The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1846-04-16


He drinks, and His example and inAu
ence encourage Others 10 drink. He
stands, it may be; but they fall. Their
ruin was brought about fundamentally by
wha. he did. Did he no then put a
slumbling~5lock or an occasion to fall in
his brothers. way2" Did no his exam
pie and influence go to bring about the ru-
in OF his brother? Is he not, just so far
as his own habits had an actual influence
in bringing about the catastrophe, guilty
of his brother's blood? He knew that
many of his neighbors were in danger
from the habit of drinking. He knew
this years ago. If he had been kind and
benevolent, as he wishes 10 be considered,
would he not have ceased to encourage
those neighbors in their way to ruin by
his example -? ali he had been be-
nevolent like Paul, would he not have
said-"l If meat make my brother TO offend.
| will eat no flesh while tie world stand
eth, lest | make my brother to offend 2"--
If he had not been self-indulgent and care
less of the fate of others, would he not have
abstained from a practice which he saw
was running them? But, alas !! he was
so selfish and self-wiIled, although he saw
his neighbors falling around him, tina, he
would not give up his habit. He was so
bent or elt-indulgence that he would
CRAFTY his appetite, though by so doing
be encouraged others to go on in the sure
way TO ruin. Can he be considered a
kind mana benevolent man? Not so !:
kindness and benevolencc never "pu; a
slumbling>block or an occasion to fall in
a brothers way" Kindness and benevo-
Iencc would say now, as they did once
say in the example of Paul-"If meat
make my brother 10 offend, | will cat no
flesh while the world standelh, lest | make
my brother 10 offend"
Perhaps the victim is the mans own
son. His own practice and example en>
couraged his 500 to sip at the intoxicating
bowl. The son soon began to sip too
deeply, The father saw it, or he might
have seen it. But although he loved his
son and trembled for his safety, yet he
would not give up his own habit to save
him. He would not turn about and set a
different example though his son should
60 on and perish. Does he no " put a
block or occasion 10 fall" in his
sons way? And is he not accountable
for the fall, just so far as his own example
and influence were the occasion of ii?
Or if not a son, it was a friend or neigh
bor-a brother man. He saw this neigh
Dor in danger. He knew it for days,
months, years beforehand. But he would
not try to influence him by his own ex.
ample OF abstinence. fle would continue
10 eat flesh, although his brother man
should be ruined, Such a man, / say, and
The truth says,-every such man, accord
ing to the amount and extent Of his indu-
ence, "puts a stumbling-block or occasion
10 fall in his brothers way ;" ard God
will hold him accountable, in the great
day o%ftrial, for all The results of his inau-
ence in this matter.
I'd. The man who deals GU. spurious
liquors for others TO drink, or who pro.
vides the means for doing it by furnishing
a house for The purpose, violates the pre-.
cep, oil the text, and "puts a Stumbling
block or occasion 10 fall in his brolber's
way"
Such q man is a tempter of his brother.
He openly and publicly tsmpts his neigh
bors 10 do that which causes them to Of,
fend. He not only furnishes an article
which invariably inhicls a moral and phys
ical injury on all who use it, but he takes
pains 10 do the lays his plans before.
hand-he prepares a public and conspic>
uous place, fits it up for he purpose, makes
it as attractive as he is able, collects the
materials for ntoxication, keeps them al
ways on hand, and spreads them out in
tempting array before all who enter his
house. Is not this "putting a Stumbling.
block or an occasion to fall 10 his brother's
way?" Is il not directly and openly tempt.
ing him to do wrong2 Every man who
sells spurious liquors to be drunk as a
beverage, and every man who furnishes
the facilities for such sales-the house
aod appurtenances for doing it-knows
that he is doing that which infficts an in>
Jury on the nsum He knows, or
might know--for the testimony of the
whole medical faculty shows it, and the
moral sense of every disinterested and So
Der man confirms it--.hat no man can
drink spirituous liquors without injury.
Every glass taken by a person in health,
invariably, to some extent, is both physi~
cally and morally injurious. And yet he
will continue to furnish it and TO spread il
out in tempting array in order to induce
his fellow-men 10 purchase and drink it.
Is no! this tempting men to do wrong O.
Is it not putting a stumbling block or oc-
%casion TO fall in a brothers. way2
| know indeed that the man who sells
spurious liquors, and the man who pro-
vides a house for doing it, have a different
object in view from that Of i%njuring their
fellow They do it for ~pecuniary
profit. Their object is gain. Ii thew