Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1869-04-09
TinE SMALL SINS CONTROVERSY.

Dcdr Dir 81 feel greatly aversc 70
personal newspaper controversy, especial.
with clergyman toward whom | have hac
and now have none but the most iricndl,
feelings. Indeed, from the fact that you
| communication in last weeks Btu LETI'
practically substantiatcs the impression o
your views received while listening TO you
sermon Of the 18th ul,, and to which fel
in duty bound to refer in my brief article OF
"Small Sins,' l have been in doubt whe,h
er it we're not better to pass your letter b,
without notice. Nevertheless, since you cal
in question the correctness Of my report O
your teachings, as | believe unjustly, my
natural pride in my late position as a new.
reporter, induces me 10 call attention 10 ap'
parent discrepancies in your open letter Il
myself, as well as to certain other opinions
preached by you in your sermon of the l4tl
ult., in order that this matter may be more
thoroughly understood and set forth.
Let me say at the outset, however that ]
am at loss 10 know whysifyou were realty
misrepresented, you did not send me sim
pie note Of correction, while was in con.
troll of the parcv. I would gladly have pub.
lished your disclaimer AND thank fully have
stated that you did not mean what was un>
dsrstood BY your audience to have been in
substance expressed by you in your sermon.
Your failure to adopt this frank and sensible
course could no, possibly have arisen from
ignorance on your part that you were the
clergyman referred to in my article on
Small Sins" for the selfevident reason
that you would not have read the article from
your pulpit, on the 2lst ult., only two days
after its appearance in the BULLETIN, and
have gone into an elaborate srgumen. in de.
Tense or explaaation Of yourself, even to the
reading of extracts from the very sermon res
ferred to, had you not been certain that you
were the man and yours the sermon. II is
little singular, to shy the least that after
having given such iudubitabIs proof that
you kMesc yourself TO be Che clergyman re-
ferred to, You should at later date write .
note for publication in which You fegn ig>
uoraucc Of that fact. What is still more
singular, is yo1r evident desire In your letter
published last week, to convey the Impress
ion that you had only just become satisfied
that you we're the clergyman 70 whom refer
ence was msdeyand that you had arrived u
that conclusion. not from any self,consciopS.
ness, but through private information. You
say, Gas there is no longer doubt that /
am the preacher referred to 10 your recent
article on "SmAll SINS" | have private and
unsought information to this efiect,) | wish
to Offer" &c. The article appeared on the
10th ult.; you read the article from your
pulpit and endeavsred to explain yourself, on
the 2lst. On the 22d you write note for
publication in which you feign ignorance !;
after its publication, on the 2Gth, you write
me an open letter in which you are just re>
lieved Of doubt (throush private iniorma>
tom that You were referred to. How hasty
to take it all toayosrself in your pulpit, on
the second day after it appeared in the pa
peri In the worlds people such confusion
Of dates would be ascribed to dissimulation /;
in yourself, / can only ascribe i, to too great
exctability Of temperament.
AT the opening Of your last weeks letter,
you see to be unwilling 10 be sepresest.
ed as expressed in the article on Small
Sins,' because, as you say, you do not be>
leve in that way; while at the close you say,
Undoubtedly your views and mine on this
question do not sgfee"1 Very veil, my pos
sition was most emphatic that even a mode.
rate indulgence in drinking liquors rs a ley>
GRACE was sinful, and that II was not its -ex.
cess alone that made it sinful. If you differ
from me. as you say, do you not at once beg
the whole question, and admit all that |
charged, Notwithstanding you declare 1t in
another place, aexious sentiment" and
one which twill bear reputation" You
! certainly could not have had reference to any
difference of sentiment with regard TO le-
gal prohibition, for that question has not
been alluded to by either Of us.
So far as your explanation is concerned,
il is merely technical. Had used tie word
vicious. instsad.a( = sinful il would have
conveyed practically che same idea, and you
would have been letl without even play up
on words for an explanation of you mean
ing. Words are merely heyehicles Of IDEAS.
The preacher is responsible for the Impress
ions made by the use of words. and not for
the words themselves. lfhe il so unf0rtu>
nate as not to be able to impart his ideas in
Q manner not to be misunderstood, he is
nevertheless accountable for the impressions
actually made. The western mind especially
, is not given to extensive pathological lnyesti.
cations, nor TO metaphysical Distinctions be-
tween words. 1t is not strange, then, that
your audience Of the 18th nit, so far at least
Ms have been able to learns received the
impression which ] expressed by using the
word sinful and you the word "vicious :"
IA distraction without practical differ
ence. ! felt, sir, a did othera, that when
you declared that "the- act of drinking is
not vicious Of itsslf-it becomes vicious only
when of certain degree" you we're putting
light stress upon the moral turpituds Of mods
crate drinking. II il possible this impress>
ion may have been somewhat intensified by
your advocacy Of license end condemnation
prohibitory laws, in the same sermon. When
you proposed to legalize crime by licensing
il, it was put natural that the crime should
be made 10 appear as lightly - possible.
felt that practically your teacbings were eal>
culated to encourage moderate drinking F;
that those Of your audience accustomed 10
| drinking went away from your sermon far
better pleased than those who have the tenn
parance cause closely At heart. Indeed, II
was only, day otsSo sler youtsssMon had
been delivered that young man, in excuse
for drinking, said, in substance, "Well, l be.
lieve as Nc. Mills does, that there Is nothing
wrong in ticking . glass now and then"
That young mans moral control orer his ap.
petitcs had been teartatiy reakened By ne
endorsement he considered himself to hare
received from a clergyman. 1t was under
such circumstances that wrote the article
on " Small Sins.' felt that for the frst
time in the history Of Independence, the
moral force Of q christian pulpit had-how>
ever unintentionall y--been brought to the
support Of moderate drinking. IL 10 true
you earnestly adrised your auditors to abs
stain totally from the use Of all liquors rs
beverages, on the ground of dangerous re.
suits aud the public welfare; but when you
used such language as seemed to lessen the
moral turpituds! Of moderate drinking, you
brushed away 1t one sweep the strongest
safeguard of our our youth.
Sir, feel intensely on this subject. For
number Of years have had to deal direct.
" and indirectly with sthh'giant esti IN Dor
midst, and have learned that when We give
King Alcohol one inch, We must give him
the whole; that the only possible way 10 deal
eifectually with this most dangerous Of en-
Elements is to speak and act radically and
"a ...1.