provements: "Sir, Goldsmith is so ignorant of his own country that he would bring home a wheelbarrow as a new and valuable invention."

The address turns back in its path frequently, and repeats its chief criticisms again and again. If we analyze it I think it may be fairly summed up thus:

1. Dr. Crosby objects to the total-abstinence theory and movement that it insults the example of Jesus; that its advocates undermine and despise the Bible, while they strain and wrench it to serve their purpose; and he asserts that the "total-abstinence system is contrary to revealed religion"; and that the Bible, correctly interpreted, repudiates total abstinence and such a temperance crusade as has existed here for the last fifty years.

2. Dr. Crosby objects to this movement as immoral as well as unchristian; and as “doing unmeasured harm to the community." He considers it as the special and direct cause of the "growth of drunkenness in our land, and of a general demoralization among religious communities "; asserts that it is exactly the kind of movement that rumsellers enjoy, and that it ought not to succeed, never will, and never can.

3. The pledge is unmanly and kills character and selfrespect.

4. The assertion that moderate drinking leads to drunkenness is untrue.

5. The total-abstainers bully and intimidate the community and disgust all good, sensible men.

6. That what is needed to unite sensible men in a movement sure to succeed is a license system recognizing the distinction between moderation and excess, between harmless wines and beer and strong drink. Such a system, "free from taint of prejudice, and instinct with practical wisdom, will establish order and peace and save us from a moral slough."

Dr.

The looseness of these statements is noticeable. Crosby says "the total-abstinence system is contrary to revealed religion.”

What is the "total-abstinence system"? It is abstaining from intoxicating drink ourselves, and agreeing with others

to do so. How is this contrary to revealed religion? Can any one cite a text in the Bible or a principle laid down there which forbids it? Of course not; no one pretends that he can. But Dr. Crosby's argument is that Jesus drank intoxicating wine and allowed it to others. There is no proof that he ever did drink intoxicating wine. But let that pass, and suppose, for the sake of the argument, that he did. What then? To do what Jesus never did, or to refuse to do what he did—are such acts necessarily "contrary to revealed religion"? Let us see.

Jesus rode upon an "ass and a colt, the foal of an ass." We find it convenient to use railways. Are they "contrary to revealed religion"? Jesus never married, neither did most of his apostles. Is marriage, therefore, "contrary to revealed religion"? Jesus allowed a husband to put away his wife if she had committed adultery, he himself being judge and executioner. We forbid him to do it, and make him submit to jury trial and a judge's decision. Are such divorce laws, therefore, "contrary to revealed religion"? Jesus said to the person guilty of adultery: "Go and sin no more." We send such sinners to the State prison. Are our laws punishing adultery, therefore, "contrary to revealed religion"? There were no women at the Last Supper. We admit them to it. Is this " contrary to revealed religion"? We see therefore that Christians may, in altered circumstances, do some things Jesus never actually did, and that their so doing does not necessarily contravene his example; nor, unless it violates the principles he taught, does it tend to undermine Christianity.

I did not

But the learned lecturer will, perhaps, urge: mean exactly what I said. I meant to point out that the means you use-methods with which you urge and support the total-abstinence theory-are contrary to revealed religion. You strain and pervert the Bible to get the example of Jesus on your side, and so undermine the authority of the Scriptures."

⚫ It would have been better if Dr. Crosby had originally said exactly what he meant, and on so grave a subject we had a right to claim that a trained and scholarly man should

do so. But, waiving that, let us allow him, as the courts do, to amend his declaration.

The total-abstinence system is "contrary to revealed religion," because we strain and distort the Scriptures and wrest them to serve our purpose; and the chief instance upon which the doctor mainly dwells is our assertion that wherever drinking wine is referred to in the Bible with approbation unfermented wine is meant. Upon this claim the doctor pours out his hottest indignation, indulging in a wealth of abusive epithets, and returning to it again, and again ringing changes on it, and turning it like a specially sweet morsel under his tongue. Indeed, this may be considered the chief thing he came to Boston to say.

Now, there is a class of Biblical scholars and interpreters who do assert that wherever wine is referred to in the Bible with approbation it is unfermented wine. Of this class of men Dr. Crosby says "their learned ignorance is splendid "; they are "inventors of a theory of magnificent daring"; they "use false texts" and "deceptive arguments"; "deal dishonestly with the Scriptures"; "beg the question and build on air"; their theory is a "fable," born of "falsehoods," supported by "Scripture-twisting and wriggling"; their arguments are "cobwebs," and their zeal outstrips their judgment, and they plan to "undermine the Bible."

