Year: 1874

cell (Catholic) of Cincinnati. in opposi-

 tion to total abstinence He speaks of

 himself in the third person throuehout.

 and says he has practiced total abstinence

 for years, with view of setting good

 example:

 But the Archbishop cannot go to the

 excess suggested by some of the Lady

 League. He cannot instruct or preach

 that 1t IS sin for day laborer who has

 to carry the hod on g broiling hot day in

 July or August, mp steep ladder to the

 third or fourth story of building to re-

 store his exhausted strength by glass or

 two of beer. This he would consider cru

 el. If the toiler has the physical endur-

 ance and the will to do without the bev-

 craze. in the name of God let him do it,

 and If ne cannot take this refreshment

 without drinking to excess, let him ab-

 stain altogether, or quit hard work, or

 die, for 1t Is better so than to be drunk

 ard Again, the Archbishop cannot ask

 a clergyman to blaspheme the Divine au-

 thor of our religion by asking why he

 made wine at Cana in Galilee, to recreate

 guests at wedding; why he instituted

 the eucharist, the Lords Supper, partly

 in wine, of which he commanded the Apostles to drink; why Jehovah's holy

 spirit teaches us in the Bitle that God

 made wine to cheer the heart of man

 (Psalms, civ, l5), and the vine asks why 1t should desert its wine that cheereth

 God and men Judges. ix., 13). Why did

 the dying patriarch, under the influence

 of divine inspiration, wish his son abun- dance of wine? Why again does the Holy Ghost tell us that it is hurtful always to drink water or wine, but to mix them is pleasant, or sometimes to drink one and sometimes the other? GIT. Maccabees, last verse of the Old Testament) But God, they obj ect. did not make the wine.

 We have shown that he did not make it. Neither did he make the bread, except in the miracle of the loaves in the desert. But He made the grape and the wheat from which wine and bread are made, the one by process not much simpler than the other. Catholics then go to the Bible and they understand 1t; and, with the blessed book before them, we cannot with bell, book, and candle, with praying and psalm-singing in the mud, excommunicate those who drink or those who dispense the liquid which God has made to be used with moderation and thanksgiving This then is the verdict of the Word of God, Use; do not abuse; and if you can- not use without abusing, use not at all.

 It will be observed that the bishop speaks of Maccabees as inspired. Cath olics hold the Apocrypha to be canonical. In conclusion, the Archbishop declares in favor of license with heavy fees rather than prohibition. By strict and severe license laws he thinks vile baryrooms where bad liquor is sold could be closed.

 The view taken by Bishop Purcell is substantially that of Dr. Crosby of the Fourth AH Presbyterian church New York. In sermon preached on Sunday of last week from the text, ''Let your moderation be known unto all men," he says:

 My purpose, said he, this morning is to inquire as to Christian study in view of the prevailing sin of drunkenness I need not enlarge upon the sin itself. It be- longs to the category of the grossest de- pravity, and it's results in the ruin of health, character, estate, home and all that is fair and hopeful for this life and the life to come, cannot be exaggerated. I am often afraid that the deep guilt of the drunkard is not sufficiently appreciat- ed by many Christians who are wont to exercise toward him pity rather than in- and thus suggest to him that his drunkenness, is rather @ misfortune than a sin. It is true that we are to pity every sinner and tenderly seek his saliva tion; but this is perfectly consistent with an unyielding testimony to the heinous- ness of his sin. Now it is too often the case that while we fail not to pronounce our condemnation of the liar, the robber and the murderer, We use a different lan- guage to the drunkard and speak of him as victim of misfortune, while we save all our reproaches for the man who furn- ished him with the materials for his crime. This is an error that directly confirms the drunkard in his vicious course The man who willingly furnishes drunkard is bad enough to please Satan, but his wicked ness detracts nothing from the crime of the drunkard. We have no more right to con- done his crime and say ''the poor drunk ard' than we have to say ''the poor rob- Der, ''the poor adulterer," "the poor mur- derer." He is equally criminal, and our pity should be equally given to all in our desire to recover them from their wicked ness and misery, and our firm condemna. tion should be equally expressed against all in the exercise of the same desire. Here find the Christians frs: duty with regard to this prevailing sin-a clear, firm of and mitigation against the sin itself. We have seen how this testi- mony is often weakened, or even entirely conducted off by our attention to the sell CT of the liquor. Another way in which we weaken or even nullify this testimony against the sin of drunkenness Is by lay ing the blame on those who never drink to excess and who are as careful to avoid drunkeness as they are to avoid robbery. Whether the moderate thinker Is skinner, because he is moderate thinker, we shall endeavor to ascertain little later in our discussion. But certainly he is not a drunkard, and we ought not to let our in- dignation against drunkenness fall on one who is not drunkard. If he is guilty of a crime let us fasten that crime upon him and hold him responsible, but let not this due attention to the moderate drinker dis sipated our proper testimony against the drunkard. This is the only point am making now that we as Christians owe it as our duty to proclaim always and in all cases that the drunkard IS, as such, he inous sinner before God. We are to al- low no side issues to weaken this testi- mony. Thousands of prospective drunk ards would be preserved from their fearful career if they knew that the drunkard was ranked with the murderer in the est,ma- tion of the community. Instead of this, they think now that if they should be- come drunkards they will be pitied and cuddled as maltreated victims of society, while the rumseller and the moderate drinkers will get all the castigation.

 Our second Christian duty grows out of the first. We should see to it that the strength of the law should fall upon the crime. We should strive to have a simple and clearly understood law against the drunkard as against the thief. The drunkard should be seized by the officers of the law and punished. Now we put him in an asylum, and that only when The is willing togol The penitentiary for the thief and the free asylum for the drunk ard. Why this difference? Are they not equally willful sinners against the com munity. Which does the most harm to khn