the country, and for a ward or part of a ward, in Boston. These members should agree to prosecute all offenders in the particulars abovementioned, within the limits assigned them, the expenses attending such prosecutions to be defrayed from the funds of the society, and any fines received by the prosecutors to be for the use of the society. We believe that there is virtue enough in the community to support and encourage any attempts of this kind. The labor on any individual would not be very oppressive, especially if proper exertions were made to secure a sufficient number of members for such associations.

Another means of checking intemperance by increasing the price of spirits, which is often spoken of, is laying an excise duty on all spirits of domestic manufacture. We are aware that many persons of great respectability believe this will have no tendency to produce the desired effect, unless the duty be enormously high, and that a very high duty would encourage the illicit manufacture of the article. We allow that an excessive duty ought not to be laid, because it might have this consequence; but we still think that a moderate one would produce a beneficial effect, and however small this effect may be, still it is desirable. It ought besides to be recollected that the duty paid on a gallon of whiskey, will increase the price of the article at retail more than the amount of the duty; for the distiller must have his profit upon the excise as well as upon every other part of the cost of production, and every other hand through which the article passes to the consumer, must receive a like profit. But that a duty, however slight, will effectually diminish the quantity of the article consumed, will not be doubted by those who have observed the immediate and decided reduction of consumption, in articles of general use, which often takes place, as soon as the duty upon them is raised, however slightly. The barometer shows the pressure of the atmosphere scarcely more instantaneously and certainly, than consumption does the pressure of taxation. It is true that where the tax is light, there may be few people who would be unable to use the same quantity of the taxed article which they had done previously. But the increased price of any article of general consumption, always induces people to economize in it, while a low price renders them lavish in its use. It has often happened in Great Britain, that when the duty on an article was increased, not only was there less of that article consumed, but a less quantity of money was spent upon it than there was before the increase of duty; and that a reduction of the duty has produced an increased revenue, partly, no doubt, in consequence of the check given to smug

gling by diminishing its profits, but probably in a great degree from increased consumption.

It will no doubt be said, that this is an odious tax, and will not be endured; that we should yield to the prejudices of the people, and not resist them. But we cannot acquiesce in this reasoning. It is the duty of every enlightened legislature to protect the people from their own ignorance and folly, to resist the current of popular feeling. It is not for Congress to inquire whether all classes of people will be pleased to have an excise on spirits, whether the distillers and drinkers of rum and whiskey will be the advocates of such a measure; but merely whether it can be carried into operation so as to promote the public welfare. The experiment has been twice tried, and both times successfully. In 1791 a statute was passed laying a duty on spirits distilled in the United States. These excise duties, modified by various statutes, were levied until 1802, when all the statutes on the subject were repealed. In 1813 an act was passed for laying duties on licenses to distil spirituous liquors, in proportion to the capacity of the still; and at the end of 1814, a duty of twenty cents a gallon was laid on all spirits distilled in the United States, in addition to the duty on licenses. These duties ceased at the end of the year 1817.*

It is much to be regretted that these acts have been repealed, it is so difficult to pass any new laws on such a subject, and to put a new system in operation. Even those who are doubtful whether any excise on ardent spirits will produce the good moral effect which is expected, would, we should think, be in favor of introducing it, that the experiment may be fairly tried. There surely can be no more suitable object of taxation for the sake of revenue than ardent spirits. They are a luxury, and a luxury of the worst kind. The large revenue, which can unquestionably be raised from this duty, without injury or inconvenience, should be decisive in its favor.

It is however said, with great seriousness and by men in high station, that domestic spirits ought not to be taxed, because it

*Our limits do not permit us to give a full statement of all the statutes on this subject passed by the United States. The duties by the statute of 1791 varied from nine to thirty cents a gallon, according to the proof, and their being distilled from domestic or foreign materials. In 1792, by a new act, the duties were made from seven to twenty five cents a gallon. By the act of 1814 the duty paid for licenses for stills employed on domestic materials, was $1,08 a year, which in 1816 was raised to $2,16, for each gallon of the capacity of the still, and for those employed on foreign materials $1,35, which in 1816 was raised to $2,70. The duty was proportionally higher for shorter periods. A particular account of these statutes, and of the revenues raised by them, may be found in Seybert's Statistics, p. 455 to 464.

would discourage national industry and injure the agricultural interest. As if the pecuniary interest of one part of the community, was to be weighed against the lives and morals of another part! As if the manufacture of poison was to be encouraged for the benefit of agriculture!

We might enlarge on the subject before us, but we have already trespassed beyond the limits we had at first assigned to ourselves. That the great efforts which have been made, and are still making, throughout our country, to promote temperance, will produce a deep and lasting good impression, seems to us certain. To those, however, who feel doubtful of success in this cause, we recommend the following extract from the last of Mr Palfrey's Discourses.

