^ ▼To. ^^ t IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I III! I^|28 125 |50 ~^^ M^H 110 10112.0 WUL. 18 .25 i 1.4 ^ <^ /A ^/, iW %\v % !»■ ^ ^ .a|jijJG Scieices Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 l\ iV :1>^ \ ;\ ^li(»p'b coaviision. VVIioii any attribute ur quality is said to belong to any person or fliinj?, tlic war»t or abKoncL' of such attribute or (juality might, without a (juibble, be fairly suspcclrd, had no such assertion been made. ' Why then does ho object to the 'l'emperan(;c Society.' Is not this, as much as to say, that no one can object to Temperance So- <;ieties who is opposed to Inteinperancc. In other places, the author of the ' Remarks' speaks ot* the advocates of Temperance, of opposition to the cause of temperance, a temperance nmn, tlv:c. If their cause be so good why not ingenuously add * Society.' In all that I have seen or heard against the Temperance .Society, I do not hesitate to ctiallenge its most zealous si,»pportcrs, to adduce a single opponent making use of expressiqu^s against either Temperance or the cause of Temperance. 'IiMJecd, how should they, when they have enrolled themselves w. a Temperance Society, esta- blished on a far broader basis, <>nd»on a far hij^her authority. In page 6th, Bishop Ilopl^i^^^js said to have published his lecture for the avowed purpose. of' hulucing others to follow his example, in refusing to join thc*/f <^mpcrnncc Societies. This would have more easily been believed, if the author had given us an extract from the lecture /6 'prove it, I merely advert to the circumstance, however, to.aiVord me an opportunity of preventing any misconception p0;V;crning the motive which has led me to give publicity to th^e sentiments ; and I suppose the Bishop's to have been the sanje. Mine is, to guard my own character, with the shield'ol reason and revealed religion against the missiles that are ain)ed,at it ; and if this be a ducy, incumbent upon an individual 'ef pupying so humble a station in life, how much more paramount a duty is it in one, called by Divine Providence, to fill a station so exalted : especially when such missiles are aimed with precision, and poisoned with obloquy and opprobrium. But as it is not forme to defend one so much better able to defend himself, I hasten to another, and more serious chorge, viz. : That the Temperance Society is supported by a formidable array of scriptural authorities, wrest- ed, by its advocates, to suit their purpose. In all that I had before seen in favour of the Temperance Society, there was no conclusive or decisive argument, suffi- cient to dispel the doubts I entertained, as to its propriety and necessity, for I once did entertain such doubts ; but when I saw, in page 15 of the same remarks, such a fearless appeal to the law and to the testimony, such a formidable array of scrip- ture authorities, I said, let us oppose it no longer, lest haply we should be found fighting against God; but, alas I when they came to be weiehed in the balance, not of metaphysical I , nubility, iiui of cuniinon hctisc uiid reason, ilicy were iuuiul wonting; and I tiicii buiJ, if lln;^ usbueialiun cunnul be uplielil without sucii :in unliuly use of seripturc, 1 will never add my hiiroble name to the list of its votaries. I do not know what view tlio advocates oi the Temperance lioeicty generally may take of the ({notations of our author, hut I tiiink, and will prove, that if he had searched the Bible throng]), he could not ha^c found any more inimical to hi^ doctrine of total abstinence from intoxicating ' drinks', than, at least, some of thenj are. ' lie not drunk with wine' — ' take heed, lest at any time your hearts be oucrcharged with surfeit- ing and drunkenness.' So far from a prohibition being implied here, is not the use of wine in moderation all but it) positive terms admitted? 'Aaron and his sons were commanded to ilrink no wine.' The author ought to liave stopped here, and this would have been directly to hig purpose, as (ar as those ministering at the altar were concerned ; but as this would liavo been so like the scripture quotation, to prove that there is no God, by omitting the trivial circumstance, that it is what ' (he foul hath said in his heart ;' the author has candidly, in accordance with the integrity and uprightness of his character, added the context, thereby shewing, when and where, under what peculiar circumstances the prohibition was to be attended to, only when they went into the Tabernacle. I lament that it is not in my power to give the author of the ' Remarks,' the .same credit for the next scriptural reference. The Rechabites* drank no wine, and had God's approbation to honour their ab- stinence. In the inspired penman's account of this transaction, the simple act of obedience to tlieir father's command, is the only merit insisted upon. Suppose it possible, that the pro- phet had placed before them a dwelling house, and directed them to enter in and dwell there, would not their answer have been the same, as this was equally prohibited by the command of their father ? and would not the useful and important lesson deduced by the prophet, from the circumstance, have been equally pertinent. I suspect that the author has been led into this unfortunate allusion by the very absurd letter at the end of his tract, from his anxiety to add another name to his list of witnesses, without duly weighing the nature of his testimony, for I could not, otherwise, accuse him of so serious an error, as to make our blessed Lord approve of a line of conduct which he did not himself observe. 