At a late meeting of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, the question of tobacco-using by Christian ministers was discussed on a resolution offered by a layman; and, we are sorry to say, all the speakers (as reported in the Philadelphia Ledger) were in favor of the habit. Rev. Dr. Cathcart “instanced himself as an example that tobacco had not hurt his body.” Rev. J. Wheaton Smith was a smoker, and opposed the resolution condemning it. Rev. Mr. Cathcart further stated that “tobacco had its uses, and if any one did not like to come near him they could stay away. If he wished to make a man liberal, before asking him to contribute to a cause which he might represent, he would first hand him a cigar.” Verily, tobacco has its uses. But we cannot believe that narcotizing or intoxicating a man with tobacco to make him liberal is one of them. It seems to us like a clear abuse of that mandate which declares that we shall not do evil that good may come. True, if any one does not like the breath or smell of Mr. C. he can keep away from him; but has a Christian minister a right to make himself such a nuisance that noses polite cannot approach him? Some years ago the fashion was introduced, on the occasion of the semi-annual trade-sales in New York, of banqueting the purchasers with luxurious eatables well seasoned with champagne; and the auctioneer thought his customers would buy more liberally after being well feasted and drinked. And now the real-estate dealers, when they auctioneer their city lots in the country, are imitating this liberalizing example. They advertise a free ride and a splendid banquet as among the inducements held out to purchasers. So that “oysters and champagne” have their uses, but we think this use of them is more devilish than Christian or human.—Sel.