58-Pro_20:1 (B)
Proverbs 20:1 (B)
LECTURE LVIII.
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."
Last discourse was entirely occupied with the consideration of the two articles here mentioned-" wine and strong drink," and every one who has paid attention to the questions on the subject which of late have been so largely agitated, will be aware how indefinitely it might have been extended. The main drift of that discourse was simply to show,-what it does not require a parade of learned criticism to establish,-that the attempts to make out anything like a uniform and designed distinction between the words used, in the Old Testament Scriptures, for wines that are approved, and wines that are disapproved-the latter as possessing powers of inebriation, and the former not,-have entirely failed:-that the wines of the Old Testament employed in sacrificial libation, promised as a boon, produced from the earth by the power and goodness of God, and in fully warranted use as a common beverage,-were fermented intoxicating wines:-and that such too was the fact with the wine of the New Testament as described by Jesus, used by Jesus, miraculously made by Jesus, and employed by Jesus in the institution of the ordinance of the supper. It was further my object to show that the duty required in the followers of Jesus is temperance; that in His word, and by His example, more is not required; and that they who do require more, in evidence of Christian principle, or in order to Christian communion, are chargeable with going beyond the record.
II. Our second head was-the tendencies ascribed to the articles mentioned:-"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging."
I do not intend to illustrate the two separately,-as if one description of tendency belonged to the "wine," and another to the "strong drink." On the principle of parallelism, and from the frequency with which the two stand associated as conducing to the same results, they may be taken together, and considered as identified. The latter may be more violently exciting than the former, more fiery and more rapid in its operation; but each of the tendencies specified belongs to both, "Wine," when taken in excess, "is raging" as well as "strong drink;" and "strong drink is a mocker," as well as "wine."
Taking the two clauses, then, together, there are four things which may be considered as included in them:-
1. A beguiling tendency;-the tendency, I mean, to entice onward;-one sip leading to another, and one cup or glass to another; and this, especially in social drinking. Whatever opinions I may hold as to the principles of the total abstinence system,-God forbid that I should ever be so unfaithful as to conceal or extenuate the dangers which wait upon the use of whatever possesses inebriating qualities. There is no question on the subject of their seductive tendency,-a tendency which varies in both kind and measure, according to peculiarities of circumstances and of temperament. There is danger,-danger of a man’s being led on step by step, especially when inexperienced, from little to more, from one stage to another, till, without any previous purpose, nay even in opposition to such purpose, he is brought under the power of the intoxicating cup,-drawn unawares into the snare,-deceived and cheated into insobriety. That this is one description of the mockery in our text, I have no doubt. It is mockery. One man would surely be said to mock another, when by plausible and subtle arts he drew him into a situation of which he is ashamed himself, and becomes the jest and laughing-stock of others, or-what to many a man is worse-their scorn and pity.
2. Along with a beguiling, there is a befooling tendency, According to varieties in the constitutional or acquired temperament of different individuals, it produces, in excess, one or another of two effects. It renders the subject of its power either a reckless madman, or a drivelling idiot. I might describe the one, and describe the other; but it is unnecessary. Many of you may have witnessed miserable specimens of both. And in either case, surely the "wine," or the "strong drink, is a mocker." The man under its power ceases to be himself:-he says and does extravagant and mischievous things; or gives utterance, with maudlin look and stuttering and stammering tongue, to the incoherent babblings of folly; or reveals what ought to be secret, and makes himself the easy and unconscious prey of every one who chooses to take advantage of him,-giving away, or allowing to be taken, whatever others like, and coming under obligations of which, in his subsequent sobriety, he may find it no easy matter to shake himself loose. Or, worse still-the understanding gets beclouded and bewildered, and unfitted for the fulfilment of important functions, on which the interests of others as well as his own depend. Thus is often realized the description of the prophet-" They have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment," Isaiah 28:7.
