Christ throughout the land, once a year, or more or less from Sabbath to Sabbath, to preach against the drunkenness of some members of the Church, as well as of the men of the world, while she permits others within her pale systematically to feed it for six, if not for seven days, from week to week? Is it enough to discourage by precept, and also by pattern, the practice of every thing like drunkenness, and yet, in any sense, to encourage the pursuit of the drink-trade? Is it enough to declaim with trumpet-tongue against drunkenness, and to denounce the drunkard in tones of thunder, and yet not declare the drinkseller and the distiller as accessaries to the evil that is committed? Or, is it at all even-handed justice to condemn the vice, to censure the victim, and to acquit the vender? Or, as the New Zealander said, is it equitable to "punish poor ignorant man for drink the rum, and not punish man who make the rum, and also the man who sell the rum," although both are licensed by the State, but allow each to pass with impunity? Or, to put the matter in another form, if those who through tampering with such an ensnaring temptation as intoxicating drink fall, and are guilty of sin, can those who make drink, and sell drink, and allow it to be drunk on their premises, and especially in such a measure

as toobtain a living by it, be regarded guiltless?

If, in opposition to all this, it is said, as it sometimes is, "whatever is safe and right for Christians to use daily, cannot be wrong for Christians to make or sell," we may point, by way of reply, to the past history of drunkenness, and of drunkards, and fearlessly assert that the emphatic declaration of that history is, that intoxicating drink, is not safe, and cannot be said to be safe till that history is obliterated from the records of time. We may, also, confidently assert, on the authority of the letter, as well as of the spirit, of Scripture, that it is not right to make a frequent, much less a daily use of such drink, but rather the least seldom, and the most sparing possible. For there, are we not commanded to "abstain from all appearance of evil?" And, from daily present observation, as well as from past history, may it not justly be said, that intoxicating drink has not merely "the appearance of evil," but that it is the fountain of the greatest evil; and that by it, in ancient and modern times, millions of mighty men have fallen?

May we not add, if the Church does not deal differently in the future from what she has done in the past, with those of her members

who are proprietors and possessors of publichouses, what reasonable hope can she cherish of being able to stem the deluge of drink? May we not as well expect to stay a torrent, while the sluice from which it proceeds is not only left open, but continues progressively to widen; or to purify a stream, while the fountain from which it springs remains polluted; or to extirpate a tree, by lopping off a few branches, while the root is still untouched? Or, to adopt a figure which is perhaps more apposite, may we not as well try to extinguish a fire with a few palefuls of water, while we pour upon it a thousand puncheons of oil? May not this be said to be worse than giving the alarm of fire, and yet do nothing to extinguish it? Now, what a lamentable and but on such a subject as this what a ludicrous-picture would this be, in each of these respects, in a literal seuse; and can it be less so, morally and spiritually? For what, at the best, are public-houses, whether they belong to professors or non-professors of religion, but the means of supplying the fuel that feeds the flame of drunkenness? Is not this demonstrable from the fact, that the increase of drunkenness throughout the country is generally proportional to the increase of public-houses; as well as that the increase of public-houses is proportional to

the increase of crime? What, likewise, is all that the Church has hitherto done in private and in public for counteracting the sin of drunkenness, which, like a prairie fire, has been raging throughout the land? Even at the utmost, and that has not been little, may it not fitly be compared to the casting upon it of a few buckets of water? And, if for extinguishing the late terrific conflagration in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a few such buckets or barrels would have been, to say the least, perfectly futile, in what terms may all the efforts of the Church, for extinguishing the liquid fire of drunkenness, as well as of the drink-making, and drink-selling systems, be spoken of?

Should not the Church, therefore, in her collective as well as in her individual capacity, not merely "sympathize" with those who are labouring for these ends, but support them in their truly patriotic efforts?-efforts, no less patriotic than those which are now being made in raising the "Patriotic Fund" for our disabled soldiers and sailors, or for the widows and children of such as are deceased. Or rather, should not the Church take the lead, more than she has hitherto done, in guiding public sentiment on this all-momentous subject; in setting this great moral movement on a thoroughly "Christian

basis;" and in giving forth no uncertain sound upon this matter, in the way of worldly pursuit as well as of daily practice? For this purpose should not all sections of the Church present one united front not only against drunkenness as a sin, but against trading in intoxicating drink as a Christian pursuit? Or, if no section of the Church will as a Body so bestir herself, should not professing Christians of every denomination stand unitedly forth as PRACTICAL NON-CONFORMISTS, or CHRISTIAN ABSTAINERS in this most philantropic of enterprises, foot to foot, shoulder to shoulder, hand to hand, and heart to heart; and, in dependence upon the divine blessing, strive not only to turn the tide of popular opinion in a Christian direction, but to gain the co-operation of the whole of their fellow-Christians?

In this way, if what the State has already done, may be styled "the dawn of a better day for Scotland," the members of the Church may be instrumental in hastening on that dawn to meridian brightness; and in achieving one of the most glorious triumphs of practical Christianity, or of virtue over vice. Will the State, then, so far do her duty by passing "the publichouse act" for diminishing facilities to drunkenness on the Sabbath; and will not the Church, as a Body, do hers to her own members throughout