celebration of their agapæ, in which we are told they became drunken, anathematizing only their abuse, and immediately prescribing the use of the same wine and the same meat or bread, to the end of time, in the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11.) And thus also do we find him requiring Timothy, who, from some motive, had abstained from wine, to resume the use of it. in moderation, for his health's sake.

From all these passages we infer, therefore, that the proper use of wine being right, is not necessarily to be abandoned, because by an improper use of it, it has been injurious to others -and that to regard it as in itself unlawful or forbidden by any rule of morality or religion, is to betray a want of knowledge and faith, and to become both weak, ignorant and unbelieving.

THE CHRISTIAN RULE OF LIBERTY AND CHARITY.

No. 4.

The rule deduced from the passages found in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, respecting meat and wine, is this "that when any thing is extensively abused, to the great injury of our fellow men, it is the duty of every christian man entirely to abstain from its use." Now this rule, we have shewn, cannot be what is taught by the Apostle. This we now proceed still further to prove.

It cannot be the Apostle's meaning that the use of wine is to be abandoned because it is generally abused, since the same rule would apply to all other drinks which have been perverted to the injury of our neighbors, and would therefore, in the opinion of many, require total abstinence from tea and coffee, since these also are abused to the great injury of many. That these things are in fact so abused and perverted, no one can deny, and, therefore, the evident absurdity of the inference, that these articles are to be totally abandoned, shews that there is an error in the exposition of those passages from which it is deduced, and that the principle upon which the duty of total abstinence is based is wrong.

The same absurdity arises if this principle of the total abstinents is applied to meats as well as drinks. For, it must be admitted that the evils, physical, mental, moral, and spiritual, which arise from gluttony and the worship of the belly, are, if not as great, at least not much less injurious, than those arising from excess in drinking, and therefore by the rule laid down, the practice of the Grahamites in our own country, and of ascetics in all ages of the world, should be followed in total abstinence from all kinds of flesh meat.

The Apostle, in the above passages, certainly refers to meats just as much as to wine, and declares that under certain circumstances he would just as certainly abstain from the one as from the other. The evils, therefore, which so generally follow from the abuse of meats, is just as conclusive an argument for total abstinence from them, as in the case of wine. And when the advocates of total abstinence from wine apply their principle to meats, and act upon it, we will then allow that however "weak" and mistaken, they are at least consistent.

But again, as the Apostle applies his reasoning to "ANY THING" whereby men are offended, so must the alleged rule which he is here supposed to lay down. Now how many are the things which, by their abuse, lead to the most flagrant and wide-spread evils. Of money, it is said, that "the love of it is the root of ALL evil.” How incalculable are the woes to which it gives occasion. How few are there who can use it without abusing it, or being abused and injured by it. When we consider the falsehood, dishonesty, perjury, forgery, murder, and wars, the envy, hatred, jealousy, covetousness, and idolatry, to which it leads, we may well understand "how hardly a rich man," or the man who will be rich, "can ever enter the kingdom of heaven." The tongue also is said to be "a fire, a world of iniquity . . . that defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell." What a world of evil does it daily produce. What calumny, and backbiting, and slander, and railing, and falsehood, and immorality, and blasphemy, and atheism, are constantly pouring forth from the opened sepulchre of men's throats. And who is there that can say, even as it regards any one single day, that he has not abused this gift of God. In like manner society, and liberty, and the press, and woman, and dress—are not all these things extensively abused to the great injury of millions? And shall we then carry out the rule, and in order to abstain from all these sources of multiplied evil, shall we abjure society, become solitary ascetic, and take a vow of perpetual poverty, and of perpetual silence, and of perpetual virginity? You cry out against such monstrous reasoning. But if the rule laid down by the advocates of total abstinence is correct, and therefore general and unlimited, such must be the conclusion to which it will bring every humane, christian, and prudent man. That is, it would require every man who would be truly virtuous, "to go out of the world," since otherwise he must be under the necessity of using many things which are constantly abused, to the great injury of others.

But again, this rule, which has been inferred from these passages, cannot be correct, because it would make the virtuous subject to the vicious, and reduce society to the government of 24-VOL. VI.

the bad. Men have only to abuse any common mercy and to present themselves before society in their debruted character, to make it necessary for all others to descend to the same level, and to abandon the use of any abused mercy, however necessary to civilization and refinement. The sceptre of legislation, and the standard of duty, would thus be placed in the hands of the unprincipled, the unmoral, and the depraved. And whereas God, in his wisdom, has showered upon us gifts which to all who use them aright are blessings, and only evil to those who abuse them, we are to amend His plans and cut off all those streams of comfort which can be possibly perverted by the depraved passions of man.

Again-this rule would for ever obliterate the fixed standard of right and wrong, and render it inconstant and mutable. For what is abused now may not be abused at a subsequent period of time, or in some other region of the earth; and what is considered an abuse by one class of men, may be regarded as necessary by a larger class; and thus would it become impossible to lay down any rules of moral conduct, other than what arise from the present tendency of any course of life and conduct, to favour or not to favour those habits by which others are injuriously affected or enslaved.

