as a common refreshment, have been beneficial in many ways, to the confort, and health, and safety of the community." He has never" doubted the propriety of petitioning the legislative bodies of the land, to pass such restrictions on the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits, as should take so hurtful a temptation out of the way of thoughtless and intemperate men."

Thus far I would have gone, hand in hand, with the most ardent friend of temperance; because my theory and practice upon the subject of alcoholic liquors, were fixed on these principles, [what principles?] more than twenty years ago. And if the temperance society had even contented itself with proposing its pledge, merely on the score of an improvement in diet, in health, in economy, or in prudence, I should certainly have viewed it as a very different thing.' p. 145.

The objection urged is, that "this novelty is presented to christian men as a part of their morality and religion,-is made the subject of sermons, and prayers, and thanksgiving,-yea it is gravely proposed as one of the conditions of church membership, and is constituted the test of a man's sincerity," etc. We shall not abet error, or imprudent zeal, but temperance, and the temperance reform, are "a part of the morality and religion of christian Now if bishop Hopkins believes, that the temperance society "is based on worldly principles," and will admit, as he candidly must, that "the adulteration of religious principle" is foreign to the constitution, and objects, and intentions of the society, he may conscientiously lend it his aid. He must allow, that the existing temperance society is more accordant with the gospel than the one he proposes; for to adopt a "pledge, merely on the score of an improvement in diet, in health, in economy, or in prudence," would be an attempt to remove the great moral evil of intemperance, without the sanction and aid of moral and religious considerations. An objector might then oppose the organization of such a society, by citing bishop Hopkins, as proof that its object would be "one of the branches of morality, already provided for by religion itself, and cannot therefore, be consistently inculcated by christians in any other manner than that which accords with christian principle." In short, the bishop has demolished his own cardinal position, and we have likewise shown that it is untenable. His remaining positions depending on the first, are consequently no less unsound.

The second proposition, "That the temperance society opposes vice, attempts to establish virtue in a manner which is not in accordance with the word of God," despite of the labored attempt at demonstration, remains a proposition still, that is, a thing to be proved. The bible does not forbid total abstinence from intoxicating drinks, as we know from the case of Daniel and his three VOL. VIII. 32

companions, the Rechabites, Samson and his mother, Timothy, and the determination of Paul, to drink no wine to the injury of his brother. Neither does the gospel, either in its letter or spirit, forbid us to " use all suitable means to induce others to" refrain from strong drink. The constitution of the temperance society authorizes only the "use of all suitable means,"-means in accordance with the spirit of the gospel, for the promotion of its object. To the trivial objection, that temperance is one of the branches of morality, already provided for by religion itself," it is sufficient to reply, that we are, in the temperance reform, only applying this provision of religion according to the purpose for which it was intended. We know, too, as well as the bishop, that "religion calls on men, by the authority of God, to repent, not of one sin, but of all sin, and to submit to Christ, who alone has power to pardon the past, and to enable them, through divine grace, to resist temptation for the time to come.' So we understand, and so we apply the gospel. We hold temperance to be only one of the many qualifications for the kingdom of heaven. We teach every man, that he must be saved by grace, and not by water. We attach far less importance, every way, to this element, as a means of salvation, than the bishop of Vermont does in his lecture on baptismal regeneration. But it is alledged also, that the temperance society endeavors to reform men on selfish principles, on the ground of their own interest, "without any regard to their sin in the sight of heaven, or any profession of repentance for their transgression of the divine law. Is it not plain, that a reformation like this, is a sort of mockery before God?" We admit, that men should obey God from the heart, and be actuated by holy principles. But does it follow, that all outward reformation is wrong?-that men must not refrain from any vice till they can act from holy principles? How then, can the immoral ever be saved? The drunkard must not attempt to reform, till he is created anew in Christ, for until this spiritual change is wrought, his wholly depraved heart will prevent his acting from any other than "worldly motives;" and a prelate tells him, "surely it needs no argument to show that a change like this, (that is, from intemperance to temperance, on worldly principles,) could neither be acceptable in the sight of God, nor could it calculate upon his blessing." The intemperate man then, must keep on in his habit till he becomes a christian, and he cannot become a christian till he ceases to be intemperate! This is truly new divinity. But the rejected pharisees, whose religion was pure selfishness, were not condemned, but approved for obeying the law. "Ye pay tithe of mint, and anise, and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone."

(Matt. xxiii. 23.) All reformation, logically speaking, must begin with the head, and not with the heart. The understanding must be enlightened; errors of belief must be corrected; the man must be convinced of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, and this leads to a change in the outward conduct, and ends in the renovation of the heart. How then, can bishop Hopkins say, "that the principle of the temperance society is hostile to the principles of the gospel. It is the marked fact, that the temperance society begins with the conduct, while Christ begins with the heart." One of the three passages cited to support these assertions, is rendered inapposite, by the context, and another does not settle the point which it is adduced to establish. These passages are Luke xi. 39; Matt. xxiii. 26; iii. 2. But Christ directed the pharisees to effect the inward cleansing, by the performance of practical duties. "Give alms of such things as ye have; and behold all things are clean unto you." (Luke xi. 41.) John Baptist, another witness cited, although he said, repent ye, said also to the soldiers, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages." (Luke iii. 14.) Christ said to the young man, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments; sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come and follow me." See also Isa. i. 16, 17; Iv. 7; Ps. cxix. 60. The advocates for temperance then, are right to begin with the conduct, and the whole allegation in question, is "like the baseless fabric of a vision." They have the authority of scripture for exhorting the intemperate to break off from sinful habit, as a means of becoming disciples of Christ. But if we are wrong in encouraging men to reform by means, not strictly religious, bishop Hopkins must come in for his share of the censure. He would have gone hand in hand with the most ardent friend of temperance," if the society "had even contented itself with proposing its pledge, merely on the score of an improvement in diet, in health, in economy, or in prudence." He says further, "as a political, or a dietetic, or a social, or a commercial improvement, we have not one word to say against it.-But we protest against it, in a religious aspect altogether." The reader may reconcile the bishop with himself at his leisure. We add only a single comment,Ἐν ᾧ γαρ και κρίνεις τον έτερον, σεαυτον κατακρίνεις· τα γαρ αυτα πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων.

