ed truth. The inference derived from this doctrine is, that it is unlawful to reform men in any other way than by leading them to repentance and faith, and union with the church of Christ. The argument therefore, against the temperance society, if valid, must cut its way through every other benevolent organization, designed for the promotion of morals and religion, which embraces men not religious. We presume, that bishop Hopkins will not take it amiss if we put this broad construction upon his argument, for it corresponds with the exclusive ground he has taken through his whole work. His discourse on the temperance society has been so long before the public, and has been so often dissected in the religious papers, that we shall give it a more brief notice than we intended. We shall nevertheless lay before our readers a fair specimen of the sentiments advanced, and as our limits permit, examine their validity. To prevent misapprehension, our author says,

I commence then, by acknowledging, that the Episcopal church, as a body, is not disposed to be active in what is called the temperance reform. But to this assertion, I must add, that there are very many exceptions, and some of them assuredly, who rank amongst our most prominent men for piety, for talent, and for zeal. I blame them not for using their liberty in this matter. I premise next, that the majority of our church who have hitherto stood aloof from the temperance society, have not done so by general concert, nor have they published their peculiar reasons. Let me say, thirdly, that in our attachment to the virtue of temperance, and in our abhorrence of the vice of intemperance, we refuse to yield to any body of christians upon earth. Nor do I believe that there is any class of men, taking the Episcopal church throughout, who have better observed the practice, not only of this, but of every other moral virtue. Far be it from me to make this assertion as a matter of boast, it is no fit subject of boast that christians are the friends of morality, but I say it as a necessary act of self-defense against the reckless spirit of slander, which presumes to declare, that no one can have any objections to the temperance society, unless he be himself an intemperate man.' p. 130.

These preliminaries having been disposed of, the following formidable propositions are drawn out in battle array, namely:

That the temperance society is not based on religious, but worldly principles.

That it opposes vice and attempts to establish virtue, in a manner which is not in accordance with the word of God.

That if it could succeed, it would be a triumph of infidelity.

That it gives a false prominence to one particular vice, contrary to the doctrines of the bible.

That calling it an introduction or a preparation for religion, is at war with the principles of the gospel.

That it cannot be relied on as a remedy against. vice, for which the religion of Christ is the only cure; and that the good effected by it,

whatever it may be, cannot justify the christian in trying experiments to reform mankind, on any other principles than those which are set forth in the scriptures.'

Before we examine these plausible, but not unanswerable propositions, we must notice, what we believe to be an error, respecting the general views of Episcopalians, on the subject of temperance societies, as stated by bishop Hopkins. He says distinctly, that he speaks not as the advocate, nor the "organ of others;" but we are not sure that "the majority" in the Episcopal church stand aloof from this humane and christian enterprise. Not a few bishops in the mother church of England, are decided advocates for the "temperance reform," and we think a majority of bishops and other clergy in the American Episcopal church, are its open and cordial friends. We have seen in one widely extended journal, the regret expressed, that such views of temperance should be published in connection with a work on the order and government of the church, lest Episcopalians as a body, should be made responsible for the sentiments advanced, and which are so foreign to Episcopacy. We might add numerous other tokens of dissent from the same source, but will only refer to the Episcopal Recorder. "We consider the arguments of bishop Hopkins without the foundation and strength which, to make amends for the deleterious result certain to flow from them, they ought to have. Not one of them professes to arise from any actual injury which the temperance society has produced; but only from defects which are seen or are imagined in its constitution. The evil complained of, the whole evil, for which christians must be warned against the society, for which it should be dissolved, and against which the labored publication of bishop Hopkins is directed, amounts simply to this,that though the temperance society has done much good, it has not done it upon right principles, nor in a right way.' This ground of objection to the cause of temperance, fairly stated by an Episcopal writer, may be described by the following illustration: A deadly morass has in a great measure been drained, with much toil, and the beneficial results already surpass the expectations of the most sanguine. While the work is in full and triumphant progress, a spectator who has hitherto stood aloof, looks on, and says, my friends, you are doing a noble work here; you have saved the lives of thousands, and caused many broken hearts to sing for joy; but I object to the whole affair, because you go on wrong principles, and work with the wrong tools; and therefore, if you could succeed in this way, you would find in the end, that you had poisoned the living fountains of water!'

