There probably never was a man who better understood, or more happily exemplified, this important maxim in Christian ethics, than Paul the apostle. While he understood the nature of his Christian liberty, and where principle was involved, would contend for it, yet so desirous was he to promote the edification of his brethren, that he would deny himself, rather than do any thing which would have a tendency to place a stumbling-block in the way of the weak. When his right to a temporal support from those among whom he labored in preaching the gospel was called in question, he boldly asserted and maintained it. But while he claimed the right, he waived the exercise of it, and submitted to many personal inconveniencies, lest he should hinder the gospel of Christ. The same spirit of self-denial and benevolence is displayed in the chapter from which the text is taken, where the question with regard to the eating of meats which had been offered in sacrifice to idols, is under consideration. Though the apostle admits the lawfulness of the thing in itself, yet with respect to the edification of those brethren whose Christian knowledge was more limited, he recommends to his better informed brethren to refrain.

Amongst pagan idolators, it was the usual custom when an animal was offered in sacrifice to one of their idols, that a part of the carcass was consumed upon the altar, a part was given to the priest, and on the remainder the offerers feasted with their friends, either in the idol's temple or at home. And on such occasions, it sometimes happened in the primitive days of Christianity, that their Christian neighbors were invited to partake with them. Hence a question arose in the Corinthian church, whether it was lawful for a Christian to eat such flesh. The apostle admits the lawfulness of the thing in itself; for, We know that an idol is nothing in the world. And the offering of flesh to a vain, imaginary deity, does not alter its nature, nor render it unfit for food. Yet while this matter might be perfectly understood by the intelligent Christian, there is not in every man that knowledge. Some, owing to the imperfection of their knowledge and their early prejudices, would be ready to suppose that in eating this flesh, they paid some respect to the idol to whom it was offered, and thus their weak conscience would be defiled. Inasmuch, therefore, as the exercise of his liberty, on the part of the well-informed Christian, would have a tendency to involve his weak brother in sin, the apostle recommends to refrain. For neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we cat not are we the You who understand the matter, can without injury to yourselves refrain, while the exercise of your liberty may become an occa. sion of injury to others. And with that spirit of benevolence for which he was so eminently distinguished, he says for himself, If meat

worse.

make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

The word here translated to offend, signifies properly, to cause to stumble, to lay an impediment in the way of another, which may en. danger his fall. It is used in the New Testament only in a figurative sense. And to offend, in the scriptural acceptation of the term, is to do that which has a tendency to lead another into sin, so as to cause him to stumble or fall in his Christian profession. The principle here laid down by the apostle is a general one, and one of much practical importance that, even from those things, the use of which is lawful, it is a Christian duty to abstain, when the exercise of our liberty has a tendency to injure others, by leading them into sin. And if this is true in relation to those things which may be lawfully enjoyed, much more ought we to abstain from those things which are not proper to be used.

The general principle is equally as applicable to the use of drinks, as of meats. And it is my design, on the present occasion, to apply it to the subject of temperance, which is now, with great propriety, occupying a large share of the public attention.

And let it be remarked generally, that while, as every one knows, Christianity requires the exercise of temperance in all things, in the use of food and of clothing, in labor and in innocent recreations, as well as in the use of drinks, and consequently, intemperance in any of these things is inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, the present discourse has reference to that species of intemperance, which is productive of more evil to society at large, than perhaps all others, which results from the use of intoxicating liquors.

That intemperance is an evil of a most destructive character, and one which has prevailed to a fearful extent in our land, all must admit» That for its suppression all proper means should be employed, is a matter in relation to which there can be among reflecting men, but one opinion. It is unnecessary for me to attempt to portray before this auditory, the misery, and wretchedness, and crime, which arise from this source. I shall not undertake to recount the number of our valuable citizens, whom it has brought from the height of usefulness to an untimely grave. Nor shall I present to you a picture of the many families, once prosperous and happy, whom it has reduced to penury and shame. I shall not attempt to detail the countless enormities, to the perpetration of which it has led; nor need I conduct you to our jails, and penitentiaries, and hospitals, to make you sensible how nu. merous are its victims, and how bitter are its fruits. That intemperance is an evil of fearful magnitude; that it is spreading des olation

and misery through society; that it is exerting a most powerful influence in withstanding the progress of the gospel, and is bringing much reproach upon the church of Christ,-these things are admitted and deplored. What then is to be done? Are we to fold up our arms in supineness and sloth, and permit the tide of desolation to roll on? No! It is high time to awake out of sleep. A powerful effort is now in progress to stay this alarming evil, and in the result the friends of humanity and religion cannot but feel most deeply interested.

The evil of intemperance in the use of ardent spirit has all along been openly condemned. Both from the pulpit and from the press a warning voice has been raised against it. But while a species of opposition has been waged against the evil, it was in former times admitted by common consent, that the moderate use of ardent spirit, as a comfort of life, was allowable and right. And the consequence has been, that under this mode of opposition, the evil has continued to strike its roots deeper and still deeper in society, and its baleful fruits have been multiplied to a fearful extent. And if any thing can be learned from past experience, we are warranted to conclude, that so long as the principle of "moderate use" is contended for and acted upon, let men say what they may about the evil of intemperance, it will prevail. So it has been in times past, and so we may reasonably conclude it will be in time to come.

