edicts of our legislatures. We should act with an even mind on so grave a subject, and see to it that every step we take is solidly founded on right reason. We should urge before our legislatures plans that are free from the taint of crude prejudice, and instinct with practical wisdom; and when we do this we shall be surprised to see how many whom we took to be enemies there are who are ready to join us in the work and establish foundations of order and peace in the land that shall save us from a moral slough.

CONCLUSION.

Let me, in conclusion, distinctly say that I do not oppose the principle of total abstinence from all that intoxicates for the individual. Every man is at liberty to abstain if he will, and it is his duty to abstain if his own conscience command it. That against which I contend, and which I hold up as the hindrance to true reform and the promoter of the drunkard's cause, is the total-abstinence crusade or propaganda-the forcing total abstinence upon the community as the duty of all; the putting under the ban every one who does not follow that standard; the insisting upon total abstinence as the only safety against drunkenness. It is this headlong movement, which virtually cries "The Koran or the sword!" and tramples alike on reason and Scripture in its blind rush-it is this and not private total abstinence against which I inveigh. And let me also repeat that I am attacking a system and not persons. I have no war with men, but with error. I can honor the men who uphold a pernicious system, for I can believe in their purity of motive and singleness of aim. And for this reason I the more earnestly and hopefully urge them to consider their ways and abandon a course which is only confirming the dreadful curse we all abhor and desire to remove.

A REVIEW OF DR. CROSBY.

BY REV. DR. MARK HOPKINS,

Ex-President Williams College, Mass.

T

HE recent lecture by Dr. Crosby, entitled "A Calm View of the Temperance Question," is divided into four parts: 1. Preliminary Propositions; 2. The Prudential Question; 3. The Moral Question; and 4. His own System. Of these each requires attention.

His preliminary propositions are three, and of these we are compelled to take exception to the very first. This is, that "the object of temperance societies is to prevent drunkenness." That is one object, but is so far from being the only one that the statement is inadequate and misleading. It implies that the effect of alcoholic drinks up to the point of drunkenness is not injurious, and that unless moderate drinking leads to drunkenness, which he denies, it does not come within the scope of temperance societies.

We hold, on the other hand, that, in our climate and under our present inherited conditions, the health of the human system is better without alcoholic stimulation than with it, and therefore that temperance, taking Dr. Crosby's

own definition of it as "a grand moral subjection of the whole man to the sway of reason," would exclude such stimulation. We hold with him that temperance permits only such use of anything whatever as will best promote the wellbeing of the whole man. On this point we remember the statements of Bishop Potter, and men like him, at the beginning of this reformation, of the effect upon their health of giving up wine; we recall the regimen of Samson, and the uniform testimony of the trainers of athletes; we note the fact that in England a total-abstainer can have his life insured at a less rate than a moderate drinker; we have the testimony of physicians* that what they call an "insane diathesis" is produced by moderate drinking, and that this may fail to reveal itself till the second or third generation; we take what is known of the stimulating quality of our climate and of the adulteration of alcoholic drinks in this country, and we conclude that the object of temperance societies is broader than the prevention of drunkenness.

The second proposition of Dr. Crosby is that "the cardinal principle of these societies is total abstinence from all that can intoxicate." Yes, as a beverage. We agree to the use of alcohol as a medicine and in the arts. Here, however, it ought to be said that these societies were formed and this principle was adopted to meet an emergency. Fifty years ago it came upon the country almost with the suddenness of a cry of fire that the whole fabric of our society, moral, social, and civil, was in danger from the use of intoxicating drinks. The alarm was not sounded too soon, nor was the danger over-estimated. A mighty work was to be done. The evil pervaded church and state alike. There were vested rights and drinking customs; wines for the rich, whiskey and cider-brandy for the poor, and adulterated liquors; and the question was not about abstract principles, or what might be right at all times and in all places, but how to meet a present danger. The grand men of that day -the Beechers and Notts and Potters-felt their way, and

* See a recent pamphlet on "The Insane Diathesis," p. 15, by Henry P. Stearns, M.D., of Hartford.

at length reached the principle of total abstinence as their only sheet-anchor. We are fighting the same battle, with much gained, but still under similar conditions. The house is still on fire. How shall we put it out? We say with water. Those who have labored longest and made most sacrifices in this cause say that the danger can be best met by total abstinence on the part of the individual and by prohibition on the part of the State. To each of these Dr. Crosby objects not only, but he strongly condemns them.

The third proposition of Dr. Crosby is that "total abstinence, if adopted by all, will prevent drunkenness." With this we heartily agree.

In objecting to total abstinence under his "Prudential Question" Dr. Crosby says many things with which we agree. We agree that we ought to adopt a "practicable " plan-not, however, as he says, one "that will be received by men in general," but one in which we can work most effectively. We agree that we ought to work with others who differ from us so far as we conscientiously can. If any have failed to work with Dr. Crosby up to this point it is to be regretted; but since he does not object to "total abstinence for the individual,” and agrees that that would be a sure preventive for drunkenness, we invite him, if he has not already done so, to join us in bringing over to that as many individuals as he can. We agree with him in what he says of conscience as too often "mere obstinacy of opinion," and about "fanaticisms" and false martyrdoms; and if in working with us, as he "conscientiously" must, he cannot bring men quite over to total abstinence, we do conscientiously wish him success in bringing them as far as he can. We agree with him in what he says of the original and proper meaning of the word "temperance," and of the change in its use, but not in his apparent irritation about it, or in his charge of intentional deception. The change has come by a law of language which makes a general term specific when a particular use of it becomes prominent. It was thus that certain writings came to be called Scriptures, as if there were no other writings; and also

the Bible, which means the book, as if there were no other book. So when an English sportsman shoots a partridge he says he has shot a bird, as if there were no other birds. Changes of this kind constantly occur with no conscious agency of any one, and there is no more reason for supposing that any advocate of total abstinence ever used the word temperance in this secondary sense with an intention to deceive than there is that Dr. Crosby so used it when he entitled his lecture "A Calm View of the Temperance Question." Some deception may have been wrought in this way, but Dr. Crosby's view of it seems to us greatly exaggerated. We cannot believe that a word which has thus found a secondary meaning by a natural law will be regarded as a false flag," or that it "will disgust and alienate true and enlightened souls."

66

We agree further with Dr. Crosby, and thank him for stating it, that "the use of a false argument always reacts against the user." We presume he is right in respect to "must preserved from fermentation." We agree with him that the Scriptures ought not to be "twisted," but fail to see how it would be "a fatal blow to the total-abstinence system," or any blow at all, if it should be proved that they speak of only one kind of wine. Many advocates of total abstinence, perhaps the majority, agree with Dr. Crosby on this point, but find in that no reason for abating their zeal in the cause.

In treating of the prudential question up to this point Dr Crosby finds "three elements of deception entering into 'their cause': the use of the word temperance for a totally different thing, the fable about unfermented wine, and the violent twisting of the Scriptures." He then says: "Now I unhesitatingly affirm that a cause having such falsehoods for its main supports can never be accepted by the public."

Finding thus his first reason why the plan of "total abstinence will not be adopted by the people" to be that it is supported by falsehoods; Dr. Crosby states as his second reason "its unmanliness." Under this head the main point of his argument is against legal prohibition. Total prohibi