ous scruples. This mutual toleration is, it must be allowed, most clearly recognized throughout the whole of the Apostle's reasoning, since he who eateth is not to despise him that eateth not, nor on the contrary is he who eateth not, to despise him who eateth.

Where then these circumstances are united, and only in such cases, will the rule of the Apostle apply. Thus to illustrate. I am associated with an individual for the purpose of transmitting through the post office certain religious publications to numerous other individuals. By a given arrangement of the contents of these publications, they will, as I believe, come clearly under the provisions of the law, and materially relieve the funds of that charitable society by which they are issuedam I not therefore at liberty to use my privilege and to save the income of the society? But my associate is of the opinion that the course suggested might be contrary to the law, and that by uniting in the plan his conscience would be defiled. In such a case it would be my duty to waive the exercise of my liberty, and not to occasion him offence. But at the same time, while I thus refrain from involving him in offence by my self-denial, it would be just as wrong for him to question my conscientiousness in believing that the course alluded to was right, and should a competent judge decide that my views were right, then it would be my duty to insist on the adoption of my plan, notwithstanding his objections, and his duty to abandon his weak scruples. And so in every other case, whether it has reference to meat or to drink, or to any thing else whereby a brother may be offended. Thus in the case of a copartnership in trade, one partner might regard one course of policy which is likely to be gainful as right, while his partner cannot but consider it as wrong. In such circumstances the enterprise ought to be abandoned, since it would involve one partner in guilt, and thus prepare him, in other cases, for doing even towards his copartner the thing that was not right. And just so the use of any drink, or meat, or dress, may in certain circumstances be proper, while in others it would become inexpedient and improper, the use being in itself lawful, and its propriety in any given circumstances being determined by them.

But, on the other hand, where any of the circumstances above mentioned are wanting, the rule of the Apostle does not apply, however my conduct may appear to give offence to certain individuals. For instance, should the individual objecting to my course not be reasonable or conscientious, as is the case of those who command us to abstain from meats, who forbid to marry, and who, like certain infidels, advocate a community of goods and of wives, and regard all the institutions of society as sinful, -I am under no obligation to comply with the wishes of such

an one, but on the contrary to resist and denounce them, and to give place by submission to them, no not for an hour.

Or should the scruples of any man be merely assumed, and not sincere, as in the case of one whom we had reason to believe insane, or weak-minded, or who otherwise gives evidence of insincerity, I am certainly under no obligation to submit to his folly, and to imitate his madness.

Or should the individual be otherwise reasonable, and his scruples ever so conscientious, if he can point to no divine law by whose infraction I occasion to him offence, I am certainly under no requirement to comply with his demands, otherwise it would be my duty to act as a Jew, to dress and to speak as a Quaker, to dance with the Shakers, and to avoid flesh with the Grahamites.

Neither can any man, or society of men, call upon me to avoid giving them offence, by not doing what I consider to be a duty, or by doing what I should consider to be wrong. I am not bound to accommodate our Secession brethren by signing in the worship of God only the Psalms of God, when in so doing I should feel that I was submitting to a yoke of Jewish bondage and failing to worship God as I ought. Neither can a freemason expect me to unite with his club, or to avoid any thing that might be contrary to the rules of his institution, while I am conscientionsly opposed to the whole scheme and principles of such a secret society.

Neither can any man expect his neighbour to give up to him, while he is not prepared to yield in return, and to yield just as far and as much as he expects to be yielded to. Thus, for instance, our seceding brethren are very willing that they should never be offended by hearing evangelical psalmody in our families or churches, but they are quite willing to offend us by refusing to unite with us either in our own churches, or elsewhere, in singing spiritual songs unto the Lord. They are very clamorous that we should not give offence to their conscientious scruples as to the use of hymns, but they have no disposition to regard our equally strong and conscientious objections to the exclusive use of psalms, which, in their literal meaning were adapted to the former dispensation, and which never were designed to be the exclusive psalmody of the Church of God.

And when, therefore, we consider the much agitated question of total abstinence from wine, and when we are told that by the rule of christian charity all are under obligation to abstain from any use of wine rather than give offence to all who will or may abuse it, or who think our compliance necessary to prevent them from so abusing it; we answer, that in this case the rule does not apply, since every one of the circumstances which go to determine its application are wanting. Those who abuse wine,

so as to drink it to excess, or to foster an appetite for strong drink; and those who say that wine is in itself evil, that it cannot be used in moderation, and that all who use it will certainly become drunkards;-such men are, so far forth, any thing but reasonable. Such conduct is inexcusable and sinful, and such principles essentially unreasonable, and contrary to the experience of ages, whilst they contain a foul slander upon the Word of God, upon the Son of God, and upon the whole Church of God in every age of the world. When such men, therefore, tell us that a temperate, that is a proper use of wine, entices them to an intemperate use of it, and that our example, while according to Scripture is strictly temperate, leads others to drunkenness, and involves us in the guilt of their criminality and ruin, it is the most charitable judgment we can make to believe that such scruples are assumed for the occasion, since there is no link of reason by which the premises and the conclusion can be united. And when we ask for any law of God by which the use of wine is to be thus criminated, can they deny that its temperate and proper use is every where in the Old and in the New Testament spoken of with approbation, and that it is no where forbidden to those who use it rightly. Do not many of those who continue to use wine in moderation, do so, as they believe, from a sense of duty, considering it to be useful to them and promotive of their comfort and health? And are not those who totally abstain from wine violating this very rule of the Apostle, when instead of bearing with those who drink temperately, and allowing that they do so from correct and proper motives, they denounce them as intemperate, or wine-bibbers, or lovers of drink? And do they not further violate this rule in requiring such a total abstinence not conditionally, or on special occasions, or for a time merely, but totally and for ever?