'It is not for kings to drink wine, noi princes, strong drink.' The same scripture, after giving the rea- •;on for ihhjiarlkular prohibition, tells us, to whom we may give 'wine and strong drink'; and then adds this singular Injunction ; ' Let him drink and forget his poverty and remember his mise- f I ry no muic' ' Tliu Nuzuiiicti were iiul ullowcd tu diiitk, ci thcr wine or strong drink/ nor arc nicmberi of the Tcmpcrunce Societies, who go the length of total abstinence from all intox uating ' drinks ;' and for the same reason, because they have a vow upon them. • And are not Christians, under us strong obligationK tu renounce the world, the tlesh and the devil as (he Nazarites were?' I answer unhesitatingly, much stronger: but I never heard that the Nazarites were under any particular obligations of the kind. If I did not know the author to he incapable of treating any thing too lightly, 1 should suppose he niennt, that shaving the head and abstaining from wine, wa.s renouncing the world, the Hesh and the devil. Again — * Let us not walk in rioting and drunkenness.' Certainly not. ' Even of u Bishop, it is suid that he must not be given to wine' ; but it is not said that he must not take any. Indeed, so fur from countenancing a total abstinence from wine, the use of it is frequently spoken of in the Old and New Testaments, as n matter of course. It is the use of it to excess, that is con demned. In proof of tiiis, it is quite fair to infer, that our Sa- viour hisnself drank wine at the marriage in Cana of Galilee, where he performed his first miracle, or if he did not drink it himself, he provided it for those who, according to the advo- cates for total abstinence, had already hud too much, and thereby became an accomplice in their sin. When he sent two of his disciples to prepare the last supper, he appears to have given no express orders to provide any thing unusual ; and when wine was produced, he said, * verily, I say unto you, I will drink no lymrn of thp fniif n^' thfi vine,' &c., Mark XIV, and 25 ; by which it is evident, that if wine was not a common beverage, he had at least been in the habit of drinking it with them, exactly in the manner in which it is most used at the present day, namely, after the principal meal. * Likewise af- ter supper he took the cup' — Mark the definite article, it is of consequence, for if it had not been a common custom, I have a right to assert that it would have been a cup with wine in it, or a cup of wine. May we not justly accuse the abettors of total abstinence of acts of supererogation ; of being wise above what is written. But it is not the first time, nor, we fear, will it be the last, that the minds of those of whom we might expect better things, have been carried away by the speciousness of some new fangled notions, into the very abyss of absurdity. I now proceed to the ulterior and more important object I have in view, in endeavouring to obtain an unprejudiced hearing, or a hearing at all in the vrordy war on this all ab- sorbing subject, namely, to prove that the Temperance Society ig inefficient and unscriptural, and consequently unnecessary. 1 1 9 I propobc lu ni)'tiC')r to i\o (liis, ni piesciu, by no otiiei means than by Bhcwing, tbat nil tlic arguments of tlic advucatcs for the Temperance Society Imvc failcil to cstablisli the converse of my proposition. To lliis end, I bIiuII confine mygcll'to those in the llemarka before mc, us being the most rational, perhaps I ought to say the most logical and the most pertinent that have yet emanated from any member of thea<4sociation. This assertion is, of course, intended to be confined within tlie bounds of my own limited observation. I have not, like the author, any deprecatory apology to make, I claim to be 'allowed no liberty', but what is my birth- right ; 1 have voluntarily accepted his wager of battle, shall fearlessly break a lance with him in the conflict, and may God defend the right ! The first objection which the author reviews and combats is, that the Temperance Socictj' is not based on religion but on worldly principles. I have never seen Bishop Hopkins' lecture, from whence this and the other objections are taken; and, therefore, I have no means of following bis arguments further than their scanty developemcnt, in the * llemarks' affords me. The author allows, that I may have no doubt whatever of the sin of drunkenness, that I may admit that it is forbidden by the Deity as readily as any * Temperance man' can desire. * Why then, after giving such a scriptural view of temperance and its opposite vice, do I object to a society which has no other aim but that of promoting a virtue of no small promi- nence in the gospel, and stemming the progress of a vice which, I allow, is forbidden by the Almighty.' Now, suppose a society established for the suppression of thefl, and you, honest reader, should not think it necessary to join it, would you not think it rather strange if any one should tell the little world around him, that you considered theft a crime, but that you countenanced thieves by refusing to join an association, notwithstanding you had assigned as your reason for such re- fusal, that you considered the affair in the hands of the Law, which was quite competent, or as competent as any means that could be devised for the accomplishment of so desirable an end? I refrain, for the present, to pursue this comparison further than to observe, that in the opinion of the members of such an association the law was deficient ; and not only required amendment, but would be amended under a popular govern- ment, if such an association became general. I would, how- ever, infer from it, that if drunkenness be a sin, of ^hich, among christians, there cannot be two oninions ; and if the piinciple upon which wc are commanded to abstain from it be b 10 (>n ihe authority of Divine Law, which is equally plain, and absolutely requires not one iota of candour or concession on the part of members of the Temperance Society to admit our beli / that it is so ; then, surely, to make use of the means of a human institution which that law never contemplated — never countenanced — never authorised — is a direct and positive im- plication that that Law is defective. Christians sign a written pledge of abstinence from ardent spirits, because God has, in his holy word, forbidden the siu of drunkenness. From this we arc to infer, for this is his main argument to prove it, that the Temperance Society is based upon religious principles. Now suppose, and the supposition can be proved a fact, that infidels sign the same written pledge and incorporate themselves into the same association^ do they do it from the same motive? I trow not. 1 have often wondered, that writers in favour of the Tem- perance Society have never adverted to a very extensive one> established ages before their own was ever thought of. Not, truly, quite so far away, nor so thickly covered with the dust uf antiquity as the one lately discovered by the author's cor- respondent, I allude to that founded by Mahomet. In the long lists of questions, substituted for arguments, which I have seen, I have certainly looked for some such as these : Is not drunkenness an evil as pernicious among Christians as among Musselmen? Are not its consequences as ruinous? &c. &c. I know ridicule is no more an argument than asking a question is> and therefore, I shall not have recourse to either, when X can well avoid it ; but will simply state, what I conceive the reason why so formidable an array has never been brought forward to man their defences. It is, because the faithful Musselman is an ' advocate of Temperance' — ' a Temperance man,' a nr.ember, to all intents and purposes, ofa Temperance Society, an abstainer from ?:1I intoxicatiug driuks ; but not on the ground of his having given a written pledge, that he will do so, no such thing, his religion, the Koran forbids it. This Is a Temperance Society established upon a religious basis.