The want of success which attended all former efforts to suppress intemperance, has led to an inquiry whether this failure is not attributable to something defective in the plan of operation. The result of this inquiry has been the adoption of the principle, that to declaim against intemperance and yet plead for "moderate drinking," is to do nothing more than simply to lop off some of the outer branches, while the trunk and root of the evil remain untouched. IN THE SCHOOL OF MODERATE USE, DRUNKARDS RECEIVE THEIR TUITION. I am not to be understood as saying, that all who have practised upon the principle of moderate use, have actually become drunkards. But we all know, that in relation to very many, this is the truth. One thing, however, is certain. It is here they take their first lessons; and were there no scholars in the school of moderate use, society would no longer be burdened with drunkards. The principle, then, on which the Temperance reformation is based, is, that the common use of ardent spirit, as a drink, is to be abandoned. And such, it is believed, is the only principle on which intemperance can be successfully opposed.

We, my brethren, are so situated that we cannot remain neutral, in relation to this matter. Every individual in society has some degree of influence, and ours will be exerted either in favor of, or against, the

great effort which is in progress throughout the world to put down a most fearful evil. As rational men, as men who wish well to the human race, and above all, as the followers of Him, of whom it is said, that he went about doing good, it becomes us to examine the ground on which we stand. If the principle on which the Temperance reformation rests, has the sanction of God's word; and if experience demonstrates that its operation is conducive to the best interests of society, it surely deserves our cordial and zealous support. But if not, if it involves any thing hostile to the spirit of the bible, let it be rejected. Let none however condemn, without careful examination.

Guided by the principle laid down by the apostle, it shall be my obobject,

I. To show that, even granting the moderate use of ardent spirit as a drink, to be proper in itself, yet if such use of it, on our part, has a tendency to lead others into sin, we should abstain, lest we make a brother to offend.

And then,

II. I shall advance a step further, and endeavor to make it appear, that in the moderate use there is something improper, therefore much more should we abstain.

If the first of these positions shall be established, our way to the general conclusion at which I aim, will be open. But if the second shall likewise be sustained, my conclusion would seem to rest on an immovable basis.

I. My first position, then, is, that, admitting the lawfulness of the moderate use of ardent spirit, yet if our use of it have a tendency to lead others into sin, we should abstain lest we make a brother to offend. The question under the consideration of the apostle, it has already been observed, relates to the eating of meats which had been offered in sacrifice to an idol. The lawfulness of using such meats, on the part of the Christian who understands the vanity of idolatry, is admitted. But To abstain, there was no obligation on any one to use such meats. therefore, could involve no one in guilt. And whatever might be the fact with some, others could not without sin partake. For, in consequence of the imperfection of their knowledge, they were under the impression, that in partaking of such flesh, they paid some religious respect to the idol, to whom it had been offered, and therefore by using

it they would involve themselves in the guilt of idolatry. Now, there fore, says the apostle, not directly on my own account, but for the sake of my brethren, I will use no flesh, lest my example should lead them into a practice which would involve them in guilt. Now, to apply this principle to the subject before us, let me suppose for the present, that the common, moderate use of ardent spirit is allowable; it will not surely be maintained by any, that there lies upon us an obligation to make such use of it. There can be no evil, then, in abstinence. But all past experience demonstrates that there are many in society who cannot indulge in the use, without using to excess. By occasional use, a vitiated taste is acquired, which cries incessantly, give, give. When, by the habit of using, a man has contracted a fondness for ardent spí. rit, a taste only serves to excite a morbid appetite, and he must have more. For such a man the only rational hope of safety is in entire abstinence. And while there are many in society, already in this perilous condition, the most temperate, by a little tuition in the school of moderate use, may be brought into it. If, therefore, I practise upon the principle of moderate use, though possibly I may not become a drunkard myself, yet I set an example which, to the whole extent of my influence, encourages others to pursue a course which has a tendency to lead them into sin. Therefore, according to the sentiment of the apostle, since, without any injury to myself, I can abstain from the use of ardent spirit, I will drink none while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

But will some one say, "There are many who abuse our necessary food and indulge in gluttony. According to your reasoning, we ought to abstain from the moderate use of food, lest our example should encourage the glutton, to eat to excess." My reply is, the cases are not parallel. Food is, by the ordinance of God, absolutely necessary in the present state for the support of life. It is, therefore, the duty of every man to use food with moderation, and it would be directly sinful to adopt the principle of abstinence from food, because its direct tendency would be to destroy the life which God has given us. Not so, however, with ardent spirit. No sober man will pretend that it is an absolute duty to use it. All that the devotee of Bacchus himself will contend for is, that there is no harm in taking a little; that it may be used in moderation. It is in no degree necessary to the health or vigor of the healthy system. The use of it, then, may be dispensed with. All reasoning, therefore, from the use of nourishing food to the use of ardent spirit is inconclusive, because the cases are entirely dissimilar.

In the observations which have hitherto been offered, I have taken it