3. There is the tendency to excite the passions:-"strong drink is raging."-It is true, that in some cases the subject of inebriation is rendered silly and ridiculously good-natured. It is the vacant good-nature of the gaping and laughing idiot,-more pitiable, though more harmless, than when the blood is fired and the passions roused. It is, in the latter case, like a temporary phrenzy. Excited himself, and beyond all power of Self-government, the madman says and does things that excite others,-especially when they are in a state approaching to his own. Thus quarrels, all hot and furious, are originated and fomented;-and many a time they terminate in fighting, and wounds, and blood, and even death. What multitudes of the brawls that end thus miserably and sometimes fatally,-and by which culprits are brought to prison, to the bar, to banishment, or to the scaffold, have this for their origin!-And this inflammatory tendency is ascribed to wine as well as to strong drink:-"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!" Isaiah 5:11.
4. While there is the excitement of the proud passions, there is produced also the stimulated and heated action of other vicious propensities those "fleshly lusts which war against the soul." Intemperance and incontinence are kindred vices; as the words of the wise man teach us-" Thine eyes shall behold strange women." The one leads on to the other. Fully persuaded as I am of the greatly more extensive prevalence of lewdness than of drunkenness, and believing that for the thousands slain by the latter, the former slays its ten thousands,-yet still, this is quite consistent with the tendency of the latter to excite to the former, and to expose to its temptations. It is, in unnumbered cases, to the influence of intoxicating liquor, that the infamous monster has recourse, to accomplish his purposes of foul seduction. In these ways, and in others that might be mentioned, "wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging."-The tendencies will come out still more fully, in considering-
III. The folly of yielding to them. When is a man "deceived thereby?" When he takes of either at all? Certainly not. Solomon proceeds on the assumption of the use, and of the use being lawful. But a man is deceived, when he gives way to the tendencies; when he allows himself to be thrown off his guard, to be seduced into excess, to get his foot entangled in the snare, and to incur the risk of the consequences. He "is not wise," when he does this even once, at any time, and in any circumstances:-and far more Unwise is he, when, by repeated instances of such deception and mockery, he allows a habit to be formed, from which recovery may become difficult and hopeless. And what are the consequences, on which the charge of folly rests? They are various, and they are serious. And, as the man is a fool who allows himself to be imposed upon and duped in any way,-the worse the consequences, the greater the folly. I might show you how the acts and habits of intemperance affect the body, operating with deleterious and deadly influence on every department of the animal system;-how it works corresponding ravages on the mind, debilitating and debasing its noble powers;-how it destroys character and reputation;-how it thus deprives of confidence, and ruins interest and estate;-what wretchedness, both in the form of poverty, and of discord, and disease, and vice, it introduces into the domestic circle, eating out the very vitals of all enjoyment, and turning the sweetest of heaven’s blessings to the "gall of asps;"-and how, above all, as being a sin in itself, and as producing other sins, it tends to the destruction of the soul and the loss of eternity-the forfeiture of its bliss, and the endurance of its never-ending woe. Yes; it is the enemy of the soul; and, if allowed to get the mastery, must be its death. The indulgence of it is utterly incompatible with spiritual life,-destructive of its principles wherever it finds entrance. The contrariety between the two-(not between wine and the influence of the Spirit, for wine is used as one of the appropriate emblems of the spiritual blessings of the gospel-" Come, buy wine (Yayin) and milk without money and without price:"-and the best and strongest of wine-that which is preserved most carefully in its strength, purity, and flavour-" The Lord God will make unto all people a feast of fat things, of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined")-not, therefore, I repeat, between wine and divine influence, but between its excess and such influence-" Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit."*1-And there can be no doubt, in the mind of any one, who believes the Bible to be God’s word, that intemperance excludes from heaven; since no terras can be more explicit and peremptory than those in which this sentence of exclusion is affirmed.*2 Ah! then, "not wise" indeed is the man, who is "deceived" by the ensnaring influence of the "wine" and the "strong drink!" He is a fool, for body and soul, for time and for eternity!