—- The author of the ' Remarks' says, ' 1 do not abstain because I am pledged to do so, as if the written pledge and my obliga- tion lo man, were my commanding and only authority ; but I abstain because God has forbidden the sin of drunkenness ; and I sigvied ' a written pledge,' as a token of the sincerity of iny belief, that God has forbidden the sin.' But the Mussel- man says, I see no necessity for a written pledge, such a token or pledge, the most solemn and binding, I have already given, not to man but to God, and I stake ray salvation upon its sin- cerity ; in token of which I dc n: i give a written pledge, but « I i 11 I do abstain. This, I repeat, is a Temperance Society cstal) iished upon the basis of reh'gion. Of such a Society, but of a far higher order I am already a member, pledged in the most solemn manner to fulfil all its requirements, and daily pray for grace and strength, from on high, to enable me to do so. The sincerity of ray belief, that God luis forbidden ihe sin of drunk- enness, I am certain, ig not doubted by any one, and, tbcv- fore, if the sole use, intent, and meaning, of a written pledge, as the author says, be to evince this sincerity of belief, it is to prove that which nobody doubts, and consequently, according to his own statement, is absolutely unnecessary. But let us proceed to his own elucidation of the argument, and see if it does not militate against, rather *han support it. * I honestly and justly owe one hundred pound to my creditor. I therefore give him my note for the ann unt until it becomes due. When the time comes, I pay him, not because I signed a prommis- sory note or pledge, but because it was justly due on a prior obligation of truth and rectitude, and I signed the note as a pledge that I acknowledged my prior obligation.' As a pledge to whom ? for this is every thing ; why, to him who only had a right to demand it, because to hint the money was due. — (M your part it was certainly given as an acknowledgment of a prior obligation ; but on his it was required to strengthen and confirm that obli^tion, of which he had some doubts, oi' he would not have required it. You are responsible to him for the payment of this sum, and you now have empowered him to compel you to pay it — ^to compel you to fulfil your |>rior obligation. Had you given him a mortgage upon your estate — had you given him a claim upon your person, he never would have asked you foe a security less binding. I think I could put the case, without destroying the general outline of its features, into a form, which would be much more to the point. I honestly and justly owe £100 to Mr. K., because I have entered upon and taken possession of an estate worth £2000, which hath fallen to me by inheritance, with that sum due to him, and secured to htm upon it ; and which, to refuse to pay, would lead to a law-suit that might ruin me ; but whereas, I have no wish to keep him out of his own, but, on the contrary owe him a heavy debt of gratitude besides, which I cannot pay, as it was through his instrumentality I came into the possession of the property, and without which I never should have obtained it. I therefore give a written pledge — not to Mr. K., for he hath already a pledge sufficiently bind- ing, but to an uncivilized inhabitant of the farthest Thule of the earth ;— a * written pledge' of the sincerity of my belief, that I ought to pay it ; and I do pay it, not because I had 1'2 given the written pledge to the tar ofF Indian, who wouKl not be brought to produce it in a Court of Law, but because it was justly due on a prior obligation. I leave it to my readers to make the application and to decide ; whether or not, this is a more just comparison between those who give a written pledge to their fellow men, that they will abstain from nn odious and pernicious evil so generally denounced in the sa- cred writings, and those who Itave given a higher and a holier pledge, to the very author or jnspirer of these records, not only to abstain iVom this or that evil of a peculiarly moral de- formity, but to abstain from all evil which they denounce ; or, to use the language of the ' Remarks', wl'ich they forbid. I know I may be told, that members of the Temperance Society do this as well as we. Yet not all. They mat/, at least, do all that it requires, without any regard to such authority. — Can this be denied ? our opponents, themselves, being the judges. The author of the * Remarks' has made an acknowledgment in the next paragraph, which saves me the trouble of dwelling much longer on this part of the subject, where he says, * a written pledge is merely a record of an acknowledged and prior obligation, not to confirm it, nor to impose any new one/ It must entirely depend upon the wording of this written pledge, whether it be a warning or security for the performance of the prior obligation, in other words, whether it be, in reali- ty, a pledge or not. Dr. Jol'.nson's definition of a pledge is, * any thing given by way of warrant or security.' If this be quibbling, it lays at the door of the Temperance Society advo> cate, not at mine. It is not to the tvorof, as explained by the author, that I so much object, as to the thing which the word naturally implies. One word more and I have done with the * pledge.' Murder is a crime of the deepest moral turpitude, and is forbidden in the Bible, which 1 believe to be the word of God ; this then is a written record of the sincerity of my belief, that God has forbidden this crime ; but it is no pledge that I will not be guilty of it. There is no other harm in this than its folly. If I were led to believe that a written pledge was at all necessary, I certainly should