This is a fearful indictment! Who are these daring, ridiculous, and illogical sinners? As I call them up in my memory, the first one who comes to me is Moses Stuart, of Andover, whose lifelong study of the Bible and profound critical knowledge of both its languages place him easily at the head of all American commentators. His well-balanced mind, corservative to a fault on many points, clears him from any suspicion of being misled by enthusiasm or warping his opinions to suit novel theories. "Moses Stuart's Scripture View of the Wine Question" was the ablest contribution, thirty years ago, to this claim about unfermented wine, and it still holds its place, unanswered and unanswerable. By his side stands Dr. Nott, the head of Union College, with the snows of ninety winters on his brow. Around them gather scores of scholars and divines on both sides of

the Atlantic. In our day Tayler Lewis gives to the American public, with his scholarly endorsement, the exhaustive commentary by Dr. Lees on every text in the Bible which speaks of wine-a work of sound learning, the widest research, and fairest argument.

The ripe scholarship, long study of the Bible, and critical ability of these men entitle them to be considered experts on this question. In a matter of Scripture interpretation it would be empty compliment to say that Dr. Crosby is worthy to loose the latchet of their shoes. You would think me using only sarcasm if I said so.

Now, imagine Moses Stuart, with his "learned ignorance," "using false texts," "dealing dishonestly with the Scriptures," ," "begging a question and using cobwebs for arguments," "wriggling and twisting the Bible"; at the ripe age of sixty years his boyish "zeal outstripping his judgment "imagine him, with his infidel pickaxe, zealously digging away up there on Andover Hill to "undermine the Bible"! Of course all Andover will at once recognize the fidelity of the portrait, and cordially thank the New York Greek professor for informing them of his discovery of this Stuart conspiracy with Dr. Nott to bring the authority of the Scriptures into contempt.

One thing Dr. Crosby wishes to be distinctly understood: he does not charge such men as Stuart with meaning to lie. "Their main arguments are falsehoods. They take up these weapons without sufficiently examining them. They see they can be made effective, but do not stop to enquire whether they are legitimate." Now, this is very kind in our New York professor. We had never discovered the superficial character of Stuart's scholarship, which left him open to such mistakes, or his mischievous haste and culpable carelessness in logical methods, and it is very generous in this new Daniel to assure us that, in spite of these faults, he "l can [with effort, of course, and some struggle] believe in the purity of motive" of such men, even when they “trample on reason and Scripture in blind rush."

Now, the truth is, the only "castle built on air" in this matter is the baseless idea that the temperance movement

uses dishonest arguments or wrests the Scripture because it maintains that where the drinking of wine as an article of diet is mentioned in the Bible with approbation unfermented wine is meant. The fact is, there are scholars of repute on both sides of the question; but we do not claim too much when we say that the weight of scholarly authority is on our side, and not on that of the doctor.

But suppose the weight on each side were equal, what then? One theory makes the Bible contradict itself, puts it below the sacred books of many other nations in the strictness of its morality, and sets it as an obstacle to the highest civilization.

The other reconciles all its teachings one with another, lifts it to the level of the highest moral idea, and makes it the inspirer and the guide in all noble efforts to elevate the race. Which theory ought the believer in the Bible to prefer, if both were equally well supported? Are those who degrade the Bible below other scriptures entitled to charge us with "undermining" it? There are other claims besides that of unfermented wine which are 66 magnificent in their daring" and, let me add, in their insolence.

Some of the doctor's young hearers might have been surprised to see a divine flinging the Bible in the way of the temperance movement. But we older ones and Abolitionists are used to such attempts. Forty-five years ago the Princeton Review, representing the Presbyterian Church, denounced the anti-slavery movement—at a time when Garrison stood surrounded by divines and church-members without number-as infidel and "contrary to revealed religion." Its argument was the exact counterpart of Dr. Crosby's against our temperance enterprise. In vain we showed that the word "slave" in the New Testament did not necessarily or probably mean a chattel slave, and in vain did Weld's "Bible Argument "—which was never answered-prove the same to be true of the Old Testament. Still, we were denounced as "twisting and wresting and straining the Scriptures and undermining the Bible." This Crosby Bible was flung in Garrison's face for thirty years. But since his great hand wrote Righteousness on the flag and sent it down to