it should think fit, in consistency with guarding against illicit distillation, to impose such a tax upon all intoxicating drink, as would cause it to be used as a drug, and not as a beverage; or to pass "the Maine Liquor Law," and thus restrict the spirit license to a comparative few, as well as accompany it with the most rigid regulations. All this, in the exercise of its proper authority, and upon the application of the people, it might justly do, from a regard to the public weal, morally and physically. Thus, the facilities for obtaining intoxicating drink, and consequently for indulging in drunkenness, would be greatly diminished, although, it is to be feared, not completely suppressed. But, after all that the State might thus do externally, even at the utmost, it can, in no true sense, cure drunkenness, any more than any other vice, which is of a physical and moral nature; it can only "skin and film the ulcerous sore."

The true cure for drunkenness, as well as for every other sin, must be chiefly not of an external or physical, but of an internal or moral nature; and this cure is to be found, not in the power of the legislature, but of the Church, or in the means of divine appointment with which the Church is intrusted. On this account, should the Church as a Body, or any section of

N

the Church, while condemning, in the strongest terms, the sin of drunkenness, allow any of her members to traffic in intoxicating drink as a lawful occupation, or Christian calling, and particularly as the chief, or sole, means of their support? Rather and with all humility and submission we would say it should not the Christian Church universally, or every branch of the Christian Church individually, much more than the State, exercise the power with which she is armed, and suppress the monster evil of drunkenness at the outward fountain-head? Should she not do this, so far as her own members are connected with intoxicating drink, whether it be in distilling or in selling the same? Would not this be the best "Maine Liquor Law;" leading men to abandon drink-making and drink-selling, not by human, but by divine authority; not by earthly, but by heavenly means; not by the sword of the State, but by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God? At the same time, to act in this way, has not the Church the highest authority-the express authority of her own Magna Charta? For, are not the precepts of the word, which are addressed to her members in their individual сараcity, no less applicable to her own guidance, in her corporate character? And is it not said, 'if

thy right hand offend thee, cut it off; if thy right eye offend thee, cast it out;" as well as, "follow not that which is evil, but that which is good?" Consequently, if drunkenness be an "offence" or an "evil," can the drink-making, or drink-selling system, as an occupation, fail to be so likewise? May not drunkenness rather be well designated one of the greatest "evils" and "offences?"

And when we think of the nature and effects of intoxicating drink, or of the works of sin and Satan that almost necesssarily spring from it, can the pursuit by which drunkenness is promoted be spoken of in any other terms? Especially, if the increase of public-houses, as well as of intemperance, can, in any measure, be said to have arisen from what the Church, through her Ministers and Elders, has done in the past, by granting certificates to those who are engaged in "the spirit trade," should she not expressly declare that she withdraws these certificates from all to whom they were formerly given, as well as withhold them from others in the future?

Thus, is not the question, whether, from the very nature and fruits of intoxicating drink, any can make the distilling or selling of such an article his worldly occupation, forced, in these times, upon the attention of the Church; and that not

so much upon single Congregations, as upon the Church as a Body? Is not this a question which the Church, from the state of her own communion as well as from the state of the community, is now imperatively called upon to take up, in the discharge of her duty to herself, as well as to Christ her Head, to her members, and to the world? Is not this a question which she must not only look fully in the face, and carefully consider in the light of Scripture, but explicitly answer, and then call upon her members to act accordingly? And were this question taken up in right earnest by the Church, it is not too much to predict that, in Scotland at least, it would be speedily and successfully settled. For, while one eminent Professor of the Church has publicly declared that "there is no necessity for public-houses at all," another Minister, no less distinguished in his denomination, has said that

66

we might do very well without them." Again, while another, who is one of the most powerful Pleaders as well as Preachers of the day, speaks of the blessed effects that would follow from "the entire abolition" of such houses, a younger Brother, in a large and respectable body of Christians, is pre-eminently striving with all his "might and main" for this purpose, along with others little less zealous. And, if we may refer

to the dead, while the holy and heavenly-minded M'Cheyne spoke of "public-houses as the curse of Scotland and man-traps for precious souls; as pest-houses and dens of iniquity; as yawning avenues to poverty and rags in this life, and the short-cut to hell," and also said that he " never saw a sign, licensed to sell spirits,' without thinking that it is a license to ruin souls;" the estimable and clear-sighted founder of Methodism "prohibited the manufacture and sale, as well as the dietic use, of intoxicating drinks to the members of his community;" and also "earnestly advised them to act so in the exercise of Christian charity and self-denial.”

Not to say, then, that the Church has not been doing as much as she deemed proper in the very critical circumstances in which she has been placed, may not the time be said to have fully come, if not more than come, when she should take a more prominent, as well as a more decided part in suppressing not only drunkenness, and the drinking customs, but also the drink-making and drink-selling traffic, as an unchristian traffic? For, is it enough for the most godly Christians to speak in private, in the strongest possible terms, against drunkenness, or in the bitterest anguish to bewail its ravages? Is it enough for all the Ministers of