*1 Ephesians 5:18. rr *2 See, among many passages, 1 Corinthians 9:9-11; Galatians 5:21. The advocates of total abstinence may very naturally think I have been making out a good case for them; and they will marvel that I should not instantly and strongly draw the inference, which to their minds seems so clear and immediate that it cannot be resisted. There is one ground, however, on which I can rest contented in being marvelled at by them;-namely, that in marvelling at me, they must marvel at the Bible and its divine Author. While they say,-"If such be the tendencies, and such the consequences of yielding to them, it is best to renounce entirely articles of which the danger is thus great,"-it is nevertheless matter of fact, about which there can be no dispute, that such is not the inference drawn in the Word of God; that there, no such abstinence is, on any such grounds, enjoined. On the contrary, as we have already seen, the "wine that gladdens the heart of man" is as much the gift of God for his use, and for the purpose which it is described as answering, as the "bread which strengthened his heart;" it is numbered amongst promised blessings, and the privation of it among threatened judgments; and our Saviour used it, and countenanced the use of it, and produced it by miracle for the purposes of innocent conviviality. Surely from all this it ought to be admitted, that abstinence is not incumbent. The use, so far from being interdicted, has the clearest and strongest of all possible sanctions;-the gift and promise of God, and the example of Jesus Christ. On all it is incumbent to beware of excess,-of going beyond the bounds of temperate enjoyment. We shall have occasion hereafter to speak more largely of the questions, What is moderation? and What is excess? Meantime I can only offer a single remark on the logic ’which concludes against all use from the danger of abuse, and which infers the propriety and obligation of entire abstinence from the indefiniteness of the terms moderation and excess, and the difficulty (if, indeed, in the present instance, such difficulty there be) of drawing with accurate precision bounding line« between the one and the other. How many of the virtues are there which are, even to a greater degree, in the same predicament with moderation! Who will draw the exact line between covetousness and generosity? Who will define the precise limits of profusion and penuriousness? Are we then to attempt no mean between the extremes? Must we give all away, that we may not be charged with penuriousness, or keep all to ourselves, to avoid the charge of profusion?-Because there is great difficulty in determinately fixing the limits of the precept-"Be not conformed to this world," are we to adopt the course of doing nothing that the world does at all ?-There is such a thing as temperance, for the word of God commands it:-and there is a possibility of ascertaining, sufficiently for all practical and salutary purposes, the legitimate limits of the virtue; for the word of God does not enjoin impossibilities. We have admitted, however, the dangers; and it is the duty of every individual to be on his guard against them; and the duty of every public teacher and guardian of religion and morals, to put others on their guard against them; and to accommodate their warnings to the various peculiarities of temptation. I would, first of all, warn of his danger the man who sees none; for in this and some other things, the danger is seldom greater than when there is no sense of it, but a feeling of careless security. I would warn the man, and especially the youth, who is fond of company, to beware of the enticements which arise from that source to the free use of the exhilarating glass, and to the habit of associating the two together, and of the hazard of thus contracting the same fondness for the one as for the other,-for the glass as for the company. I would warn those who, by any kind of regular custom of taking a certain quantity, however small, (in general a bad practice) feel themselves beginning to contract a liking for it, and a craving sensation that they cannot do without it, to break off the habit ere it obtains a single day’s further mastery. I would warn those who are tempted to have recourse to the wine or the spirit cup, for the purpose of banishing or suppressing the morbid horror of low spirits and nervous and hysterical affections, to beware of purchasing a temporary relief at the fearful expense of the formation of a permanent habit, a thousand times worse than the evil it is intended to abate; and which, while it may abate for the time, it in the end most miserably augments. I would warn the man who, by his very hatred and scorn of tee-totalism, is in danger, for the very sake of showing how heartily he does hate and scorn it, of taking what he should not take, and flying to the contrary extreme. But both the general and the special warnings may be sounded, while the liberty of use is maintained, and the obligation to entire abstinence denied. There are certain points respecting which we are all agreed, and our agreement about which ought never to be lost sight of. They are such as these. We are all of one mind as to the sinfulness and guilt of intemperance in itself:-we are all of one mind as to the vastness of the variety and amount of crime and misery to which this sin gives prolific and fatal birth;-the many streams of bitterness and pollution that flow from this foul and noxious spring:-we are all of one mind as to the extreme desirableness of having this enormous aggregate of crime and misery diminished, and, as far as within the limits of possibility, removed. For an equally deep conviction and heartfelt sense of these things, we are all entitled to claim equal credit: and he who is disposed to question it in his neighbour, only shows that there is one virtue at least which his system has failed to teach him,-the precious virtue of charity.