not godliness," but "godliness great gain, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come;" that much of the gain of such a trade is the gain not of godliness, but of ungodliness; that it is also, a trade which is the occasion of the greatest detriment to those who are engaged in it, as well as to others; and in many cases, not less than the price of blood, and the destruction of souls? Rather, therefore, than "abide in a calling" which too commonly entails such consequences, should they not be willing, if need be, to "suffer," like Paul, "the loss of all things?" Or, should they not be ready to act like the Ephesians of old, who, when brought under the power of Christian truth and Christian principle, not only renounced "the curious arts" which they had previously practised, because they were sinful or led to sin, but who "brought their books together, and burned them," not secretly but openly, "before all men," although "the price of them was fifty thousand pieces of silver?"--an immense sum of money, whether the Jewish shekel, or the Attic drachma, is here meant. For, is it to be supposed, that such heroic conduct as this is recorded in the word of God only for admiration, and not, also, for imitation, when circumstances demand it? And, if in the present generation nearly five

hundred Ministers, and several hundred Probationers, made great temporal sacrifices for the maintenance of Christ's crown and covenant, as well as the Christian rights of his people, should not office-bearers and members of all sections of the Church be ready, for their own good, and for the good of their fellow-Christians and fellow-creatures, as well as in obedience to the command of Christ, to " come out" from the sin-fostering pursuits of the world; and especially, from one of the worst, the pursuit which fosters drunkenness ? For, does not Christ say, 66 come out from among them, and be ye separate?" And, "what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? Or, what communion hath light with darkness?" How much more loyal and Christian-like would it be to act thus than, like rebels and radicals, to threaten to thwart, and “break the law of the land” as to the sale of intoxicating drink, because their "craft is in danger?" Thus, also, would they not exhibit in our day not merely a second splendid moral spectacle, but a second striking moral specimen of the power of Christian opinion, Christian principle, and Christian precept? Will the Publicans of the Church outstrip, in this respect, the Preachers of the Cross; or will pelf prevail over precept and principle? Whatever

may gradually, if not simultaneously, be the result, through the grace of God, what are the greatest sacrifices, when made at the call of duty and at the command of Christ, but as the small dust in the balance? If not here, will they not hereafter be infinitely more than repaid? For, when Peter on a certain occasion said, “behold! we have left all, and followed thee," did not Christ reply, every one who forsaketh" any thing "for his name's sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and inherit life everlasting?"

66

Moreover, although the livelihood of many depends upon the existence of "the spirit trade," or upon the consumption of intoxicating drink, is it not " a bad argument for the commission of the least evil, that great good comes out of it?" Are Protestants, any more than Papists, to say in reference to any pursuit or any practice, “let us do evil that good may come?" Are they to perpetuate evil of any kind that good may come to them, although evil may come to others? As to nests of Publicanism, as well as of Popery, may it not rather be said, without entertaining the slightest idea of physical force, "pull down the rooks, and the crows will soon flee away ?"-remove constitutionally the fountains of drunkenness, and the effects will instantly cease. If there is any spiritual truth in the above saying

of our great Reformer as to Popery, is there not as much moral truth in it as to Publicanism? And, is it not just because we have so many "Rooks" of Popery and Publicanism throughout the country, and throughout the world, that we have such a multiplication of the "black brood" of both? In other words, is it not an axiomatic truth, that public-houses, in general, are the very worst nests of wickedness and crime? stead, therefore, of starving drunkenness for the good of the public, are we to nurse it for the good of the publican? Or, instead of suppressing the misery that flows from it, for the welfare of "the mass multitude," are we to support it for the prosperity of a comparative few?

In

It must, also, be borne in mind, that losses in the world are not only frequently inevitable, but that no great beneficial change of a temporal nature has ever taken place without subjecting many to more or less suffering and sacrifice. For example, "when coaches were introduced, were not many pack-horse drivers ruined; and when the spinning-jennies were invented, were not thousands of hand-loom weavers thrown out of employment for a time? When new railroads are still opened, are not many valuable properties rendered comparatively worthless; and when Sabbath trafficking is prohibited, do

M

not Sabbath traders suffer?" So, also, it might be, for a time, with those who are engaged in "the spirit trade," were they, in obedience to Christian precept, and from Christian principle, spontaneously to renounce that occupation; but, without the slightest doubt, both they themselves, and all connected with them, would, sooner or later, through the blessing of God, be the greatest gainers. "The blessing of God, that maketh rich, and with which he addeth no sorrow," might confidently be expected to rest upon them, and upon their posterity. At the same time, while they would cease to be the occasion, in this way, of doing the greatest injury to others, they might otherwise become the greatest of benefactors to society. And in each of these respects, what a blessing would this be; what " a peace of conscience" would it confer? Independently, however, of all such worldly considerations, in this as in all other cases, the grand question must be with all true Christians, what is duty? And, after what has been advanced, it is not too much to assert, that whether we look at the nature and effects of intoxicating drink, of drunkenness, or of the drinking customs; at the dictates of philanthropy, at the principles of morality, or at the precepts of Christianity, it is not the duty of any professing Chris