think myself in great danger of the gallows. The author does not confine his definition of a written pledge within the narrow limits of being merely a record of an acknowledged prior obligation, but adds, ' also of a resolution already formed in the mind.' I really uo consider it necessary here, to prove, by the use he makes of his definition, which I have shewn to be incorrect, that I am giving no garbled ex- tract. The author proceeds, *if the pledge is wrong, so is IS llie resolution as iormcd in the mind, of which it is but a re- cord; from this he ini'ers that Bishop Hopkins has given a written pledge tlmt he will not join a Temperance Society, and that if his arguments are good against the pledge of abstinence from ardent spirits, they arc equally good against putting his resolutions on paper, and then signing th sm.' * They are like a two edged sword, ready to cut their way on both sides ;' but one edge must be a blunted one, or its blows would not be effectually parried by inferences drawn from such incorrect premises. The cause must be bad indeed that requires sup* port from such weak syllogistick subtlety. In the next paragraph of the ' Remarks,' an attempt is made to prove, that, because, * Temperance is a virtue recognised in the Bible, the Temperance Society must necessarily be based, to a certain extent, on religion.' I accede to this most willing- ly, provided, and the whole question at issue is involved in the provision ; — provided the means the Temperance Society makes use of to promote tin's virtue, are in strict accordance with the letter and spirit of the Bible, or else, that the means there prescribed are deficient. This syllogism is shortly after repeated without any qualification ; but I must give it in the authors own words, or I might be accused of omitting his strongest arguments. * That Temperance is inculcated in the Bible, and, therefore, a religious virtue, and if so, the Temper- ance Society is based on religion.' If this reasoning be correct in principle, such reasoning will appear equally manifest when brought to bear upon any other subject to which it equally applies This is an axiom no one can deny. Let the fore- going syllogisms be put to this test. Heresy and schism are forbidden in the Bible, unity in the Church, is there also stre- nuously insisted on, and is, therefore, a religious virtue ; and if so, the Holy Inquisition, a society established for the express purpose of promoting this religious virtue, no matter by what means, a written pledge, or fire and sword, (they are out of the question in both cases) is based on religion'. Would it not be more correct to say. Temperance is inculcated in the Bible, by certain means, and on definite principles, which are found to be ineffectual in promoting the end they had in view, and otherwise imperfect. The Temperance Society starts into existence on the discovery of a new principle — new means — a new law, but its object is the same, the promoting ot a reli< gious virtue, ' and it io, it is based on religion.' As to the nature of those means, a period of three centuries, blotted out of the book of time, would reconcile the written pledge with the rack and the stake. The author seems to have been anticipating the fate of his T w i 14 argument, in proof of the TcmpcTrancc Society beinp * based on religion f wlicn he adds this softening ana qualifying ex- pression, ' so far, at least, as to shield it from the charge oi' hostility to religion.' Many other associations, professedly formed for worldly purposes alone, are ' based on religion,' to the same extent. This is not the only instance where the advocates of the Temperance Society being driven from pri- mary and fundamental principles, have sheltered themselves on the neutral and untenable ground, of secondary and indi^ •%k ierent qualities. I agree with the ' Remarks', that hypocrites may obtain a surreptitious admission into the church of Christ without vi- tiating its constitution but not without abusing it ; because it is * based on religion,' as its essential and fundamental princi- ple, without which it would not be the Church of Christ at alL Such abuse has no relatirn, whatever, to this fundo- niental principle. The * Remarks' apply this argument to the Temperance Society, not to prove the same thing, namely — that the admission of unworthy members into the Temperance Society, does not vitiate its constitution, nor effect its funda- mental principle, but to prove that, because it equally applies to both, the fundamental principle of both must therefore be the same. I, by no means, object to the legitimate application cf the argument, and to allow that the admission of unworthy members into the Temperance Society is no more an argu- ment gainst it, than is the same thing against the Church, but only an abuse of it. An habitual drunknrd, for instance, might join it, and still remain a drunkard without at all vitia- tii^ its constitution, but not without abusing it, because it is based on a. written pledge of abstinence from all ' intoxicating drinks' (rather a queer expression) as its essential and funda- mental principle, without which it would not be the Temper- ance Society. I should, therefore, naturally conclude, that it was ^ based', not upon religion, but upon a * written pledge.' In all the repeated repetitions about Temperance being a religious virtue, and taught in the Bible, which we all equally believe and admit, notwithstanding the credit the author gra- tuitously gives to Bishop Hopkins for this admission, as well as in all the denunciations against drunkenness, which cannot, perhaps, be too often repeated, I can see nothing but the mo- tive which may have led to the laying of this other foundation, and to the propping up of the frail and tottering superstructure erected upon it. To shew, more clearly, the irrelevancy of this argument to the Temperance Society, further than we have admitted its application ; I would ask, can an inBdel, a professed infidel, 15 unite himself with it — fulfil all its requirements, and acknow* Ittdge it to be instituted for promoting a virtue inculcated in the Bible, which he believes to be a merehuman composition ? And could not a Temperance Society the same in principle and practice, be composed of a number of such infidels ; 1 challenge the whole body of the Temperance Society, indivi- dually or collectively, to deny cither hypothesis ; or