The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-02-11
For the Central Presbyterian
Can Members of the Church be
DiSciplined for Iiuuor-S

Disciplined for Liquor-Selling?
1t is evident that the question. as thus
stated, can not be satisfactorily answered
either In the affirmative or the negative.
Not In the affirmative, for all moderate
men admit that there is legitimate traf-
nc IN ardent spirits-legtimate we mean.
by the law of God as we'll as the law of
man. Neither can it be answered in the
negative, for all reasonable men will adj
NIT that liquor-selling may be done in
SUCH circumstances as to bring down upon
the seller the vengeance of the civil power:
and IT the vengeance of the civil power
then certainly the censures of the eccle
slastical since the Church cannot be con-
sldered less solicitous for the peace and
order OF the community, than the State
to say nothing of the Church as a witness
for the truth and holiness of God. or as
an institute for the promotion of holiness,
and the prevention of sin amongst men.
1t Is plain that if liquor selling be in
itself lawful, 1t can only become unlawful
by reason of circumstances that attend it
and hence 1T Is equally plain that no law
of the Church can define the cases in
which the traffic becomes unlawful, and
so clearly so, as to require the courts hay
ing jurisdiction to discipline the offenders.
1t is obliged to be left to these courts to
Judge Of these circumstances under their
responsibility to God and to the Church.
Such was the judgment of the Synod of
Virginia at its late sessions in Danville.
The following are the resolutions of the
Synod
Resolved, That while the retailing of
ardent spirits cannot in itself and in all
circumstances be pronounced sin, and
therefore a disqualification for commun-
ion in the Church, yet the Synod is deep
ly impressed with the growing magnitude
and enormity of the sin of intemperance.
and judges this traffic to be one from
which all our members ought from mo-
tives of Christian charity to abstain. as
expressed by the Apostle in Romans xiv.
q, and in l Cor viii 49,"
And, further, the Synod Judges that
there are circumstances attending this
traffic in many instances which Justify
the courts of original jurisdiction in de
barring offenders from the communion of
the Church. printed Minutes, %. BOY
But it may be asked-can the Church.
by It's regulations, change the nature of
things, and make that sinful which in its
own nature is not sinful? We answer,
certainly not But an act or habit of
acting which is morally Indifferent.
that is, neither good nor bad morally
may become bad by the manner in which
the act is done or the habit of acting is
exercised, or by the known consequences
which follow. For instance, after the
Christian dispensation was fully set up.
and circumcision was abolished, and bar
tism was instituted in its place as the in
itiating seal of the Abrahamic covenant
circumcision became an Indifferent GER
emony. Hence we find Paul, apparently
at nobodys suggestion but his own, tax
ing Timothy and circumcising him
Again, we find the same Paul, when
urged to circumcise Titus, refusing to do
SO, and refusing emphatically and indig-
nantly, as if to do it would involve a
great sin, Comp. Acts xvi: 3; Gal. ii:
$50 We find the same Paul defending
the liberty of Christians in regard to eat
ing (Rom. xiv: 2, IL Cor viii 8; K:
25), and yet delivers to the churches
Acts xvi: A. to be kept the decree of
the Council OF Jerusalem which restricts
the liberty of eating. How are these APP
parent Inconsistencies to be accounted
for? By difference in circumstances.
" Circumstances alter cases. When cir
cumcision was designed only to remove
prejudices it was lawful when it in
volved the sacrifice of any great principle
of truth and righteousness, then it must
be firmly resisted When Christians
could eat things which had been sacri-
feed to idols, without giving offence,
without causing scandal, without laying
a stumbling-block in the way of broth
er, then it was lawful When they could
not eat without breaking the law of char
ity and destroying those for whom
Christ died, then it was sin. Charity
rejoices over liberty; and liberty which
is used against charity is no longer lib
erty but license.
A case Of hquor-selling which does not
offend against charity may be easily i'm
agined. But there can be no doubt that
the retail-trade as commonly practised is
Of a wholly different sort "The LIQUID
fire and distilled damnation is dealt out.
by the glass to old and young, to the
drunkard and to him who is only in dan
ger of becoming drunkard. The seller
drops the money into his till, and says,
" Am I my brothers keeper knowing
q Il 4