authority to suppose that he did not thoroughly follow it out relatively as well as personally, as if it were equivalent to a direct principle or precept. So far from that, while he says elsewhere (1 Cor. vi. 12), "all things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me," he also adds, "but I will not be brought under the power of any;" I will not become the slave of any bodily appetite, or of any habit which is of an evil nature, or sinful tendency; and we may safely add, I will not become subject to any worldly custom, nor provide the means of conformity to that custom, for others, any more than for myself, on the ground of expediency. So, these words may most properly be understood. But even although the terms, "the power of any," may be regarded as alluding to persons, and not to things, the result will be precisely the same, if not more strongly in confirmation of the point for which we are contending. On this account, all true believers may still adopt this language as to any worldly custom in reference to others, as well as themselves, whether they are in their own house, or in the house of a friend. At the same time, while they freely extend the same power to others, who may not be so persuaded in their own minds, these others, as

guests, have no right to expect, on the part of their hosts, the slightest deviation from the true spirit of expediency, for their gratification.

As a necessary consequence of all this, when at any time we adopt expediency as a principle, it should, in all circumstances, be rigidly acted up to in reference to others as well as ourselves; and yet, while not designing to give offence to any, we must not surrender our own conviction of duty in regard to others, whether we be under the domestic roof, or under the hospitable roof of another. Unless this is the case, will not expediency, when professedly acted upon at any time, be justly spoken of as a thing the most accommodating and convenient possible; as supple, if not as slippery, as an eel; as a yoke, the freest and the easiest imaginable; as but a half measure, or, what is politically styled, "trimming?" And when, or where, did any half measure, or trimming, ever accomplish any great good? Was it in the case of the slavetrade, or in any other great civil or religious question that has ever agitated the country? Of such "half-and-half" expediency, well, therefore, may we say, in the words of one of the noblest of Patriots, the William Tell of his tyrant-trodden country, "Expediency! thou false wisdom of the blind and of the weak! thou who never

weighest consequences, but dost always sacrifice to a moment's fear the justice of eternity! Expediency! thy pathway is too frequently like the pathway of sin; one step upon its glossy slope, and there is no stopping any more. It is Milton's bridge, which, too often, leads, smooth, easy, inoffensive,' down to darkness.”

Especially, in the case of Ministers, Officebearers, and Members of the Church of Christ, who adopt the principle of expediency in order to suppress the drinking customs of society, which is one of the greatest evils of the day, what absolute necessity is there that it be carried out in all its extent, in reference to others as well as themselves; and that no kind of intoxicating drink be presented to others, any more than partaken of by themselves, unless when strictly required as medicine? In each of these respects, or in regard to not giving, as well as not taking, such drink with the above exception, what great need is there, on account of the state of the Church and the world, that their expediency should always be accompanied with "the old-fashioned virtue of consistency?"

Besides, without any thing like a breach of courtesy or kindness, respect or esteem, towards visitors and friends, how easily and naturally might such true Christian expediency be

fully and efficiently carried out, in all its length and breadth, at home and a-field ? For, has not every family, and especially every Christian family, its own domestic arrangements as to things which are eaten; and why not, also, as to things which are drunk? And wherever we may be, whether in the bosom of our own family or among friends, among neighbours or acquaintances, among members of the same community or of the same Church, do we always expect a certain kind of meat to be set before us, or is it always expected that we partake of it? Or, when that particular kind of meat is not presented, or, when presented, not partaken of, is offence taken or given? And if not so as to meat, why should it be so as to intoxicating drink; and the more so, as it is an article so unique in itself, and in all its effects, which are so fearful? Why, forsooth, should it be regarded as the sine qua non, the only thing never to be awanting, or to fail to be presented, in a Christian family, and particularly in the family of a Minister, or Office-bearer, of the Church? On account of its intrinsic nature, and its too common destructive fruits, should not the very opposite of this rather be the case? And just because it is too often not so, does not this worldly use of intoxicating drink righteously prove an

Achan in the Camp of Christ; or, what the remnant of the Philistines were to the Israelites, a snare and a trap, a scourge in our sides and a thorn in our eyes

?"

However, while every professing believer, whether Office-bearer or Member of the Church, is at perfect freedom to exercise his Christian liberty as he thinks proper, he must act not only as in the sight of God, but according to the word of God as the rule of life; and not as a stumblingblock to the weak, or as a snare to the strong. But, what we would now more particularly notice is this;—is a Society formed on such expediency as the preceding, and as exhibited in the practice of many, though not of all its members, suited to the present wants of the Church, or the world? Is such expediency as that which permits the members of this Society to present intoxicating drink to others, when not medicinally needed, although they do not partake of it themselves, at all fitted to counteract the drinking system which prevails in our day, privately and publicly? Or, is such expediency as that which grants the liberty, or which enables its members to take the liberty, not of drinking, but of proposing toasts at public dinners, at all calculated to suppress the drinking customs of the present times? So far from that, is it not a name rather than a stern

T