discovered that “outworkings' are nothing, or worse than nothing—that institutions and machines are their own nltimate or final end !-- in short, he reverses the object which men have hitherto been darkly groping after, their own happiness—and maintains that the mill and the hospital were not erected, the one to grind corn and the other to cure disease-that the loom was made for itself, and not for the sake of its 'outworkings' in the shape of broad cloth! “Outworkings,' quoth these lecturers, are 'no argument either for or against.' --The force of folly can no further go.
In support of the principle just exposed, is adduced an illustration equally foolish.
“A man might commit forgeries to the extent of £20,000, and (therewith] build twenty temperance hotels, which might be great blessings: still he had no business to touch it!'.
Mr. Daniell had to prove that the utility of a certain thing is no argument for it: but, instead, he simply proves that the utility of £20,000 is no argument for the utility of forgery! £20,000, argues he, is useful to erect useful buildings: ergo, forgery is useful !! 'A Daniel come to judgment, yea a Ditto. Excellent young men !'
Forgery is not useful, but mischievous : and hence it is prohibited—tho not in the Bible, by name. In fact, the rejected principle of Utility must intrude into the settlement of the very case supposed.
The first capital admission of the lecture, stands out, as if it meant something, in all the majesty of little capitals !
“TEETOTAL IS A RIGHTEOUS ADVERTISEMENT THAT WE LIVE IN A WICKED WORLD"!
And yet what does it mean? If teetotalism is a mere 'advertisment that we live in a wicked world,” it is a very needless article, since everybody must know the fact advertised better than the advertisement can tell him ! Such an advertisement' can have no 'utility' in the shape of an 'outworking' to compensate for the expense of advertizing: hence Mr. Daniell's most liberal concessions are really as worthless as his strongest objections! Some light is thrown upon the object of this 'capital' announcement, by the following profound supposition.
“I SUPPOSE, if the intoxicated miscreant (misbeliever] had never disturbed the peace of our streets, the teetotal flag would never have been hoisted”!
The puzzle is—what has the pompous parade of such simple truisms to do here? and how do they peculiarly affect teetotalism? If there were no drunkards there would need no agency to reclaim them—if there were no sin there would need no salvation! Mr. Daniell says nothing of teetotalism here, which may not as justly be said of the gospel. 'I suppose, if no sinful miscreant had ever stained the purity of earth, the ensign of salvation would never have been hoisted?! Certainly, if we may test the sagacity of this 'I suppose,' by the 'utility' or necessity of its “outworkings,' in the shape of any practical inferences, he might as well have soliloquized thus :-'I SUPPOSE, that if we add two to two, four will be the result ?! But, then, the utility or inutility' of a supposition is no argument either for or against ?!
"We cannot be too thankful for every society having for its object the alleviation of buman suffering, and the reformation of the moral mass -still, all boasting is excluded.”
That is, 'we cannot be too thankful for a society which aims even at good outworkings '—yet just before, it is declared that 'the utility of its outworkings is no argument for it?! Common-sense will out.
As to 'boasting,' we do not comprehend its pertinence. Like an apostle of old in reference to a greater remedial agency, we 'glory,' and will continue to glory, not in ourselves, but in those great principles of truth that, in the development of God's providence, have proved so signally successful in the alleviation of human suffering and the reformation of the moral mass,' and so mighty, thrö God, to the pulling down of the strongholds of intemperance !
Mr. Daniell is right. "We cannot be too thankful for a society which can effect so much in the alleviation of suffering, and the reformation of vicious, humanity. But how shall we show our thankfulness? Shall we sit still with folded arms, idle and indifferent spectators of the good cause ? or assume an hostile attitude ?- -or shall we not be 'ready for every good work,' and esteem it our duty and our privilege to put our shoulders to the wheel, and help on the chariot of reform ? Can we be too active in promoting, any more