lecture: "Teetotalism the plain teaching of the Bible." But the Independent School Room had not been let for such a purpose. Indeed, no word was given either to the Minister, or Deacons, or Trustees, who should have been consulted about the letting of the room, that it was wanted on those evenings. Moreover, it was well known that while the Minister had sought, in every legitimate method, to advocate the practice of abstinence, he decidedly opposed the notion of Teetotalism being taught in the Bible. While, therefore, Dr. Lees was permitted to have the room on the former of the evenings specified, it was not allowed that he should appear to give battle to the Minister on the ground occupied by his own place of worship. The Teetotallers were therefore requested to seek for the delivery of the second lecture a more appropriate spot. The Wesleyan Chapel was obtained instead: and there the Doctor delivered his second lecture; "Teetotalism the plain teaching of Scripture."

It may be needless to ask; what was the probable design of that lecture, or, as it has been happily expressed, the "perversion of its placarded title." Of course, the inference would be obvious, that if Teetotalism be the plain teaching of the Bible, then every Christian man, woman, and child, in the country, is bound by the law of God to be a Teetotaller. Teetotalism is thenceforth put on a level with Christianity itself. And, I suppose, such an astute process of reasoning might be adopted in some parts as the following. Teetotalism is the plain teaching of the Bible; Christianity is the plain teaching of the Bible; wherefore, according to the logic of Dr. Lees, who assumes that things which harmonize are identically the same, Teetotalism and Christianity are one and the same thing. And here are the corollaries which some might be disposed to draw from this: Teetotalism and Christianity being one and the same thing, he who is a Teetotaller is a good Christian, and no man is a Christian who is not a Teetotaller. Certainly, if Teetotalism be the plain teaching of the Bible, no Christian Minister should continue to hold his office as a Minister, who does not practise Teetotalism.

But seriously, if Teetotalism be the plain teaching of the Bible, the discoverer of this fact should enlighten us as to the kind of

TEETOTALISM AS TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE.

17

Teetotalism which is there taught. Let us have the thing clearly defined. Does the Bible allow the medicinal use, or does it not? Does it require the signing of a pledge in favour of abstinence, or not? If it does, then which is the orthodox pledge? Does it, or does it not allow the use of those weak wines which many Teetotallers feel themselves at liberty to take? Albeit we are not sure that some Alcohol does not lurk therein. According to the scriptural teaching, may fermented yeast or leaven be used in bread, and brandy be smuggled first into the kitchen, and then into the sauce, or not? Now, in the vicinity of a certain order of minds, all this is really important to be known: for some of our old fashioned christians are not always ready to rejoice in the reproaches of those who insist that we must take the Teetotalism of the Bible, without telling us what it is. At least, if we are to receive this Scriptural Teetotalism, let us see what it means. If we are to be Nazarites, we must not eat grapes: if we are to be like the sons of Jonadab, we should dwell in tents: if we are to be in all respects like Daniel we must be content with a vegetable diet, and be limited in our drinking habits to pure water. Are we to abstain after their fashion? I affirm with all sincerity, that I do not wish to cavil, nor to find fault with any of my Teetotal brethren. But I formerly thought that Teetotallers allowed the use even of Alcohol, especially if very much diluted, where bodily infirmity seemed to require it. I am not anxious, it is true, to play the part of him who, in trying to please every body, pleased nobody, and lost his ass to the bargain. But as at the pons asinorum many dull scholars stick, so am I fast here. What sort of a bridge is this

Bible Teetotalism?

For various reasons, which it is needless to assign, I have been particularly desirous not to enter into controversy with Dr. Lees on any subject. I was precluded by other engagements from hearing his lecture on the plain teaching of Scripture. But I felt it my duty to examine the matter very carefully for myself, and to lay the result of my enquiries before the people. The feeling of mutual respect, and brotherly love, which should always subsist between ministers of different evangelical communions, were of great assistance here; for the Rev. R. H. Wilkinson, Curate of

