formed by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and to attain which we are exhorted to give all diligence and to use every proper instrumentality.

The modern discovery, and general introduction as an article of drink, of ardent spirits, and the consequent increase and direful effects of drunkenness, have led the minds of men to such an engrossing contemplation of this devastating vice, as to lead them to appropriate to the article of drink, exclusively, the terms-temperance and intemperance. And hence there is great danger that the true and proper signification of these words, and the true nature of the virtue and the vice to which in Scripture they refer, may be lost sight of. Much obscurity may thus be thrown around the sacred volume, and a foundation laid for many schemes of infidelity and heresy.

It is, therefore, not only proper but important, that our attention should be directed to the Bible doctrine on this subject, that while doing good we may not at the same time be the unconscious agents in doing much evil. This danger is increased by the basis now assumed for Temperance Societies, to wit, the necessity of total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, including wine. For to these Societies also, though very incorrectly, we familiarly attribute the epithet of temperance, and just so far as these are proper is the public likely to identify temperance with abstinence, and all that is said in Scripture in favor of the former as actually enjoining the latter. And yet, as we have seen, temperance and abstinence are, in the Scriptures, carefully distinguished. Many scruples have thus been already engendered, and many errors advanced, which have, in some cases, led to measures and given birth to opinions, infidel in their tendency, judaical in their spirit; uncharitable in their application; and fanatical and dangerous in their influence and results. Thus it has been held forth and publicly taught in various ways, that the use of wine is wrong, and even sinful; that there is no such thing as the temperate use of it—that even the most moderate use of wine is intemperate, and necessarily leads to drunkenness-that total abstinence is the only cure of drunkenness and that it has affected a reform where even the gospel had been found insufficient-and that the use of wine, therefore, should be abolished not only on all ordinary occasions, but also at the communion table. Now the very opposite of these propositions are found to be supported by the Bible, and by common sense. The proper use of wine is not wrong, nor a sin. Temperance, or moderation in its use, is attainable. The temperate use of wine is not intoxication, nor does it necessarily, or by any just consequence, lead to it. And while, in many cases, total abstinence is necessary to any hope of amendment, the grace of God in the heart is the only certain, perma

nent, and infallible cure for drunkenness; and is able to save to the very uttermost every drunkard who will lay hold upon the hope set before him in the gospel. While to attempt to interfere with the Lord's Supper would be an open blasphemy against the character, and an overt act of treason against the authority, of our divine and ever blessed Redeemer.

These propositions are, to our minds, incontrovertibly plain in themselves, and indubitably sustained by the oracles of God. The truth of our holy religion-the divinity of this blessed volume-the character of God-the conduct of the incarnate Saviour and the standing of the Church of the living God from the days of Christ until this hour-are all involved in the truth of these statements. Believing, therefore, in God, we cannot put confidence in gainsaying man. Such views as those upon which we comment, must be mistaken. They must be untrue to reason, to experience, and to fact. And they are most earnestly to be contended against by all who value that faith which was once delivered to the saints. Their tendency and results must be evil, only evil, and that continually. Whatever temporary popularity they may gain, they must eventually come into disrepute. And they cannot fail to sink to the very depths of hopeless ruin any cause with which they may be identified.

THE CHRISTIAN RULE OF LIBERTY AND CHARITY.

No. 3.

The golden rule of christianity is to love our neighbor as ourselves, and to do unto others even as we would have others to do unto us. So that as it regards our fellow men, love is the fulfilling of the law. But this law must have its limitation. It cannot be taken literally and absolutely, otherwise it would mean just what each man chose to make it, and would receive a different application at the hands of every selfish interpreter, according to the state of his mind, his wishes, or his finances. It must, therefore, mean, that we are to do unto our fellow men that which we might in reasonable propriety desire or expect them, under similar circumstances, to do to us. But we are not to do to others that which, in like circumstances, it would be unjust or improper for them to do to us. So that in giving and receiving kindness, in projecting or expecting good deeds, we must take as our guide the standard of divine morality. This is to be the rule of what is due unto ourselves and others, and the only perfect and immutable standard of obligation. Where it commands we are bound to obey; where it forbids, we are restrained; and where it neither commands nor prohibits, we

are at liberty, free from the interference of any human legislation.

But there are two passages in the writings of the Apostle Paul, which have been thought to favor a different rule of christian liberty and charity. One is found in the epistle to the Romans, ch. 14. v. 21, where it is said: "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended, or is made weak." The other passage is in 1 Cor. 8: 13. "Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

Now, in order to arrive at any proper understanding of these passages, we must first understand their original application. The Apostle, in both cases, has reference to professing christians to those converts who composed the churches at Rome and at Corinth. The question before him was the lawfulness, under the christian dispensation, of certain things prohibited under the law of Moses. This was the absorbing subject of controversy, in the apostolic age. Many of the Jewish converts were of opinion that the institutions of discipline of Moses, should still be observed by them. Many of them were anxious to enforce the same obligation even upon the Gentile converts. The Gentile converts had similar perplexities, arising out of their previous idolatrous customs and associations. Great practical difficulties, therefore, necessarily arose, which called forth the first Christian Council, and employed all the wisdom of the apostles. The Jewish dispensation carefully legislated upon the subject of meats and drinks, prescribing some and prohibiting others, and forbidding even what was in itself lawful, under certain circumstances. The heathen who-surrounded the primitive christians, offered certain animals, and wine also, in sacrifice to their gods. These were afterwards sold,* being regarded as more holy and more nutritious, or were consumed in a feast in the idol's temple, of which the offerers partook Now, the use of such articles was contrary to the Jewish law, while many of the Gentile converts could not free themselves from the belief that it was a real homage to idolatry, and therefore sinful. Others, however, not regarding the Jewish law as at all binding, and believing that as the idol was no real being, the food offered to the idol could not be improper because offered to what was in itself no real person, felt at perfect liberty to partake of these articles. By so doing, they gave great offence, both to their Jewish and their christian friends, who could not but think that they offended God, and patronized idolatry; or otherwise, through their example, were also led