to say, after this, by any perversion of terms — by any torturing of the language, that such a Society would be ' based on reli- gion.' I should have supposed that the author of the Remarks had involved himself in an inconsistency which he was not aware of, when he says, * the Church is built on a foundation which can neither be moved nor mended by man ;' had I not perceived after cntically examining the expression ; not for the sake of finding fault, but the meaning, that he is alluding to the 'foundation,' not to the Church; thereby implying that the Church can be * mended by man.' Now, can we infer any thing else, from such ar. expression being placed in juxta- position with the pretensions of the Temperance Society, than that, it is to be or already is < mended by that association ; not- withstanding his assertion, ' that it interferes with no Church/ for he must surely here again mean the foundation, not the Church, as he is evidently referring to his former expression. Far be it from me to be guilty of quibling. I would give him the full benefit of his own construction if I knew what it was ; and, in order that I may hit upon it, I will suppose be means, in both cases, * the Church,' and not the foundation in parti- cular. His reasoning will then stand thus, ' the Temperance Society interferes with no Church ; ' it merely takes hold of one branch of morality' (its religious basis is here given up,) * which is taught by the Church,' — efficiently ? no not effici- ently, nor as efficiently as it might be taught , hence the ne- cessity of the Temperance Society which takes hold of it and teaches it more efficiently ; thereby, surely * mending the Church.' A christian, therefore joining this Society, does abandon or compromise, at least, one article of his christian &ith ; that the holy catholic church is of apostolic institution, which can neither be * moved nor mended by man.' I adhere to the wording of the ' Remarks' : the alliteration is not mine. The following, as far as I can penetrate the autlior'a meaning, seems to be intended to evade the consequences of his failing to prove that the Temperance Society is based on religious principles ; ' granting that they are worldly, and not otherwise, it will only fo'.Iow, that the worldly priuciplcs of il ir. some men,' members of the Temperance Sociely, 'are incom- parably better than the religious principles of tiome others; of real christians, if such there can be, who refuse to join it.' — From which, this inference, and no other, can be drawn, that the worldly principles upon which the Temperance Society is established arc placed antithetically against the principles ot our holy religion, and pronounced, better ! The author of the ' Remarks' admits, that the Temper- ance Society, in a particular point of view, is not founded on religious principles ; and then proceeds to assert, what, he says, cannot be denied,' that it is in accordance with the reli- gion of the Bible. His proof of this shews, that he means, its object, the promoting of Temperance, not the principle upon which it is constituted is in accordance with the Bible : indeed he says, * because its object is to do good to all men ;* no matter by what means they are sanctified by their * object*.— Is not this a paraphrase upon the antiquated aphorism, < do evil that good may come' ? Why, I would ask, once for all» why all this idle verbiage about its object, about the virtue it is intended to promote, as well as the vice it is intended to extirpate, when no one, not even its greatest enemy, either doubts or denies it ? All that has been said upon this subject, would be repeated with equal propriety, if it were to burn at the stake every individual that refused to join it. If such were its practice, who would contend that its object was not * in accordance with the religion of the Bible ?' But who, on the contrary, in this age of enlightenment, would be so far blinded by thr spuriousness of its object as to lose sight of the unscriptural means made use of to attain it.*' It is the means, not the end they have in view, which we condemn. These, the author of the * Remarks', in common with all writers in favor of the Temperance Society, never allow to be separated ; and it is this unholy union which hath given it such eclat- Its superstructure is truly a comely edifice, adorned with all the fair proportions of architecture ; but its builders and sup- porters, one and all, know and feel that it is mounted with clay, and founded upon ' hay, straw and stubble ;' and in a very few years, which would be far fewer if its opponents would let it alone; it would fall to the ground, as fall it mast, and be as a thing that had never been. Why then, the Tem- perance Society people ask, why do its enemies prop it up by their opposition ? Simply because they are obliged to speak in their own defence. They are accused of being the encou- ragers of drunkards — the companions of drunkards — and the enemies of Temperance ; — a charge they feel themselves a& free from, us those who prefer it. • • 17 The author of the ' Remarks* in referring to Bishop Hop- kins' udniission, that christian men may establish a Banking or uii Insurance Company ; societies, "! together of a worldly na- ture and for worldly purposes ; says, ' I must think that it is not as worldly men, that christians can join them, because if they join au all, it must be under the rule, whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.' Would he have us believe that we can take no steps purely of a worldly nature, to promote our worldly interests, without being guilty of a breach of this rule ? We can also quote Scripture, as indeed who cannot, on any subject. * He that provideth not for his own, hath de- nied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.' Christian men^ therefore, in * accordance with this rule,' may join a Banking or an Insurance Company for worldly purposes, to promote their worldly interests alone, with a prayer that God * will pros- per their handy work.* It follows, as a matter of course, that christian men must do this, as they do every thing else, as christian men, not as worldly men, or they would not be chris- tian men. That is to say, christian men must be christian men in all things, or they are not christian men at all, but worldly men. The author expects us to infer from all these admissions that Bai king and Insurance Companies even are ' based upon religion', and that therefore the Temperance So- ciety hath a much more undeniable right to lay claim to the same foundation. This is either his intention, or the whole argument falls to the ground. 