Harwood, feeling very much as I felt myself respecting the question at issue, promised that, if I would take the teachings of the Old Testament, he would take the teachings of the New. We, therefore, agreed to give a course of two or three lectures between us on the one enquiry: "Is Teetotalism the plain teaching of Scripture?" The Teetotallers resolved to make the most of my second lecture. A reporter was engaged to write it as it was delivered: and an agent of the United Kingdom Alliance was advertised immediately to deliver a lecture at the Wesleyan Chapel in reply. About the same time, I heard that Dr. Lees was to visit Harwood a second time, in order to make good his own statements, and to upset mine. Under these circumstances I thought it the safer course to publish my lecture in full, that it might be known what I had really said to provoke so much opposition. My friend, Mr. Wilkinson, decided on publishing at the same time a statement of his views, which were published in “ a letter to the Teetotal Society of Great Harwood." No sooner were our pamphlets in print than the following advertisement appeared in a local Newspaper:-" Will be ready in a few days, an Exposure of the Rev. D. Williams' lecture, entitled 'Is Teetotalism the plain teaching of the Bible?' evincing its falseness-its perversions—its false criticisms, and its blunders. Published for the Great Harwood Temperance Society. This will be followed almost immediately by a similar exposure of the Rev. Mr. Wilkinson's impertinent letter addressed to the Society. To be had from all Booksellers, &c." This of itself is a singular specimen of Teetotal Temperance, and a mode of discussion which, for the honour of True Temperance, I hope is not very frequently adopted even among the most ultra of Teetotallers. Week after week, first in the columns of one paper, then of another, was this precious advertisement fulminated for more than a month; and even after the "Exposure" was out, the advertisement was too good to be lost sight of, so for at least two weeks after, came the same reprint ; "Will be ready in a few days, an Exposure, &c."

By whom the "Exposure" is written I will not say, as the Author does not declare his name: but it is very generally understood that Dr. Lees has found it convenient to publish

NECESSITY OF TEMPERANCE IN DEBATE.

19

anonymously. The internal evidence which is furnished in the pamphlet leaves but little doubt upon my own mind as to its real Author. But if that be Dr. Lees, it is astonishing how any man could write thus of himself and his own writings. The pamphlet is entitled, "Teetotalism plainly taught in the Bible," and is said to be " a Reply to the Lecture and Letter of the Rev. D. Williams and Rev. R. H. Wilkinson, of Great Harwood." I shall not wait here to characterize it. Those who can receive it as a very sensible and judicious reply in favour of a newly discovered fact, let them receive it. It may be a wonder to many, however, that such men as Owen, and Howe, and Doddridge, and Scott, and all our eminent commentators, have always been in the dark about this, if it be true, that Teetotalism is plainly taught in the Bible.

It will be of no service to strive for the advancement of Teetotal principles, nor of any other principles, by a fraudulent sophism, which shall be backed by wholesale misrepresentation and abuse. For the credit and success of all that is good, the sooner a fallacious argument is exposed the better. Teetotalism, as practised and advocated by some of the best men of the age, requires no sham supports; and he who seeks to prop it up with statements which are untrue, inflicts upon the cause of genuine Temperance a serious injury. If Teetotalism be, as some of its advocates say it is, the plain teaching of the Bible, the sooner it is known the better: but, if it be not, I protest against the practise of flinging gibes and insults against Ministers of the Gospel because they cannot see what is no where to be seen.

I propose, in the following pages to give my lecture as already published, with remarks at the end upon the anonymous criticisms "published under the direction of the Temperance Society, Great Harwood."

PART III.

LECTURE.

IS TEETOTALISM THE PLAIN TEACHING OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT?

THE question upon which we are now entering, is, in my opinion, a very important one; inasmuch as I deem the Word of God to be our principal authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice. If the Bible forbids that I should eat anything, or drink anything, which in itself is represented as hurtful, then I am bound in obedience to the law of God, to refrain from that thing. I do not mean to say by this, that I feel myself bound by every precept of the Jewish ceremonial law, which was evidently designed for the regulation of the Jews as a nation. But this does not touch the matter in hand: for I cannot find in the ceremonial law any precept binding even upon the Jewish nation to abstain from strong drinks. The Jews were forbidden to eat many things that we eat; such as pork or the flesh of swine, hares, and all kinds of fish which are without fins and scales; different kinds of birds, and things that creep on the ground, were also forbidden; and, in some circumstances, wine and strong drink were forbidden; but the time during which the Israelites were to abstain, and the particular persons among them who were to abstain for that time which is mentioned, are distinctly specified.

But all this would be rather wonderful on the theory which a very few individuals wish to advocate, viz., that "TEETOTALISM,” by which I suppose they mean total abstinence, "is the plain