-We contend, that it is possible to hold all such convictions, and cherish all such feelings, in the most perfect sincerity, without coming to the conclusion of its being a duty to have recourse to total abstinence. And the ground we take up in maintaining this, is,-that although, in the word of God, the moral turpitude of the sin of intemperance is, in the very strongest terms, affirmed; although its sentence of condemnation is, in all its fearfulness, pronounced, and the denouncing admonitions of Heaven are everywhere pointed against it; although all the varieties of trespass and of woe to which it leads in time, and the "worm that dieth not, and the fire that never shall be quenched" in which its course must close, are fully known, and estimated, in all their extent, by the God who has given us the Bible,-there is not, from the beginning to the end of that Bible, any interdiction of the things themselves from the existence and abuse of which the evils arise,-any injunction whatever to abstain from them; but promises of them as benefits, and liberty to use them, provided the abuse of them were avoided. For my own part, I recur to one of the points alluded to in last discourse. I take my stand on the example of my Master. That example every Christian admits to have been without spot or blemish. "He did no sin." "He fulfilled all righteousness." Every step of his life was on the very centre line of virtue, in undeviating harmony with that law which was "within his heart," and which was "holy, and just, and good." Yet this pattern of sinless excellence used wine. The condemnation of drunkenness,-the description of its effects,-the denunciations of Jehovah against it,-His warnings to flee from it,-and the judgments, in this world and the world to come, thundered forth as its inevitable reward;-these were all in the Old Testament Scriptures:-the very words of our text were there, and the other words quoted from a subsequent chapter. It was amongst the sins of Judah, which were preparing for them those heavy woes which drew from his eyes the tears of pity over their devoted city. Yet He does not set the example of abstinence:-He does not feel it incumbent upon him to mark his abhorrence of the abuse, by the entire abandonment of the use; or to induce others to have recourse to such abandonment as the only effectual means of putting an end to the sin of drunkenness. His example was that, not of abstinence, but of temperance. Now we are certain that the example He set was both positively and negatively perfect,-perfect in what he did, and perfect in what he did not do; that he neither did what he ought not to have done, nor failed to do what he ought to have done. Are the disciples, then, deserving of blame, for not doing what the Master did not do?-Here, I repeat, I take my stand; and I feel my footing firm. I do not plead for exemption from an act of self-denial. I should be ashamed to call it such, did either the command or the example of my Master lay it upon me;-and I feel that we are uncharitably maligned when our principles and practice are imputed to an unwillingness to relinquish a sensual indulgence. But I plead for the sinlessness of my Saviour’s example; for the sacredness from all impeachment, direct or implied, of my Saviour’s character; for liberty to act, without subjecting myself to any charge of failure in duty, as my Saviour acted. I tremble, when I hear a charge heedlessly brought against the disciple, that rests on a principle such as must necessarily carry it back to the disciple’s Lord. To any man who would lay sin to my charge for drinking wine, I say at once, "I am not careful to answer thee in this matter"-He who "did no sin" drank wine;-and, diffident as I might be of rectitude in myself, in this or in any thing else, had I not his example before me, I feel contented and at ease under an imputation in which I stand associated with the "wine-bibber" of Nazareth! When one hears the charge, that the temperate-they who use intoxicating liquors in moderation-are the causes of all the drunkenness in the country, the feeling that takes possession of the mind is one of mingled amazement and grief-amazement at the absurdity, grief at the uncharitableness of such a charge. True enough it is, that, were there no drinking at all, there would be no intemperance, just as, were there no eating at all, there would be neither epicurism nor gluttony,-and were there no credit at all, there would be no "accommodation bills," and none of the reckless and ruinous speculations which are encouraged and maintained by means of them,-and, as in many other analogous cases, were the thing itself not existing, the evils arising from its abuse would be at an end:-but that those who take the use of God’s gifts which He has himself permitted, that they should be loaded with all the guilt and misery arising from the abuse of them by others,-that they who do what God allows should be charged with causing, by their example, the crimes and guilt and punishment of those who do what God forbids!