exhausted fron the water-pots that it was so. We have evidence in all this of consistency, an under current of coherency, that demonstrates it was not a fiction, but an actual transaction-a fact. To indicate still more the force of the miracle, I may mention, that if our Lord had created the wine in the wine-bottles that had been exhausted, they would have said, "It is not new wine, but it is the old wine, which escaped our observation." Or if he had told them to pour water into the vessels that had been emptied of wine, and had then changed it, the guests would have said, "It is only water flavoured by the remains of the wine that was in the vessels previously." But here were the servants who took the water-jars, and poured water into them, and knew that it was water; in fact, that the vessels were not used for holding wine at all, and therefore there could be no deception. It is added, too, in a subsequent part of the miracle, that the servants who drew the water knew whence it came; they poured it into the jars, they saw that it was water, and that nothing but water was there. Thus, there was such a preparation as must have incontestably demonstrated the reality of the miracle performed. If our Lord had told them to bring jars from a distance, and place them there, it might have been said that it was by some sleight of hand, or by some preconcerted arrangement; but the jars were there as was usual at every Jewish festival, and he bade the servants fill them with water, that there might be no possibility of mistake; he then spake the word, and the water was turned into wine.

Let me notice the remark of the governor of the feast. "When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was, (but the servants which drew the water knew,) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every

man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." Many Christians have been perplexed by the expression "when men have well drunk,” as if it meant drinking to excess at a festival consecrated by the Saviour's presence. It really means. no such thing. It does not describe what took place at the festival; the governor of the feast does not speak of the company over which he presided, but he describes what is the common practice at the common festivals of worldly men, where they present the best wine first, and after the taste has been blunted by drinking a sufficient quantity of it, the inferior wine is introduced, and from their blunted. taste they are unable to appreciate the difference. The governor of the feast makes the remark, not the Saviour; and he does not describe what took place under his eyes, but what usually and notoriously took place among others; therefore there need be no misapprehension of the morality of the miracle, as if it implied that our Lord sanctioned by his presence (which he did not, and which no remark made by any one concerned in the miracle can in the least indicate) drinking to excess.

But it has been objected by one of the German infidels, that our Lord did not show a deep sense of the danger of wine when he created at this feast so excessive a quantity -some hundred gallons-by an act of omnipotent power. Would not this objection apply to every vintage? If God gives a plenteous vintage, you would not say, This is a temptation to men to drink to excess. There was no more temptation to drink to excess from his filling many large water-jars, than in his being pleased to give the sunbeams. and rain-drops that make an abundant vintage. The secret of temperance is not in the cellar, but in the heart of the landlord of the wine-cellar. A Christian man will not

become intoxicated if he drinks from a cask; a drunkard I will become intoxicated if he drinks from a bottle. It is not in the quantity before you that the element of temperance is, but in the grace of God that has been planted. in your hearts. Now it does seem to me, without the least expression of disrespect toward those who differ from me, that if God had designed that men should be universally what is called teetotal-that is, should not taste wine, or any thing that has the least alcoholic element in it-he would have prohibited the growth of the vine, and rendered fermentation absolutely impossible; because if there were no fermentation there could be no alcoholic element generated. But he has not done so; he does give the vintage, and he does give the fruit of the vine; he has created fermentation just as truly as he has created vegetation; therefore it seems to me that temperance is to arise, not from the absence of wine, but from the presence of Christian principles; and that we are to be sober because it is a Christian duty, and not by insulation from all the elements for being the reverse. It does appear to me that character is perfected, not by being placed beyond the reach of temptation, but by being placed within the reach of it, and there gloriously triumphing by the grace of God over all its suggestions and its temptations.

It is remarkable (and I submit it to those who differ from me) that our Lord ministered not to supply, as you perceive, a necessity, but to add an enjoyment. I admit teetotalism has done much good, and I recognise the perfect liberty of every man to adopt it who is satisfied that it will do good. I would not say one word against the Teetotal Society, because they have done good, and I pray that they may do more: but while they claim the liberty of holding their sentiments, I must not shrink from the duty of expounding what is plainly God's word. Most of

the letters of complaint I receive are upon three great topics, first, capital punishment; secondly, teetotalism; and thirdly, war. I candidly say, that if I could, by a wish, substitute the arbitration of peace for the unsheathing of the sword, I would do it; but it is not what we would like, but what we are driven to tolerate and to have. So in reference to drunkenness. If I could, I would make every man sober; but my prescription, if you will allow it, is not a mechanical change, but a moral revolution in the unregenerate and unsanctified heart. "But there is danger," you say, "in wine." So there is, and there is danger in other things; there is danger in tampering with the word of God; there is danger in reading the Bible in the light of teetotalism, instead of reading teetotalism in the light of the Bible; for we may depend upon it, whenever a man begins to adopt another mode of life than that which the Saviour gave, he soon begins to adopt another rule of faith than that which the Bible affords. Let us, therefore, be jealous of the glory of God; and let us not shrink from faithfully expounding what seems to be the mind and spirit of God. And so I may speak with reference to capital punishments, on which subject I receive many remonstrances. I say I abhor them, I shrink from them, I wish society could do without them; but I cannot conceal from myself plain facts, and I may reply to some of the notes I receive by alluding to them:-It is said that the stronghold of all that advocate capital punishments (remember, I do not advocate them, I deplore the deep and terrible necessity for them) is in the text, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." I made the remark that arose from the chapter in which the text occurs, that here is distinct permission, at least, to the civil magistrate to put to death the murderer. I said this was not the Levitical law, because it was given

before the law of Levi was in existence. The objection of one correspondent is this-that God did not take away Cain's life when Cain committed murder. I answer: Perfectly true; but what God does in his sovereignty is one thing, and what God enjoins in his word upon us is quite a different thing. God ever tries the mildest means before he has recourse to more terrible ones. Well, he tried the mild means; he desired it to be seen if sparing the murderer would put an end to murder. And what took place? At the end of two thousand years, the earth was filled with "violence," a word that means murder, cruelty, rage; and then God enacted a severer law, that is, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." I cannot get over this. It is not my prejudices that influence me. I feel I am here the interpreter of that word, the glory, the perfection, the beauty of which shine forth. more and more. I must bring all my likes and dislikes, all my preferences and prejudices, to God's law and to God's testimony: I dare not say what is not here, I will not shrink from saying what is here. A few have left my congregation because I will not be a teetotaler. I have no liking to wine; I can do without it as freely as any of you; but what my Lord consecrated by tasting, I will not pronounce unholy; what he has set a precedent of using, I too feel that I may use in moderation; and thus I teach, whether you like it or dislike it. I am placed in this pulpit, not to preach to your prejudices, or to echo your opinions, but to proclaim, as responsible at the judgmentbar of God, what is true, and that, by God's grace, I am determined to persevere in doing.

I therefore gather from this passage-to return to the subject before us-that wine is lawful, that it is not unholy; that the temperate use of it is legitimate; that its employment as a medicine is right. I have tried the teetotal