and the consequences of drunkenness has been animated, have been placed on the most extreme ground. The use of every fluid possessing an intoxicating property has been proscribed. The use of such fluids has been denounced as well as the abuse of them, and sometimes as being the worse of the two. The occasional use has been confounded with the constant,-the temperate with the intemperate, the conditional with the unconditional use. The principles which the Bible lays down on the subject have by some been openly denounced, and by others either so strained or overslaughed in their attempt to explain them, that they have practically ceased to control public sentiment on this branch of morals. The public expositors of the new doctrines, whenever they are compelled to allude to the miracle of Cana, invariably endeavour to explain it away; and when they discuss the doctrines of expediency, as laid down by Paul, they always push them far beyond the limitation which the apostle sets for their employment, and endeavour not only to make a principle that is temporary and limited universal and permanent, but also to canonize the weakness, as the apostle terms it, in deference to which this principle is enunciated, as the only sound and permanent sentiment which an enlightened conscience should ever admit. Indeed, so far has this thing proceeded, that it is at the peril of a man's reputation for integrity as a Christian, and as an advocate for public morality, that he undertakes to stand on the example of Christ, and maintain the teachings of the Word of God on this subject. Unless he goes the full length to which the boasted enlightenment of modern morality may please to lead him, he is looked at with the oblique suspicion that there is something wrong about him, or he is at once denounced as the enemy of temperance and the opposer of public and private virtue. To oppose the extravagant lengths to which the advocates of temperance go, is to oppose temperance itself. To oppose an advocacy of morality which is ashamed of the example of Christ, and is perplexed to dispose of the various precepts of the Scriptures, is to oppose morality itself. To discriminate between abstinence and temperance,-between the occasional and the constant, or the temperate and intemperate use of intoxicating liquor,-between such a traffic in it as can be guarded from direct tendencies to foster vice, and such a traffic as feeds the vices and swells the miseries of the poor, by the pint and the gill,-is to forfeit all right to denounce drunkenness, or any of the collateral or direct causes of it. To all this we have only to say, that if we are to encounter it for returning without equivocation to the teachings of the Bible, we shall do so with perfect content. We shall not attempt to base our advocacy of the virtue of temperance upon any maxims of expediency drawn from our

own mind. Human reason is too much distempered by the passions of the heart, and in too confined a position to behold all the relations involved in the settlement of an issue like this. God has been pleased to give us a revelation, setting forth the true principles by which our moral conduct is to be guided, and pointing out to us unmistakably what is the true nature of his will in the case. Nor can we conceive any course better calculated either to set aside the Bible as useless, or to discredit it as a book of inspiration, than either to pass by its teachings altogether in the settlement of these questions, or to be ashamed and afraid of its determinations of the issue. We wish it to be understood, then, that we go to the Bible for the truth on this subject; that we go to it, not to interpret it by pre-conceived opinions upon our own part, but to learn simply what it teaches; and that we shall not flinch from any consequence which flows unequivocally from the principles enunciated in the Scriptures.

There are two modes by which the Word of God teaches on questions of morality: by example, and by incidental or direct assertion. Whatever is done by Christ is, by that very fact, stamped with the divine approval; and to say that any thing done by the Son of God is censurable, for any thing,-for intrinsic evil, or for mere inexpediency,-is to assume ground directly infidel and deistic. In investigating the question, whether wine as a beverage may properly be used, or not, we are at once arrested by the miracle at Cana. It cannot fail to have struck every observer of the current course of instruc tion given by the modern advocates of temperance, that whenever occasion has called upon them to explain this miracle, they have been greatly embarrassed by it, and that they have been compelled to adopt some theory of explanation which indicated a consciousness of embarrassment. The whole tone of allusion is the tone of apology. Now we must say plainly, we have no apologies to make for it. We shall not attempt to explain it away. We shall not put on an air of embarrassment, as if the Saviour had set a very equivocal example here, an example, if not wicked per se, at least very inexpedient, to use the phrase with which these moralists dodge the charge of implicating the character of Christ. We say that the example was neither wicked nor inexpedient. We say it was an example fit to be made, and fit to be followed. We say, moreover, that they who go beyond this example, or its logical limitations, are as foolish as they are wicked, when they attempt to justify their excess by an appeal to this example. We say that those who think this example a warrant for drunkenness, are the advocates of the vice, and are to be denounced themselves as the enemies of the gospel. No man

can consistently be a believer in the divine original of the Christian religion, and yet entertain in secret, or openly avow, sentimente which arraign the purity of Christ's acts and character. If this example is made the occasion and excuse of excess in wine, it is because the example is perverted from its true implications; and for all such perversions the individual perverting it is himself responsible, and alone responsible. The example warranting a right use, must be perverted when used to justify a wrong use of a thing; and those individuals assume a fearful responsibility who either pervert the example of Christ, or who use it as an occasion of evil. Nor do those assume a responsibility one whit the less solemn who endeavour to evade or explain away the real nature of this example, from a guilty and weak apprehension that they will do mischief if they do not apologise for it. It is that spirit of apology for the example and teachings of the Bible which is doing so much to extend the spirit of infidelity. A distinguished infidel, quoted in a late work by a minister of the Virginia Conference, declares, that when he wished to disseminate infidel views, he did not attack Christianity as such,-he only inculcated such principles on the subject of temperance, slavery, and other popular topics, as would necessarily undermine all confidence in the Bible as an inspired revelation of truth. Any argument from the example of Christ in attending and countenancing a wedding which would prove the lawfulness of marriage, would equally prove, from his supplying the guests with wine, the lawfulness of using it. He was denounced in his own day as a wine-bibber and the friend of sinners; and we suppose that the cry is to be repeated until the advancing power of his kingdom on the earth shall dispose men to submit to his authority, and receive his teachings without limitation or reserve as the truth of God.