-has something in it so utterly unreasonable, that the simple statement of it should be its refutation in every soundly and soberly thinking mind: but I am relieved at once from the necessity of all such reasonings, by the same example. The charge cannot be just; because, if it were, the example of the "holy, harmless, and undefiled"-"the man Christ Jesus"-would come in for its share of the blame, as a part of the cause of all the intemperance in the land of Judea! If such admonitions and commands are quoted to me as-"Touch not the unclean thing;" "Be not conformed to this world;" "Be filled with the Spirit;" "Be not partakers of other men’s sins;" "Do all to the glory of God;" "Let not your good be evil spoken of;" "Abstain from all appearance of evil;" "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God;" and others of a similar character, (and there are those who do quote them, as if they really thought they had application,) I meet them all with the same answer-Did Jesus "touch the unclean thing?" Was Jesus "conformed to this world?" Did Jesus "grieve that Holy Spirit which was not given by measure unto him?" Was Jesus, whom "the world hated because he testified of it that its works were evil," "a partaker in other men’s sins?" Did Jesus do anything otherwise than "to the glory of God?" Was it not His "good" that was "evil spoken of," when He was called "a wine-bibber?" Was there anything in Him that could justly be charged with even the "appearance of evil?" If all these questions must be answered in one way-then what becomes of the application of the texts to those who only imitate His example? It proceeds altogether on a principle, which that example, as well as the reason of the thing, has stamped with falsehood, that the use by one is rendered sinful by the abuse on the part of others. But assuredly, no fellow-Christian is entitled to require in another the relinquishment of what he has the sanction of his Master’s example for doing. We are surely safe when we are doing as Christ did. And with deliberate seriousness I say it-They who separate from their brethren because they cannot feel it their duty to adopt abstinence principles, and who, consequently, require such abstinence as a term of communion, proceed upon a principle, which, if consistently followed out, would lead them to pronounce a sentence of excommunication, from His own church, of that church’s Saviour and Lord! And what else do they than require abstinence as a term of fellowship, who placard "the British churches" as "bulwarks of intemperance?"* Did they mean by this, that in so far as such churches fail in their discipline by retaining in their communion the drunkard and the tippler, they were the "bulwarks of intemperance,"-it would be a truth. But this is not the ground of their quarrel with the churches, nor of their separation from them. And in so far as they mean that the churches are "the bulwarks of intemperance," by retaining in their fellowship those who use God’s gifts in moderation, and by not collectively adopting and acting upon the principles of total abstinence,-I am borne out by the example and by all the precepts of the Saviour in pronouncing the imputation wholesale slander.
* This refers to a large placard put up at the time throughout all the streets of Glasgow, in which the language quoted was used. By this remark I am naturally led to another-namely, that the collective as well as individual example of God’s people ought to be one of the influential means of discountenancing and putting down this and all other vices in the world. "It is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation," that by the amalgamation to such an extent of the church with the world, and the admission and retention of so many, in the former, of persons chargeable with the abuse of God’s gifts in intemperance and other sins, the power of this example has been so sadly weakened, and even turned in the opposite direction. Were the church purified of its corruption,-were "the wicked shaken out of it,"-were the line of demarcation more boldly defined, by the church’s "coming out and being separate,"-were the world thus deprived of every ground for pointing with the finger of scorn at tippling saints and godly drunkards, and saying "What do ye more than others?"