tian 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? : CHAPTER XV. NON-CONFORMITY TO THE WORLD IN TAKING CERTAIN STATE LICENSES. "No more, believers, mourn your lot, Resign to them that know him not, 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, more 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 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. 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 any 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 case of Sabbath Railway Trains in our own country! However, are not "the powers that be" appointed to be "ministers of God for good," and not for evil of any kind, as well as to be a terror to evil-doers, and a praise and protection to them that do well? Do they not hold their office, not so much for honour to Should themselves, as for profit to others? they not, also, exercise the duties of their office at once for the glory of God, and the good of their fellow-men; for good, morally and bodily, civilly and nationally, individually and collectively, not to say, likewise, religiously and spiritually? Now, without meaning to assert that civil rulers are to presume to determine what their subjects are to eat and drink, any more than what they are to read and believe, have they not the power tacitly granted them by all their subjects, not merely to restrict, but to suppress, every thing that is known to be "opposed to good morals," and also destructive to the true interests of the people, at least in a bodily and temporal sense? Accordingly, in our capitals, and chief cities, and principal towns, do they not, from time to time, exercise that power in suppressing improper and blasphemous placards and publications, and also in subjecting their authors or publishers to punishment? In like manner, because arsenic has been employed, of late, so frequently to the hurt, and so fatally to the lives, of its subjects, has not the State exercised its power in prescribing the mode in which that article is to be sold, and also in appointing other regulations? In this spirit, likewise, has it not, in the exercise of its constitutional authority, legislated against the employment of female labour in mines, and about the limitation of juvenile labour in manufactories; and likewise, if we mistake not, concerning the opium trade, as well as about the removal of proved physical nuisances. As a necessary consequence, has it not the power, not merely to regulate, but to restrict, and even to suppress, upon the demand of the majority of the nation, the making and selling of any article, which, instead of being profitable, is prejudicial to society, or what may be called a moral as well as a physical nuisance? Do not the Licensed Victuallers of England go upon this ground when they petition the Legislature not to throw open the (spirit) trade under certain conditions to all persons who may think fit to apply for a license," inasmuch as that proposal is "fraught with the greatest moral and social mischief," but to prevent "the increase of 66 |