*Augustine testifies that on this ground some, even in his day, scrupled to use wine. See in Wetstein in loco.

to mistake their duty, and thus involve themselves in sin, if not to question the whole truth of christianity. The apostle, therefore, decides that it is good, or better, not to eat such flesh, or to drink such wine, as would thus occasion the stumbling of a brother; and declares that, for his part, rather than thus lead any conscientious christian brother to fall, he would eat no flesh while the world standeth.

What, then, is the rule or principle of christian conduct supposed to be contained in these passages by many of the advocates of total abstinence societies? When generalized, it is this "Whatever article is extensively abused, to the injury and ruin of our fellow men, ought to be abandoned by all-its further use being inexpedient, dangerous, and contrary to christian charity." It is, therefore, argued that wine is thus abused, and that all men are under a christian obligation totally to abstain from it, except when prescribed as a medicine. Now the question is, is this the principle which the Apostle here inculcates?

The Apostle's argument, as we have seen, had immediate reference to professing christians, and to the particular cases of conscience which had arisen among them, and not to men generally, or to meat and drink in their ordinary use-and hence in order to deduce from his reasoning any general rule of conduct which shall be applicable to all men, we must abstract from our view all special considerations. Whatever universal principle of conduct is here taught, must then be just as applicable to meat as to drink; and, in short, to any thing whereby our fellow men may be offended, or hurt. If, therefore, the rule which has been deduced from these passages by the advocates of total abstinence, as an obligation binding generally upon all men, and which has been currently put forth as the lesson taught by the apostle, is correct, and ought, therefore, to guide our conduct in all cases, it must be found just as applicable to every other object which is a source of injury, as to wine. Either the apostle decides only a special case of christian duty, which can never again arise, except under the same circumstances, or, on the other hand, he teaches a rule equally applicable to all circumstances, and to every thing that may be an occasion of injury to our fellow men.

This being premised, we proceed to show that the principle upon which total abstinence is made obligatory upon all men, who would imitate the spirit and conduct of the apostle, viz: that "because wine has been extensively abused to the injury of our fellow men, the use of it, therefore, is to be given up altogether by every christian,"-is not the principle taught by the apostle.

And, first, this cannot be the principle of the apostle, because it would contradict the teaching of this same apostle in this and other passages. The apostle commands his readers not to sit in judgment upon one another's conduct, so as to pronounce it to be wrong, but leaving every man to his own conscience, to avoid giving each other any just occasion of offence, in the exercise of their liberty. (Rom. 14: 1-13.) He also affirms in reference to both the meat and the wine of which he speaks, that "he knew and was persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there was nothing unclean of itself, but to him who esteemeth any thing unclean, to him it is unclean." (v. 14.) He further speaks of the use of these things as a "good," which is not the evil spoken of (v. 16.) "All things indeed," he adds, "are pure, and are only evil to those who use them with offence." (v. 20.) Nay, he even approves of the continued use of the offensive articles by those to whom their use appears to be right and proper, provided they use them when none are present to whom they could give offence. (v. 22.) In both the passages referred to, the apostle also declares that in the use or disuse of such things, we are left at liberty by God, and are to be governed by the rules of prudence and reason, only taking heed that our liberty become not a stumbling block to others (1 Cor. 8: 8, and Rome. 14: 17); while he distinctly pronounces the man who conscientiously uses such things to be the "strong" believer, and the one who scrupulously abstains, to be the "weak" christian. It is manifest, therefore, that "weakness of conscience" is opposed by the apostle to "faith." In Romans xiv. that individual is said to be "weak in the faith," who is weak in conscience, for he that has true faith "believeth that he may eat (and of course drink) all things”—while he who is "weak, eateth herbs." In the chapter in the epistle to the Corinthians, again, the apostle opposes "weakness" to "knowledge" (see 1 Cor. 8, 10 & 7.) So that a weak conscience implies one that is ignorant and ill-informed. The man who is strong, therefore, is the man who has a correct knowledge of what God has declared to be improper and sinful, and what he has left to be used by us in a proper manner, and who feels that he is both conscientious and right in thus using such things as God has not forbidden. On the other hand the man who is weak, is he who has been led, from false views, to regard those things which God has not forbidden, as unlawful; who regards them, therefore, not as things which he may or may not use as circumstances shall require, but as things which he cannot lawfully use at all; and who is, thus led to cherish a religious fear which restrains him from the use or practice of these things.

Thus also we find the same apostle, when he reproaches these same Corinthians for their abuse of both meat and wine at the