Besides, this rule by requiring a concession to the weak and vicious, who abuse certain mercies to their serious injury, and by requiring the abandonment of such mercies and the confession that they are dangerous, would forever prevent the possibility of any real elevation in the character and principles of such "weak and ignorant brethren." For, according to the principle laid down, they must remain in their weakness, and all others must become even as they are. We are not, it is said, to endeavour to make them strong, or to convince them of their errors and of their sin in abusing that which in its proper use, is good, and thus to lead them, by our influence and example, to the attainment of self-government and moderation. On the contrary we are to come down to their present weakness, and for ever bind ourselves to act according to the same weak and erring judgment.

But not to enlarge, we would only further ask, does not this rule evidently contradict the declaration of this same Apostle. "For why," he asks, "is my liberty judged of by another man's conscience; for, if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks." (1 Cor. 10: 29, 30.) "Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth." "Let every one therefore please his neighbor, but only when it is for his good and to edification." "Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him."

The Apostle here evidently claims the same liberty to use, in a proper manner, those things which God has not forbidden, that he allows to those who are "weak," and who regard them as improper and forbidden, wholly to abandon their use.

For these reasons, it must be apparent that however plausible the rule which has been drawn from these passages by the advocates of total abstinence may seem, and however clear it may appear to many when applied to the subject of wine, it is and must be fallacious, and can only appear sound to those who are already convinced of the propriety of their course, and who readily take up any argument by which that course may be sustained. It is however certain that a bad argument is always detrimental, and that a false principle, when admitted for the sake of accomplishing a present good, will be employed to establish other mischievous conclusions from which multiplied evils in the end may result.

THE CHRISTIAN RULE OF LIBERTY AND CHARITY CONTINUED, AND THE TRUE Meaning oF THE APOSTLE IN ROMANS 14: 21, AND 1 CORINTHIANS 8: 13, EXPLAINED.

No. 5.

The Apostle's reasoning, however, on the above passages must, it is admitted, have some application, and we shall now attempt to deduce that rule of conduct which it appears to imply. The Apostle then, as we think, designed to teach us, in these passages, that when the use of any liberty may lead a conscientious individual-one who has not been able rightly to understand what is lawful and what is unlawful, and who is therefore excusable for his want of knowledge, and to be pitied for his weakness-to commit sin, then it becomes a christian's duty to deny himself such a liberty. However right and proper any such indulgence or abstinence may be in ordinary circumstances, yet if in any peculiar case it may lead such a man to sin, every christian who is convinced that such will be the injurious result of his conduct, must deny himself the exercise of his liberty. In this view of it, the Apostle's principle harmonizes with that new law given by Christ, that we should love one another; and with the golden rule already adverted to, to do unto others as we would have others do unto us. And just as both these rules require to be restrained within the limits of what is just, christian, and right, or may otherwise be made to support the wildest fanaticism, so does the language of the Apostle, in the passages under consideration, need to be explained by the whole of the Apostle's reasoning, and by the spirit of the entire word of God. In absolute literality no man can or ought to love his neighbor as himself, for he may love

himself to an extent that is sinful and unjust;-nor to do to others just as, in any given case, he might selfishly desire them to do to him; or to turn the other cheek to a man who had wantonly struck him on the other; or totally to abstain from any thing by whose excess or abuse a brother is offended. For it is very evident that there is nothing whatever at which some brother might not at least pretend to be offended, and thus to avoid giving offence it would become necessary, as has been said, for a man to "go out of the world," or at once to put an end to his existence. The Apostle's language, therefore, just like our Saviour's, with which it coincides, must have limitations. And these limitations appear to be plainly such as these. Before a christian is called upon to sacrifice any liberty on account of the offence arising from it to another, it must be made to appear that the person or persons so offended or injured are reasonable and conscientious men. The ground for the alleged offence must be reasonable, and must be such as to wound the conscience of the offended person. 2dly. The scruples of such persons must be honest and not assumed, or merely asserted. For in the case of the Essenes, or some similar sect, in the Apostle's days, who abstained from many things indulged in by others, such as wine, and who proudly boasted of their superior sanctity, and required all 'to imitate their course, the Apostle peremptorily requires that christians should not submit to their restrictions. He says "Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind. And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (touch not; taste not; handle not; which are all to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the sanctifying of the flesh." 3dly. The scruples of such weak brethren, in order that their honesty may be proved, must be founded on some acknowledged law of God. 4thly. Such scruples must not require at our hands any thing which would conflict with OUR CONSCIENTIOUS VIEWS OF DUTY, for if they do, then, since duty is to be measured by our obligations to God and not to man, we must in such a case obey God rather than man. And 5thly, individuals who plead such scruples of conscience, must be willing to exercise a mutual forbearance towards us, and not require any thing more than that in the use of our liberty we will avoid the wounding of their conscienti

1