But we turn to the "chain of propositions" which, says bishop Hopkins, "I have pledged myself to prove." There is a peculiarity

which belongs to this chain, for if the first link fails, the remainder becomes useless. If the temperance society "is not based on religious, but on worldly principles," whatever it may gain, the cause of truth may suffer ultimate loss. If its principles are opposed to the gospel, the other charges which our author has tabled against it, may also be sustained. But if the first proposition fails, it will carry to the ground the remaining five. Is it true, then, that the temperance society is based on worldly principles? It had its origin in the church of Christ. Men deeply imbued with the spirit of piety and holy philanthropy, were its founders. The first annual report of the parent society, informs us that a meeting, previous to its formation, was held for consultation, and "after uniting in prayer," the following resolutions were adopted:

1. That it is expedient that more systematic and more vigorous efforts be made by the christian public, to restrain and prevent the intemperate use of intoxicating liquors.

2. That an individual of acknowledged talents, piety, industry, and sound judgment, should be selected and employed as a permanent agent, etc.

The enterprise then, commenced with christian men, and they sought counsel of God. They acted from christian principles. But to all this it is objected, that christians admit irreligious men into their society, and demand a "pledge of abstinence from ardent spirits, as the single condition of membership." From this, it is affirmed, that the association is not a christian society, because "the principle on which we are commanded to abstain from sin, is the authority of the divine law." We are required to do all to the glory of God, whether we eat or drink, and without faith it is impossible to please God.

Now the temperance society, as such, adopts nothing of all this, but simply demands a written pledge of abstinence from ardent spirits, as the single condition of membership, the unbeliever is on an equal footing with the believer; the infidel with the christian,-it asks no religion in its members,-an avowed atheist might be its president, and there can be no christian society which does not acknowledge Christ." p. 132.

We reply, that the temperance society does acknowledge Christ. Its most influential members are his disciples; they depend on the grace of God for success in their efforts; the meetings of the society in its various branches, are opened with prayer; in most of the public addresses, the authority of God is urged, and the various persuasives to morality and religion contained in the gospel, are made to bear upon the subject of temperance. The allusion to banks and insurance companies, established by christian men, will not be in point, till it can be shown, that these companies have

in view the promotion of morality and religion, and commence their meetings with prayer, and employ revealed truth as a means of accomplishing their objects. If the temperance society is not christian, it can be deprived of this title only on account of the pledge and the admission of members not religious. We never considered this society to be a church, and therefore cannot see how piety should be a necessary qualification for admission. Bishop Hopkins will not deny that christians might, on gospel principles, sign a written pledge to abstain from the use of ardent spirit, after the apostolic example of Paul, who said, "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing, whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." (Rom. xiv. 23.) But his argument denies the lawfulness of admitting irreligious men to such an agreement with christians, except on condition of repentance, and faith in Christ. Believers may unite with unbelievers in mere earthly associations, but not in societies designed for the promotion of morals and religion. In banks and insurance companies, they may co-operate, but not in a society organized for the suppression of intemperance, although the constitution of that society declares it to be the duty of its principal agent "to make affectionate and earnest addresses to christian churches, to parents and guardians, to children, apprentices and servants, and all other descriptions of persons, and to set clearly before them the effect of spiritous liquors on health, on reputation, and on all the temporal and eternal interests of men, and to urge them by the most weighty arguments drawn from the present and the future world." etc.* If the argument of bishop Hopkins against the temperance society, is valid, it must exclude men of the world from all part and lot in bible, tract, missionary, and other societies organized for their moral and religious benefit. It must prohibit them also from uniting with christians in building churches, the support of the gospel, and public worship. They must not unite with believers for the promotion of any of these objects, unless repentance and faith are required of them, as the terms of union. An argument which goes this length, must be radically defective. It proves enough to demonstrate its falsity.

But the bishop after denouncing the temperance society, because it is not, as he says, "based on religious principles," confesses, that he would have cordially united with the society, had it been based on worldly principles. He does "not deny that the information spread before the public eye in so many attractive forms, showing the injurious effects of alcohol upon the human constitution, and the efforts successfully made to drive it out of daily use

*Constitution Amer. Temp. Soc., adopted Feb. 13, 1836. Art. IX.

as a common refreshment, have been beneficial in many ways, to the comfort, 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 men." 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