The next remarkable count in the author's indictment is, that if the temperance society could succeed, it would be a triumph of infidelity. The argument relied on in defense, is this: If a society with its pledge, can banish the master vice of intemperance, it can banish all other vices, and can thus do more than the gospel has done in eighteen centuries. This would substantiate the claim of the infidel, that the light of nature is sufficient for the

promotion of virtue, and "christianity is not of God." But in abatement of this claim, we aver, that the temperance society owes to the gospel its origin and whole success. The temperance reform is in fact, one of the glorious fruits of the gospel, and the only reason why this same gospel has not 1800 years ago triumphed over the sin of drunkenness, is, that its reforming power was not made to bear directly on this master vice. The wise and the foolish all slumbered and slept together, over the growing evil. But if any man chooses to regard the temperance society as a separate thing from the gospel, we say, that although it should succeed in making men outwardly moral, yet the gospel would still be necessary to purify the heart, and fit us for heaven. It would be as really necessary to piety and salvation, as if neither temperance nor temperance societies were known in the world. This fact would silence the infidel. But the triumph of infidelity, if it gains a triumph, will be obviously with the opposers of the temperance reform. At the fountain of ardent spirits, they will marshal their hosts, against the Lord and his anointed. We shall be much, very much mistaken, if "the primitive church," for the sake of one single anti-temperance lecture, does not become the text-book of the retailer, and of "thoughtless and intemperate men." It is a painful thought, that a church, venerated for its antiquity, and noble army of martyrs," should be subjected to such an unhallowed association.

In reply to the fourth allegation, we only say, that if the temperance society "gives a false prominence to one particular vice, contrary to the doctrines of the bible," the error is not in its constitution, and is easily corrected. We think our opponent, however, has committed an equal error. Thus:

'Drunkenness cannot produce the worst and most dangerous of the other vices, because they require art, and management, and concealment; whereas, the intoxicated man incapacitates himself for these, and becomes a fool and a beast. Therefore, the assassin, and the poisoner, and the adulterer, and the seducer, and the thief, and the housebreaker, and the incendiary, and the professional gambler, and the counterfeiter, are usually sober men in their general habits, because if they were not, the execution of their villainies would be impossible'!! p. 142.

We have but a word to say of the fifth charge, namely, "to call it [the society] an introduction, or a preparation for religion, is at war with the principles of the gospel." This we deny. The temperance reform, as we can show from facts, has prepared the way "for the reception of religion," in numerous instances. We have proved also, that an outward reform, preparatory to repentance and faith, is not contrary to the gospel.

The last objection, has been already answered. The society. "cannot be relied on as a remedy against vice, for which the religion of Christ is the only cure;" and whatever good may be effected, "cannot justify the christian in trying experiments to reform mankind, on any other principles than those which are set forth in the scriptures." If the vast amount of good effected by "this novelty," as the bishop calls the temperance reform, tends to the subversion of the gospel, it is time to have done with it. But the fact is exactly the reverse. The principles of the gospel are illustrated, applied, and confirmed. For although men, so far as the outward conduct is concerned, may abandon evil habits without becoming christians; yet the gospel only, effecting through the agency of the Spirit a new creation, is able to subdue the power of sin, and to eradicate it ultimately from the heart. We do not believe, that one in a thousand of those who sign the pledge of abstinence, ever thought of substituting this for repentance and faith, or regarded temperance as a means of salvation; except as it tends to prepare the way for inward reformation, by the power of the Holy Spirit. It is one of the last things which we shall believe, that the "sudden and extensive popularity" of the temperance enterprise, can be accounted for, from the dogma, that it adapts itself to the feelings of carnal men. The scripture, in this instance, is sadly misapplied, that the "world will love its own." The world stands out in opposition, till compelled to yield, by convictions of truth, duty, safety, and philanthropy.

On the whole, we are confident, that if bishop Hopkins will candidly review his arguments, he will be convinced, that the temperance reform still rests on a firm basis, and that he has effected nothing more than to guard its advocates against error and misguided zeal; while in the judgment of all classes, he has unwittingly become an apologist for the soul-destroying vice of intemperance. We do not yet despair of his aid in advancing the cause which he has labored to destroy.

We proceed now to Lecture VII. The text is 1 Cor. xiv. 15. “I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also."

The topics treated of are: the mode of worship-the use of ministerial garments-forms of prayer-the primitive liturgiespostures-responses-music, etc. We do not attach much importance to any of these topics, except the use of forms in prayer; and that also is a matter of no great importance, if men will pray with the spirit. The author exhibits in a style of equal beauty and force, the privilege of worshiping the Almighty, but damps the ardor of devotional feeling which he had kindled, by diverting the attention abruptly from the spirit to the form of worship.