Litchfield enquirer., 1833-04-11
HEAR BOTH SIDES:
 . p.r SamueI PeEton. of Cl0rkStOaO'' Rock Dy A'''' kznd Co.,, ". Y.
(CoNcLU 0ED.)


 r.d cenroyed his ancient church for .:..,d, he says" for she did not know I"SIG her corn and sCine and oil, Sc.- ma. s como of his church desPise the gift 1: .."ot ii with contempt, and call the al- Iney ,.b;ch inc Creator put into it, poison. S" S"nO oven deny that God did create the al- nohnI. hut it seems that the Creator h'mseIt th;nLs otherwise, for in these two last scrip tares. he says that he made the "'ne W"'ch oor,a;n. the alcohol, the distiIler only extracts # thpn it is called brandy. FactS shew us .L,+ ;t ;s an established law in the kingdom 'snad .'% and earth. that the juice of the grape. tt .t. .nd some other vegetables, shall ."e L',pp "rp aicnhol. So God the Creator has f"d f. and none can alter it: The farmer "nnnot nreserye these juices sweet if he tries thn alcohol will be formed within them. If son,a of our wise men of the present age had hoen the Creator, or his counsellor, Gudging from their language) they would have fixed if otherwise; they would not have put this useless. cursed alcohol into these juices, but let them remain sweet; or iii was really ne- cessarv to make it for medicine, they would have made it as disagreeabIe as salts or rhu- harb. But think l hear voice behind me, sovinr. shaNmortai man be more just than God? .SRal q man De more pure than his Maker
 We have already seen the language of Je- heyah in the Old Testament, to his ancient church, on this subject. And what we have seen is only sample of the rest, for from one end of the bible to the other, when the Lord promised blessing to his people, it was al most always accompanied with a promise of spine-that was an intoxicating liquor, it intox- icated Noah, and Lot, and all the dr3nk0rds Of Ephrain,. against whom the woe was an- nounced: and which Israel said would red den the eyes of Judah; as the brandy does the eyes of the Americans, who use it to ex- cess. And also, when the Lord threatened his people with curse, he almost always threat ened to remove the wine. Every person who has every read the sacred Scriptures with at tention, must be sensible of these facts. But many now say, to remove the intoxicating liquor would be no curse at alI-itis what we are trying to do for blessing to nankind.- But you perceive that they and the infinitely wise and benevolent Creator do differ in their opinions.
 Besides, if the Lord gave this alcoholic drink to his people for blessing, making it pleasant to the taste, and in his word allowing them to use if. who dare to assert that it is poison, indicating that the Creator intended it as an instrument to ensnare and destroy his
 
 One of Israel of such deceit! Yet much of the language of our day presents this infer ence as plain as the light. Drunkenness is great evil in the sight of God, but we think it small when compared with this. for one wish to be excused from having any hand in prcferring such charge against the Creator; however much it may accord with the spirit of the age.
 Bullet us turn to the New-T Testament, if the Lord has ever reversed this law which tole- rates the use of wine it must be there or not at all. But so far from being reversed, we read that Christ says of himself, '' the Son of.man came eating and drinking, and they say, behold man gluttonous and wine bib Der, friend of publcans and sinners." q hope you will not call me so for my senti- ment.)
 We find also that Jesus turned the water into wine at the wedding. and ordered it to be given to the guests, among whom were his disciples. This was good wine. such it was pronounced to be by judges, and like other wine, it would intoxicate if taken to excess.
 Some temperate society people, when they find that the bible presents them with no sui fcient proof for this new commandment, they try to infer it from the la,p O. iove but here would inquire if the Saviour transgressed that law when he gave this alcoholic drink to his disciples or did the Creator love the heathen more than he did his own people, to whom he gave the wine, and left the heather withoutit? Such questions might be multi piled.
 But again; some are always condemning and censuring those who manufacture or vend ardent spirits: nov 1 ask. how much better did the Saviour act on this occasion thar they :? Here he first creates an intoxicatine liquor, and then orders it to be given to oth CTS for them to drink. They were all it health. would inquire further, if all thi wine had not been used on that occasion. Gan, it is almost certain that it was not) and was af terwards sold to some person who got as drun) with it as Lot did, and acted as wickedly would the Lord Jesus, who made the wine have been as guilty as he would he hay been accessary to the evil, because he mad the, wine with which the iniquhy was com mitted? According to the logic of our day, h would; for he was both manufacturer ar vendor of this alcoholic, into xicaiing liquor.- But the truth is, God had given wine to me for a blessing; Jesus Christ, in this act, ac knowledges it as such and he had also giy en law to regulate the conduct of men in tn use of 1t, which law says "be not drunk witt wine wherein is excess" Ifany man break that law, he must answer for it before God the same as he will for any other excess,- But were they drunk when they drank a m in toxicating liquor in moderation (as some no,
 A IA Il