"In presuming to suggest remedies, my friends, I have by no means overlooked or underrated the difficulties of the case. But I also remember, that difficulties are the instituted occasion in the order of Providence for calling out great wisdom and vigor. I call to mind words of the president of that society to which I have referred as successfully labouring in this cause; a great and good man, whose devotions were used to ascend here with yours for a divine blessing on all good counsels and all just works, and whose heart, I doubt not, was often warmed with yours by the breathings of love to God and man, which then fell here from most persuasive lips. He had this cause much at heart. His large and earnest mind counted the obstacles, but it was the better to meet them. "As the object is good," said he, "so it is practicable." I love to repeat that saying. The object is good; therefore it is practicable. It is an enterprise against that which is, by eminence, the misfortune, the danger of our beloved country; the blot on the fair works of God among us; the weapon of the prince of darkness. It has a right then to the services of every prudent man, every patriotic citizen, every disciple of Christ; and it asks the benefit of no other services than those, effectually to maintain itself. I desire more and more to realize, for it is a truth which all religion establishes, and all future experience is to seal, that under the government of a God who hath pleasure in righteousness and favor for its toils, single minded men need no other omen for the conquest, in due time, over any difficulties, than the omen of A GOOD CAUSE.' pp. 109-111.

We hope hereafter to discuss some other topics connected with the subject that we have been considering, which will give us an opportunity to notice other important publications respecting intemperance, besides those named at the head of this article.

*The late Honorable Samuel Dexter.'

ART. VIII.-1. The Future Punishment of Infants not a Doctrine of Calvinism; 2. The Future Punishment of Infants never a Doctrine of the Calvinistic Churches; 3. On the Future State of Infants ;-three Letters addressed To the Editor of the Christian Examiner, and published in The Spirit of the Pilgrims' for January, February, and March. By the Rev. LYMAN BEECHER, D. D. Boston. Pierce & Williams. 1828. 8vo. pp. 43.

Now

In our number for September and October last we published an article upon a note of Dr Beecher's respecting the Calvinistic doctrine of infant damnation, to which he has in these Letters attempted an answer. In the article before me,' he tells us, I seem to the writer to have made statements, which put me out of the pale of reputable controversy, and which if not done ignorantly, must leave a deep stain upon my character.' We are glad to find one sentence of his, in which he has neither perverted our meaning, nor misconceived what may be the issue of this discussion. But the exception in favor of his ignorance, which we made at first, we cannot in conscience make now. Indeed, we are disposed to think we were wrong to make it at all. In that note he accused us, and all, who charge upon Calvinism and approved Calvinistic writers the monstrous doctrine that infants are damned,' of propagating a slander-a bearing of false witness against neighbours. if Dr Beecher did not know, that such writers nevertheless do expressly maintain that doctrine, and defend it as an essential part of the Calvinistic system, his bold accusation of those better informed, accompanied with an acknowledgement that he had not examined the point, might admit of some apology. What strikes our own minds as 'monstrous,' it is very hard to believe an appear in a totally different light to those with whom we are conversant;' and a zeal for the honor of one's intimates, in itself so commendable, might find pardon for a few hasty words intended to relieve them of a false and injurious imputation. But when irresistible evidence that the imputation is just, may be had for the asking; when, to come directly to the case before us, Dr Beecher had only to turn over a few standard Calvinistic authors to be satisfied, on their own testimony, that they have not, as he imprudently asserts, been misrepresented, holding expressly that infants, dying without actual transgression, are yet damned to all eternity for their original sin-in such circumstances to call names, and that too

with a great show of deliberation, and a great parade of competency to speak authoritatively on the subject, is utterly unpardonable. Ignorance, instead of an excuse, becomes, in such case, a chief part of the crime. Unknowingly to make a false statement, and to attack the reputation of others on the pretence of accurate and laboriously collected evidence of its truth, when no such evidence is produced or even exists, in our estimation differs but little, in point of moral character, from denying what we know to be true.

Still, the papers before us require at our hands some kind of attention. The author's palpable attempts to evade the question at issue by a frequent and fretful shifting of positions, his suppressing of passages or clauses material to a just representation of the real sentiments of the writer he is quoting, his lofty pretensions to extensive reading in theology unsupported by the least evidence of learning, and, above all, the unblushing dogmatism that throughout characterizes these extraordinary productions, these things, though sure to find their just estimation with such as are accustomed to abstract reasonings, or are possessed of the scantiest share of theological knowledge, may yet impose upon the ill informed, and lead them to conclusions essentially false and mischievous. Bold assertions, even against the evidence of notorious facts, especially if made by a minister of Christ, are, by their very boldness, well fitted to silence doubts and prevent investigation. The office of the man carries with it something of the holiness and authority of the Teacher sent from God whose servant he professes to be, and that often too readily passes for true, which all are prompt to say, ought not to be false. With this apology-for we think an apology necessary-we shall occupy as few pages as possible with a reply to these writings, out of the pale of reputable controversy though the writer has put himself, and seems inclined, should his statements prove to be false, to admit himself to be.

The Letters present us with so many matters irrelevant to the subject they presume to discuss, that it is necessary to settle clearly at the outset, what is the precise point in dispute. The history of the case is this. In 1808 Mr Beecher delivered a sermon on the Government of God, in which he incidentally combatted the doctrine of Calvin and his followers, that the number of the saved bears a small proportion to that of the damned; a doctrine, which has always been matter of reproach to his party, and from the odium of which it is very natural that such as suffer themselves to be called Calvinists,