2nd. I proceed to the second objection, which he com- bats, viz : — 'fhat it opposes vice and attempts to establish virtue, in a manner which is not in accordance with the word of God. This objection is so intimately connected with the last, as to be almost if not altogether dependent upon it, and must ne- cessarily fall to the ground if the Temperance Society be based on the religion of the bible. On the other hand, if the Tem- perance Society be not based on religion, which, I trust, I have fully demonstrated, the charge here made against it will easily be substantiated. Indeed, this is more than half done to my hands, by the weakness of the author's own arguments to set it aside. The first and most triumphant one is founded upon the admission, even of its enemies, that good has been done by means of the Temperance Society. The inferences we are to draw from this, are to be gathered from six successive questions, which he exultingly asks without allowing the intermission of an answer, save in one instance. It is easier to ask questions than to answer them, is, in this case, an adage more trite than true ; for we are ready to answer them as easily and as unhesi- c IB tatingly, and at the »aine time as ratiunally as cuukl L)C iiupcil or feared, Query 1st — < Has good then been done'? It cer- tainly hag. 3d — * Why then cto we oppose the Temperance Society for doing good ? This is the (|uery the author answers for me. * Because it presumes to cultivate a branch of morality i.l.cady provided for by religion'. He ought to have added, h'M i.ot sufficiently ; hence the necessity of the Temperance Society, which has discovered a new law in morals, more pure and |.>.'i feet than could be found in religion. This is the au- thor's answer to his own question, with my comments upon it. Mine would have been: Because it presumes to lay down a new rule, not in accordance with the word of (jod, for the cul- tivation «)f one branch of morality already sufficiently provided for therein. Query 3d — ' Are we then, in our intercourse with the world, to neglect the branches of morality which religion has provided for' ? No, no ! we are solemnly pledged, not to man, but to God, to attend to them ; and, surely, they were not totally neglected before this new invention. The relevan- cy of this nonsense to the question at issue, I leave to the in- genuity of the reader to find out, I cannot. Query 4th — * What (why ?) do we allow Chrisfian men to establish a Bank- ing or an Insurance company for?' Because the objects such establishments have in view, are not provided for by religion, but are left to our own judgment and discretion. Query 5th — * Is there no morality provided for such institutions by reli- gion ?■ None particularly that I know of, there is generally for all human institutions. Query 6th — * As members of Banking and Insurance companies, are Christians left to devise a system of morality for themselves, to suit their inclinations and avarice'? Now this is coming to the very marrow of the bone of conten- tion. I answer unhesitatingly, surely not. They have no more right to do so than the Temperance Society. J,,. Lest any one should be so far carried avvaj by his preju- dices, or otherwise so dull as not to perceive the drift of our ar- gument ; or, perhaps, what is still more probable, lest our rea- soning here may not be sufficiently categorical, we will take another short view of the matter, in which it may appear more palpable and plain. Let us sappose that the new name of any modern sect or denomination of Cliristians, Methodism, for instance, is substi- tuted for the still newer and more modern term of * decade' existence, the Temperance Society, and see if all, and more, cr lid not be said in its behalf, without invalidating one single objection against it. Has good, then, been done by the Me- thodist Society? Most certainly it has. Why then do we oppose the Methodist Society for doing good ? I never heard 19 4- that the Methodist Society (they call themselvfts a society) wns opposed any more than the Temperance Society upon any such grounds, for doing good. It is the means they make use of we are opposed to, because they are not in accordance with the word of God, where a sufficient provision is already made for efficiently proivoting the objects of both. The author himself admits, that the object of the Temperance Society is provided for 'i>y religion, but to what extent, he does not inform us. It is painful, it is humiliating to see a man of superior ta- lents, like the author, so far carried away by his zealous anx- iety to promote what, I am sure, he considers a good cause, as to make such a misstatement as the following, and to ground his strongest arguments upon it : — • Had its object been some- thing which religion did not provide for, something which re- ligion did not require, nor recognise, the Temperance Society would certainly have been establishing a new rule of morality; and by so doing, setting up an institution In opposition to the Church of Christ. But has the Bishop (Hopkins) proved that the Temperance Society is justly liable to this Jieavj charge ? Has he made out, with all his exertions, that it is attempting to establish, not a new rule, as the reader would naturally ex- pect, but ♦ a new branch of morality.' It is quite fair to in- fer fiom this extraordinary evasion, that the Bishop has proved the heavy charge. Mark well, gentle reader, what the charge is, the establishing a new rule of morality ; or why, otherwise, does he triumphantly ask, if he has made out with all his exer- tions, not this new rule, but some other new thing, a new branch of morality. Did the author here, wilfully and delibe- rately insert a new branch of morality, instead of a new rule ? The Bishop, certainly, may have proved to a mathematical de- monstration, that the Tem[)erance Society is liable to the heavy charge of establishing a new rule of morality without ever at- tempting to prove any thing about establishing a new branch of morality; not that it is altogether free from tliis charge also. It is, however, with the rule, not with the branch, that we have here any thing to do. That it is a new rule of