to its "pledge, does not make a man truly temperate in God's sight, but that this is only a means to an end, and that the heart still remains to be changed by other means?" Nor could it be otherwise. For, how could that "pledge,” or any human pledge, as "a good resolution, or sacred promise," carry along with it such power as to make one truly temperate-temperate especially within? Although moral means can alone cure moral diseases, and it, as a moral means, is, in a measure, so far adapted to check the evils of drunkenness, it is, at the same time, from its earthly and human nature, utterly insufficient to cure drunkenness, either as a physical or as a moral disease. In proof of this, not to speak of the frequency with which the "pledge" is broken by many, even in the case of those who keep it best, an accompanying power, a power greater than human, is absolutely necessary for this purpose. Agreeably with this, one of the most eloquent and distinguished of their number has declared in his Autobiography, that his "best resolves were feebleness, and his sincerest promises weakness." For, after he had taken the pledge, and supposed that he "had put his heel on the tyrant which had so long held him captive," he confesses that he "continued to break every promise made to

himself and others;" that after having "flung away the maddening draught, he needed a strength not his own to adhere to the vows he had made;" that so long as he "relied implicitly on his own strength, his utter weakness was painfully exemplified in his violation of his sacred promise; that depending for support on an arm of flesh, he depended on a broken reed;" that "unassisted human strength is utterly unable to afford adequate support in the hour of temptation;" that "without strength from on high, he was unequal to the conflict; that we are only so far safe when we depend on a mightier arm than our own for support, and that our strength lies in our sense of weakness;" that he "disclaimed all power in and of himself, and desired earnestly the influences of the Holy Spirit, without whom all human effort is vain."

Now, not to enlarge upon the strange statement, that, "the total abstinence pledge is that which cures drunkenness," while "the grace of God is that alone which can reform the man as if God's grace could not cure drunkenness, and in any true moral reformation drunkenness was not included-all this being agreeable to reason as well as revelation, why should "the taking of the pledge" be held forth as sufficient of itself to restrain men from drunkenness, or to make

૨

them true abstainers? Or, why should it be so frequently, and so triumphantly, spoken of in private and in public, as if it were a new moral principle, or a new discovery in morals? Granting that, in these drunken times of ours, the "pledge" should be taken as an antidote to the reigning drinking system, why, in calling upon men to take it, and to keep it, should the grace and help of God be practically ignored? Or, why should the love of Christ, in assuming our nature, and dying in our stead, and which is one of the most powerful motives to the discharge of every duty, be virtually trampled under foot? Granting, likewise, that such societies should be set up in these peculiar times, why should there not be embodied in their constitution, and also in the pledge which is adopted, a divine basis, such as the express precept of Scripture, "abstain from all appearance of evil?"

Resting, thus, on a "Christian basis," how much more confidently might the divine blessing be expected, and how much more abundantly received? At the same time, with such a moral precept, not as motto, or maxim, to be quoted, but as a fundamental element, with how much greater propriety might these Societies be classed with Missionary, Bible, and other Religious Societies, which form part and parcel of

the agencies of the Church; and which, while they employ Scriptural means for the accomplishment of the moral and spiritual ends which they have in view, cannot, on account of the basis on which they are built, be scouted, whether many join them, or not. Above all, were they thus constituted, how much more appropriately might they be spoken of as being, for a season, "a preparative or precursor, a pioneer or forerunner, an auxiliary or ally," to the Gospel? But even at the best, however much good they have accomplished, or may accomplish, they must never be regarded as anything like a supplement to, any more than a substitute for, the means which God himself has appointed as the true antidote for intemperance, and all the other sins of society. Far less, they must never be regarded as "a remedy" or a sure remedy;" as "the only specific" or "panacea;" or as the simplest and safest plan," for the suppression of intemperance, either in a physical or moral sense. Especially, such terms or titles must not be applied to these Societies, on the ground that "if a drunkard," by taking the pledge, "abstains from drink, he will not be a drunkard." For, on exactly the same ground, it may be asserted, if a sinner, by making a promise, abstains not merely from some sins, but from

66