Wine, therefore, being in itself good-its temperate use being proper and right, and to many useful-and such a use of it being consistent with that temperance which is the fruit of the Spirit, and which every true christian may therefore confidently hope to maintain by giving all diligence to cultivate it-the abuse of wine by many who drink it to excess, who tarry long at it, who use it unreasonably, and for the mere purpose of excitement and carnal indulgence, does not lay upon the temperate drinker who conscientiously uses it, any obligation to abstain from it. The rule of the Apostle does not apply to such. Such persons as abuse wine by drinking it to excess, are inexcusable in their guilty course, and are equally condemned by the Word of God, the voice of reason, and the example of the temperate around them.

Are we then to conclude that this rule of the Apostle has no reference whatever to the conduct of christians as it regards the

intemperate use of wine by many around them, and the dreadful evils that result from it? Or are there no cases, in which, by the use of wine, this law of Christ may be violated? This law, we would reply, has reference to this subject so far as it truly applies to it, just as it has to any and to all other cases; and it may be as certainly violated in an improper use of wine, as in an improper use of meat, or of money, or of any thing whereby a brother is offended. When any man persuades or entices another man, under any pretext whatever, to use wine while that individual thinks it wrong for him so to use it, then he violates this law of christian charity, and is assuredly guilty of tempting that brother to sin. When any customs of society are followed by which such excess and intemperance are fostered, and men are led to abuse wine to drunkenness, such as wine-parties, tarrying at the table after the ladies have retired, or for a length of time, in order to drink more freely, and under less restraint; introducing it upon all occasions of visiting; and the formation of drinking clubs;-in all these ways may this law of christian charity be broken, and men become guilty of their brother's blood. And when those who do not ordinarily use wine, endeavour to make others believe the use of it at any time, and especially at the Lord's table to be a sin, and thus entangle their conscience and lead them to doubt if they use it, and to sin if they avoid its use; or when they would force such an interpretation on the Bible, as to lead others to question the truth and inspiration of that blessed volume-then do they most palpably and flagrantly violate this law, and act most uncharitably towards their neighbour.

THE WINE Question Settled as it Regards the Com

MUNION.

MR. EDITOR-The following paragraph, from Dr. Brown, of Edinburgh, (See his Law of Christ, respecting civil obedience, p. 475,) at once and conclusively settles a question on which Mr. Delevan has already published 48 quarto pages, and proposes publishing any quantity on demand.

"But now that the law has been given forth, all such enquiries are not only unnecessary, but they are impious. As Dr. Chalmers happily says: 'Let the principle of 'what thinkest thou?' be exploded; and that of 'what readest thou?' be substituted in its place.' Had Jesus Christ merely stated that it was his will that his death should be commemorated in an appropriate emblematical institution, then it would have been proper to have endeavored to discover what particular emblematical service would have best gained the end, but now that he has bid us "Eat Bread and drink Wine," in remembrance of him, the

christian who neglects thus to commemorate him, and the christian who would seek to commemorate him, in any other way, would equally violate the law, and contemn the authority of the Lord."

ST. PAUL'S DIRECTION TO TIMOTHY TO DRINK WINE.

MR. EDITOR-You have very deservedly commended the truly eloquent and evangelical work of Mr. Gaussen, Professor of Theology in Geneva on the Plenary Inspiration of the Scriptures. Will you give your readers the following exposition of the above passage found at page 192 of the work:

"One of the passages which we have frequently placed in the front, when they would justify a distinction between that which is inspired and that which is uninspired in the word of God, is the recommendation of St. Paul to Timothy on account of his bad digestion, and the maladies under which this young disciple was suffering: "drink no more water, but a little wine, for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities." (1 Tim. v. 23.)

At the same time, if you examine this passage more closely what an admirable and living revelation will you find, of the greatness of the Apostolic vocation and of the amiableness of the christian character. Remark first, that it was pronounced as in the temple of God; for, immediately before, you have these solemn words: "I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partakers of other men's sins, keep thyself pure. Drink no more only water." We see that it is in the presence of their common Master and of the holy angels, that St. Paul would speak to his disciple. Entering then into the same temple, to understand him, and placing ourselves at the same height, in arraigning ourselves as he did, "before the Lord Jesus and his holy angels;" then we shall quickly recognize how many beauties these passages reveal in the ministry of the Apostles, and in the ways of the Lord towards his own. The celebrated Chrysostom had well understood it, when preaching upon these very words, he observed with so much feeling, how little the most ardent and the most useful servants of God ought to be surprised, if it ever happens that the Lord sees proper to try them, as Timothy was tried, by infirmities in their lungs or in their head, or in their stomach; if he puts some thorn in their flesh, and if he thus buffets them by some angel of Satan, in order to increase on the one hand their sympathy, their meekness, their tenderness of heart, their cordial affections, their tender compassion; and on the other, their patience, self-renunciation, self