morality, or a new law in morals needs no proof, as it is acknowledged to be so. in all productions of a tendency similar to the one before me ; nay triumphantly boasted of in some of them as a new and grand discovery, which can * scarcely fail to make the con- quests over other vices comparatively easy' ; ' a new method for the renovation of morals', and, consequently, has rendered itself liable to the 'severe charge of setting up an institution in opposition to the church of Christ.' It would be as tedious as it is useless, to follow the author in his deductions from pre- mises which I have thus proved to be groundless. There is, 'JO however, one expression so decidrJiy in favour ol my Iiypo- thesis, altliough inserted for n very diHerent purpose, ilint I cannot refrain from quoting it. ' If wc used those menus ulurh are' (it is) 'the prerogative of the duirch alone lo use,* lh«; word and sacraments, we should Iiave subjecteil ourselves to the justice of his (the Bisliop's) severe charge,' of attempting Jo establish *a new rule of morality.' That is to say, they use not the same means, the same law, the same rule, but ariother which the church does not, and never did use ; a new rule of morality', new, because totally unconnecteil with and entirely independent of the church, which embraced every old one al- ready known or recognized in the bible. This is evidently the author's meaning, although not his intention, (if any body can understand a distinction without a difference,) and contains a full admission, that the Temperance Society is setting up an institution in opposition to the church and hostile to the gospel, consequently, if it could succeed, it would be a triumph of Infidelity. If I have proved that the Temperance Society is not based on religion ; it cannot possibly oppose vice, and attempt to es- tablish virtue by means or rules which arc in accordance with the word of God, it will follow that a new law in morals is set up, more pure and perfect than that which is provided in the word of God, Have not infidels always boasted that a system of morality could be devised, and carried into effect of course, by human means, far superior to that ofFspring of superstition and priestcraft in the dark ages contained in the Bible. I must endeavour, to the best of my ability, not to refute the author's arguments, for that is an easy task, but to follow him through their desultory arrangement ; and to select them from so many digressive declamations against (he vice of intemperance which, 1 contend, have nothing to do with the question at issue, be- cause we hold, in common with the most zealous and enthu- siastic advocates of the Temperance Society, one and the same opinion. We also fuily, and decidedly, and unhesitatingly ad- mit that it is the duty of every man. Christian or Infidel, for the infidel is under some nsoral obligation to do his utmost to Ftem the torrent and to slay (he plague ; but surely not by any means, fire and sword for instance. Some limit must, therefore, b2 prescribed, within which all our exertions are to be confined. The extent of this limit is the only subject upon which there is any difference of opinion. We do not wish to confine the benevolent efforts of men in promoting so noble a cause as the suppression of vice, within any narrow or unne- cessary bounds ; but principles are sacred things, and are not to be trifled with, much less to be sacrificed for the purpose of / \ / \ / K / in accoiupliftliiiig any tiul liowpvcr good, aitv ohjtcf liowivi r df- kiraUle. Tlic autliur sayA, tliut ' (lie Hisliop lias iittortij .in nn- foiMuled slaiultjr, (!) in nssutning iliat llic* 'IVmpcrancc SocitMy oxpccts to rcl'orni tho worltl by nu'aiis of a Innnan picdgr.' The Tempcrancx' Recorder, a sort of «leini-oflicial organ i>l communication with the public in the United States ilot's not appear to be of tbe same o|)ini()n ; in ]\o. I'J, vol. I, is the fol- lowing: ' We assert, and that too fearlessly, I Iiat to the tem- perance rcjhrmaliun, more llian to any other cause, is (o bo attributed the present unexampled pros|)erity of the country.' In the 3amc number, a hope is entertained that the Temperance Society will spread from North to South ' till a determination to abstain from all intoxicating liquors be fixed in the breast of every accountable being upon earth.' The 8th resolution of the Temperance Society Convention in Montreal, of which our author, from his ofncial capacity, is, par excellence, a mem- ber, adverts to the American 'i'ernperance Societies, in the ar- dent hope that their example will speedily influence this coun- try, and the whole world. I will only tax the reader's |)atienoe with one more extract, which is taken from a Temperance So- ciety paper called the Home Missionary, and is entitled : * A Sign 0/ ihe Tima Another indication that pure Christianity is soon to be gloriously diffused, is ihe miglily achievmentsofthc Tempcrnuce reformat ion, 'J'hose who have looked upon this cause as of subordinate and temporary im- portance, have, it is believed, quite overlooked the results which God designs to produce by it. The Temperance refor- mation is strictly a conquest of the rnlioval part of man, over his animal nature ; and from this very fact, can scarcely fail to make the conquests of otlier vices comparatively easy. It is also based on principles which must live and descend with increased power to the children, and children's children, of those whose consecrated efForts are now revolutionizing the public mind. Moreover, this reformation has developed the true method of combating other |)owerful and deep rooted sins. The power of a f-imple union of honest men, who agree to 'speak the same thing,' in regard to popular vice, is now un- derstood, as it was not, ten years since. And doubtless the initinl step has been taken, and lessons of vital importance learned, for the banishing from our world of other forms of wretchedness and crime.' Is not this 'expecting to accomplish, by human means, what the Gospel for 18 centuries has not yet accomplished ?' How can we reconcile all this with (he author's assertions, that ' Reformation is never used by the Temperance Society as a 0>.f posiliif slritt it'rurmulioii of lil'o* ; that lluj rcforiiiution tlioy allude to is not the same as that whieh the gospel prodiices on the truly penitent. H the Teinpernnce Soeiety he • hascti on religion , if it