-were there, in the personal and collective character of the people of God, a constant, faithful, consistent testimony, like that of their Lord, borne to the world "that the deeds thereof are evil;"-this would be, so far as example goes, what the Lord requires of his people; and it would just be-conformity to his own. And I am strongly inclined to think-and demand credit from my total abstinence brethren for my sincerity in saying so, how much soever they may question the soundness of the sentiment,-that Christian example ought to be an example of the influence of Christian principle. The apostle says-" The grace of God which bringeth salvation teacheth us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world," Titus 2:11-12. I mean, then, that the more distinctly manifest it is to the world that the sobriety of Christians is the result of their having received the grace of God,-of their faith of the doctrine of "grace reigning through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord,"-the result of pure principle, independently of all superadded and extraneous considerations, the greater is the glory to the truth and to its divine Author,-the more distinct and vivid is the "holding forth of the word of life"-the more unequivocal the impression made of "singleness of eye," or of the efficiency of the one simple-hearted principle of regard to the Lord’s will, under the influence of the Lord’s truth. Now, when Christians,-instead of, in their distinct capacity, as individuals and as churches, bearing to the world their practical testimony of the power of the gospel-of the gospel exclusively-in restraining from evil and rendering them, as God’s "peculiar people," "zealous of good works,"-enter into combinations with men of the world, and unite with them in distinct social pledges of abstinence from particular evils,-is not the influence of their own peculiar principles by this means obscured?-is not its unequivocal character impaired ?-does not it become to the world a matter of some uncertainty, what proportion of the restraining influence belongs to the gospel, and what proportion to the pledge? Is this altogether desirable? Should not the great end of Christian example be, to recommend, not merely the external imitation, or the joint practice, of a particular virtue, or the stipulated avoidance of a particular sin,-but those divine and saving truths from which the distinguishing character of the true believer arises? And is there no sacrifice made, of real benefit to men’s souls, when this is in any measure compromised, and the truths that unite and purify the Church kept out of distinct and prominent view by the principles and engagements that are the bond of the abstinence association? In this same connexion, I am further led to ask, whether to Christians it should not be an object of especially solicitous desire and endeavour, that the means used for the reformation of the "world lying in the wicked one," should be such as, at the same time, to effect their salvation ?-that the reformation attempted should, as far as possible, be based on such principles?-that the grand aim should be, to bring the minds and hearts of men under the influence of these principles, that so "out of the good treasure of the heart they may bring forth that which is good?" Should not the great power of reformation which Christians apply be the power of divine truth? When this power is effectually applied, all ends are gained. By other means, the end of external reformation may be gained. And is there not a danger of this being counted enough? When the reformation is effected by means of truth and principle-I mean Christian truth and Christian principle,-two important results are attained. In the first place, self-deception is prevented. Christians are well aware that sobriety is not conversion. When we succeed in inducing a man to relinquish the outward practice of intemperance, or of any other evil, we have, without question, in one, or, it may be, in more than one sense, done him good: but we may have done him good in a way that leaves him still "without God;" and if the man is tempted to trust in his reformation, as all in all-which we believe multitudes do,-while we save him from one delusion, we leave him in another. We have saved him from being a jovial drunkard or a despicable tippler,-and have made him a sober, selfsatisfied, but unconverted sinner, still "far from God and far from righteousness," and "before whom the publicans and the harlots may enter into the kingdom of God."-I grant, at the same time, and delight in granting, that by the outward reformation access may be more readily obtained to his mind, for bringing before it the saving truths of the gospel. All I would say is, that every Christian institution will keep conversion and salvation in view, as well as reformation of manners and habits of life,-and will on no account stop short of bringing sinners to God-" saving souls from death and hiding the multitude of sins"-as its ultimate aim;-and, as far as possible, precluding and suppressing all false and delusive confidences, lest outward reform prove only "a lie in their right hand," with which they "go down to the grave."
Secondly, permanence is ensured. This too is a consideration of much importance. When we succeed in effecting a change of principle, we have a hold of a man, such as nothing merely external or conventional can ever give us. When there is nothing beyond a verbal pledge or a paper bond between man and man,-or even an engagement in God’s name, that is not associated with the believing adoption of any enlightened principles, the security we have for permanence is very precarious indeed. I speak of course comparatively. There may be a kind of principle in the conviction of the moral turpitude and injurious effects of drunkenness; but, in very many instances, these will prove little more tenacious in holding the conscience and restraining the conduct, than did the ropes and the whips before the strength of the unshorn Samson. Nothing short of a genuine change of heart can give assurance of a steadfast and permanent change of character.