We

It is argued in explanation of our Saviour's conduct, by some, that to suppose him to have created wine, when the company "have well drunk," is to make him "the minister of excess." This explanation, which we have heard attempted, is the most absurd of all ever given of it. It proceeds on an assumption utterly false, and falls short in its conclusion of every thing but an attack on the character of Christ. would inquire if this position means to deny that wine was made at all at the wedding of Cana: for, to avoid the charge upon Christ as a minister of excess, it is either necessary to deny that he made wine at all, or that he made it when "men have well drunk;" both of which assertions are positively contradicted by the record. If this inference is correct, that to suppose Christ to have made wine under such circumstances, is to make him the minister of excess, then he is the minister of

excess; for it is unquestionable that he did create wine under these circumstances. But the argument proceeds on a supposition utterly unfounded. The phrase,." When me have well drunk," does not mean, "when they had drunk enough," or "when they were all intoxicated." It simply means," when they were nearly done drinking," "when the entertainment was well-nigh over." It was in these circumstances, the entertainment nearly, but not completely over, that the supply of wine failed, and Christ displayed his power to make up the deficiency. That this is the interpretation of the circumstances is clear, not only from the words themselves, but from the remark of the guests to the master of the feast, that he kept the best wine to the latter part of the entertainment, contrary to the custom which set the best wine forward at first. This exposition of the passage completely answers the fling of those who wish to cover all defenders of the Saviour's conduct with shame, as representing him as supplying a parcel of drunken rioters with the means of dissipation. Those who find it necessary to pervert the statements of the Scriptures in this way, in order to sustain their views, and bring reproach upon those who are presumptuous enough to defend the Word of God, exhibit a consciousness that a candid statement of the facts would not be favourable to their opinions.

Another sapient explanation of this act of Christ is, that he did not design to furnish wine, but simply to display his power and show forth his glory,—that he did not mean to sanction the use of wine as a beverage, but merely to prove his divinity. This is as true and as sensible as to say, that a waggoner in building a waggon did not mean to build a vehicle, but only to make money for his support; or a lawyer in making a speech, did not design to make a speech, but only a fee. The absur dity of this is obvious: it confounds the ultimate with the immediate end, and overlooks an issue about the propriety of a means, by tacitly affirming the impropriety of the means, and aiming to apologise for it by the excellence of the end to be attained. This is a question as to the propriety of means, not of ends it is not, whether it was right for Christ to display his power and prove his divinity, but whether it was right for him to do it in this way, by making wine for the enjoyment of a wedding party. The end does not justify the means. This doctrine Paul pronounces to be damnable. Can Christ be supposed to act on it? It is certain that he did design both to make wine and to display his power; he designed to do the one in order to do the other; the one was his ultimate and the other his immediate purpose; and his act is not only a perfect guarantee of the propriety of the end, but it is equally a guarantee of the propriety of the means he used in order to

effect it. We are as much at liberty to condemn him for the one as to condemn him for the other.

Another plea equally unsound is, that Christ did not provide wine on this occasion as a beverage. We are at a loss to imagine, then, for what he did supply it. It is obvious that he supplied the deficiency of wine for the same purpose for which the original supply was provided. He came in to meet a deficiency in the provision for a certain end; what that end was in the original supply of wine by the master of the feast no one in his senses can doubt. The end was the same in both cases: the master of the feast provided a part of the means to it, Christ provided another. Such canvassing of the facts is puerile in the extreme. All of these pleas, it will be seen, proceed on the assumption that it would have been wrong in Christ to have acted contrary to what they endeavour to prove he did do. But this is to beg the question,-assume the very point in dispute. The question to be decided is, Whether it is wrong to use wine as a beverage and they first assume this as admitted to be true, and then endeavour to explain away the conduct of Christ to an accordance with their views. We appeal boldly to the example of Christ, as proving it to be right to use wine as a beverage. Even admitting that the miracle of Cana could be explained away, this is not the only passage of Scripture which clearly sanctions the use of wine as a beverage. The psalmist declares of God, "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart." If this passage authorises the use of bread, or oil, it also, and to the same extent, authorises the use of wine. The law of Moses distinctly warrants the use of it in many places. The whole Bible is full of implied and indirect assertions on the point. The blessings of redeeming mercy are repeatedly compared to wine; they are called the "feast of wine on the lees, well refined." Could this have been the case if it had been esteemed the odious and destructive thing it is now supposed to be the juice of hell-the water of damnation? What is the testimony of Jesus about John the Baptist and himself? He says to the Pharisees and lawyers, "John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But Wisdom is justified of all her children.” This passage just as clearly shows that wine was used as an ordinary comfort of the table, as it proves that bread was used. It also shows that Jesus himself was a