oppose \iee and attempt to estahlish virtue in n manner which is in accorchir.ce with the word of God ; if it ho an * unfounded slander to assume, that it expects to reform the world by means of a * hunian pledge', it surely must con- template, as far as it goes, a reformation ecpiivalent to that in- culcated in the gospel. This wotdd be its absolute necessary tendency und effect, hut according to our author, it contem- plates no such thing, and, consetjuently, the converse of these two propositions must in some measure he estahlished. The word ' lieformation,' as used by the Temperance Society must and docs mean some change or other for the better, whi(;h the gospel has not atcomplishe'l, nor is likely to accomplish to the same extent ; 'a reformation which has developed the true method of combating other deep rooted sins.' The author may here possibly say, he is not accountable for such assertions, as lie never made them ; but are they not the frank avowals of a society of which he is a nKUjber ? The natural results of a system, of which he is the warmest advocate; a system which will •scarcely lail to render the concpiest of other vices com- paratively easy.' May not the infidel now tell us, he hath told us on more occasions than this, that the morality in the holy scriptures, as we call them, is found to be defective ; and we are constriiined at last to come up to his pure and perfect scheme, established upon rational principles alone, carried into ctt'ective operation by ' human means,' entirely unconnected with and independent of Christianity, and to acknowledge its superiority. Is not this a triumph of infidelity ? But the au- thor assiunes, I must say without due consideration, that the infidel is not interested in the suppression of vice, nor in the promoting of virtue, we speak of morality alone, totally away and apart from religion, when he has as much to do with it us hath the Christian. The author, as he draws towards the close of this part of his subject, evidently feels the ground sinking beneath his feet, as he again relapses into the convenient error of confound- ing the virtue and the vice with the means made use of by the Temperance Society for promoting the one and suppressing the other. Thus, 'The promoting of Temperance cannot therefore be a triumph to the abettors of infidelity.' To this decided conclusion I subscribe as freely as any member of the Temperance Society ; but if the mear.s made use of for the at- tainment of this object be not in accordt^.nce with the word of dor], I do ahke object to those means, as to any end thus sur- "'1 ^% reptitiuuiily pioihiced, ior iiu ^ood can tuiiit: jiit u' c '>!. ' Mliall u'u continue in sin tluit ^racu may ubound ^ (iud lorbiii. According; to the author, in -opposing the 1 jinperanco Society, we condemn every kinil of warninj; and admonition. ' We would not undertake to admonish a friend witl.out suh- jeciinf? ourselves to the charge of using other means than the gospel foi hi.s reformation.' This is entirely foreign lrt)m the subject, as we do not condenm ' every kind ol' warning and ad- monition.' Tiicrc is one kind we highly approve of, and which we conttider the o I'y ert'eetual one, neither is there the least cause to apprehend that we should charge the warner and admonishcr with ut^ing other means than such as the gospel reconnnend.s and inculcates, unless he did use them ; in which case wc hesitate not to say, ' that if his friends took his iulvicc, it would contribute to the triumph of infidelity.' It would cer- tainly detract materially from this triumph if the (jos[)el meaiiii hud not been first tried, but it would increase it in the same ratio if they had been previously tried and failed. E(|ually irrelevant is the following : ' Many are the warn- ings given to the people of God against intemperance, which certainly would not have been given had there been no cause.' Certainly not. 'He (Bishop Hopkins) really argues against the Temperance Society as if its ohject were to defeat the per- formance of a commanded duty.' The author compels me to repeat again and again, that we are opposed to Intemperance as much as the Temperance Society, that so fur from opposing tho object it has in view, we will do our utmost to promote it and many of us, no doubt, are stimulated to greater exertions to pron:ote it, in consequence of the undue prominence given to this particular object by the Temperance Society ; but we will not ma)r hiinself is by no means free iVoni. The auUtor conti- Wi€K, 'Has he', his opponent, * any reason to be certain that ze£.«ou6 Christian men are ignorant of the heart, as being the fountain from which proceed evil thoughtB, murders, &c. ? and then draws this interrogatory deduction, 'How can they be Christian men, if they are ignorant of what our 8a>iour here declares ?' I would also ask, hnth his opponent ever said or in«inuatcd that they were thus ignorant? I suspect not, or the aiithor would hav"e given us * chapter and verse.' I confess myself totally at a loss to understand upon what grounds the author can deduce, from tlic objection here combated, that the advocates u^the Temperance Societies are charged with deny- ing the doctrine of human depravity. It is true they arc ac- cused of making intemperance the ' master sin,' the 'parent sin,' the ' worst of all sins,' but not the oniy sin ; not tlie 'parent of ALL sin/ This last expressioi; is marked, by the author, ah a 'Quotation from Bishop Ilopkin's lecture, if the monosyllabic word, figuring so triumphantly in capitals, can really and truly substantiate its claim to such paternity. As I am i^ot writing in defence of the lecture, but merely shewing upon what grounds I refuse to perform u duty which the < Remarks* set lorth, as peremptorily incumbent upon every minister of the gospel, I can only say that tikC Bishop's * zeal' has, in this in- stMTvce, * surpassed his knovvlcJge ;' yet still I believe him to stand in the very foremost rank of zealous Christian men. — The author must paidou me, however, if I suspect the little word to have here insinuated itself somewhat surreptitiously into the expression through some mistake of tlu printer or otherwise. He is evidently aware of its all importance in the argument, or all the letters composing it would not have been ^fkpitdis. Why then in all his other repetitions of the expres- «ion as a quotation, was all omitted? Was it not because he