We conceive that considerations such as these ought to save us at least from the dogmatical and undiscriminating censure and condemnation of our abstinence friends, if we more than hesitate in associating with them in their plans. There is but one rational ground of which I am aware, on which Christians ought ever to think of basing any such plans. The principle to which I allude is that laid down by the Apostle in Romans 14:21,-the principle of SELF-DENIAL FOR THE GOOD OF OTHERS. I grant at once, that while there is liberty given in the Bible to drink wine, there is equal liberty to abstain from drinking it. There is no obligation to use it;-unless it be in cases where the constitution may require it as part of the means of maintaining the vigour and spirit necessary for the efficient discharge of incumbent duties;-in which case the use itself becomes an incumbent duty. Still, as a general truth, there is no obligation to take, any more than to abstain; and there being no such obligation, Christians may, without question, abstain, when they conceive such abstinence likely to be the means of effecting any special good. If our friends would keep to this ground, and follow their own convictions in acting upon it; and have becoming charity for those who have not the same convictions, and who, for such reasons as have been assigned, do not feel themselves either bound, or even at liberty, to co-operate with them-all would be well. Who hinders them? who would interfere with them? Let them only beware of either imputing bad motives, or at least the absence of good motives, to those who differ from them. For my own part, with regard to the principle laid down by the Apostle, I am not at all satisfied that the case in which the statement of it originated is, by any means, correctly parallel to the one to which it is applied, and I do not know any one point of greater delicacy and difficulty than to settle the extent to which the application of it ought to be carried,-how far we are called upon to relinquish what God has granted us, that others may abstain from what He has interdicted; and to do what God has not commanded, in order to induce others to abstain from what He has forbidden. The one case relates to the people of God; the other to the world:-but granting that the spirit of the principle might be extended alike to both, there is another difference. In the one case, there are opposite convictions of conscience. It is a case where the scruples of the weak rested on divine authority in their minds, although under a mistaken apprehension of the divine mind in the matter to which it related:-and when I see the apostle dealing tenderly with this scruple, fearing to "wound the weak conscience," I see in his behaviour and his counsels conformity to the example of Him who "did not break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax;" who bore condescendingly and kindly with the ignorance and weakness of his followers, teaching them "as they were able to bear," not "putting the new wine into old bottles," or making "the children of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom was with them." In the other case, there is nothing of the kind;-there is no difficulty about the sin or the duty, even to the weakest,-nor any room for conscientious scruple; nothing being plainer in the Bible than that all excess and intemperance are forbidden, while the moderate use has the permission and sanction of divine authority. In this case, therefore, opposite convictions of conscience there can be none. And when I look at the same Master; when, with the full assurance that the example He set was, in every point, what it ought to have been, and in no respect either defective or redundant, I find that example, on the point in question, one, not of abstinence, but of temperance-am I not bound to regard His practical testimony against the world’s evil works to have been sufficient,-and to conclude that what was sufficient in Him must be sufficient in his followers? Notwithstanding all this, however, I would not be disposed to contend with the advocates of total abstinence against the use they make of the example on which they rest so much-the example of the Apostle; and would grant them, as far as they think it may legitimately be carried, the fairness of their principle. But they must pardon me for more than hesitating about their manner of applying it. While, when I hear of good accruing from their exertions; of drunkards reformed, and drunkenness prevented, and habits of sobriety spreading, I hesitate to utter a word that might sound like indifference to the well-being of my fellow-men, and still more to put forth a hand to arrest or impede its progress;-yet I have many apprehensions, uncertainties and misgivings about the ultimate results. I feel myself on safe ground when I am imitating the example of my Lord; and I cannot even appear, in any way, to give countenance to the extravagant and erroneous principles of Bible interpretation by which the abstinence system seems to me to be upheld,-or the false principles of action and character which are adopted in so many of its publications, and the uncharitable principles on which it judges the conduct of others. But time commands me to have done. I conclude by simply reminding my hearers of two great Bible truths-both alike essential to be kept in mind-that "by grace we are saved"-the sole ground of a sinner’s acceptance before God being the "blood and righteousness" of the Redeemer, in which the medium of interest is "the belief of the truth:"-and that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord;"-the faith of the truth, in every instance, "purifying the heart and working by love;"-the very "grace that bringeth salvation teaching all its subjects, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world."