صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

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? Instead, 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 ?

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


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 Christian to be engaged occasionally, far less systematically, in a pursuit which fosters drunkenness. In this, not only as in other pursuits, which are naturally productive of sin, but even more so on account of its constituent elements, may it not justly be said to them, “be not conformed to this world ?” In this, also, as in other respects, should there not be a wide practical difference between them and the men of the world ? With you, then, my dear reader, who profess to be Christ's, if you are, directly or indirectly, connected with "the spirit trade," is it so in this sense ? If not, may we not affirm, on the authority of that Word which should regulate our pursuits as well as our practices, that you are not professionally with Christ, but against him; and that you are not true practical non-conformists to the world according to the necessities of the times, nor true Christians in your worldly calling ?


[ocr errors]


“ No more, believers, mourn your lot,

But, if you are the Lord's,
Resign to them that know him not,

What aid to sin affords."

But further, all true Christians must “not be conformed to this world” in any pursuit that fosters, or facilitates, any sin, although that pursuit may be licensed by the State, and allowed, and prosecuted, by office-bearers and members of the Church. In the spirit of these words, we might here speak, in general terms, as to different pursuits legalized by the State, and followed after by professing believers, which are, being thus engaged in by professing members of the Church, will be equally applicable to similar pursuits. This, therefore, may properly be said to form a continuation of the preceding topic; but, on account of its superlative importance, it is not unworthy of the prominence of a new chapter.

or less, inseparably connected with the promotion of sin; but as drunkenness, or the best means for the suppression of that vice, may be said to be the great practical “question" of the day, we shall more particularly refer to it. At the same time, what will be said of it in connection with the distilling and selling of intoxicating drink, as licensed by the State, and as


Here, then, the question may be asked, is not the making and retailing of intoxicating drink licensed by the State ? and is it not, in each of these respects, legally, as well as openly, prosecuted ? True as this is, here, too, we would ask, are not pawning establishments licensed by the State ? and yet, are not they, on all hands, acknowledged to be, generally, nurseries of theft, and the sources of deep national demoralization? Besides, have any governments the right to license


establishments which are the means, or, at least, which are proved to be the means, of fostering and facilitating sin of any kind, any more than to license these sins themselves ? For, how palpable is it, that the licensing of the means by which sins may be committed, is virtually, or rather actually, licensing these sins themselves ? Alas! how true is this in regard to the sins of uncleanness and Sabbath profanation, in the case of State-legalized establishments for uncleanness on the Continent, and in the

« السابقةمتابعة »