Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1886-08-06
WHO Is A D%RUNKARD!
DY REV. ROBERT WHITE.

Who is a drunkard? Is he a drunkard
who has been drunk but once? If not, how
often must q man get drunk before he be-
comes in the sight of God, or in the eye Of
the law, a drunkard? If one and the first
act of theft or of forgery makes a man in
the estimation of human and divine law a
thief or a forger, why should not one and
the first instance Of drunkenness make a
man, before God and his fellowmen, a
drunkard?, If drunkenness is both a crime
and a sin, then the first time a man gets
drunk he violates the law Of God and also
that of man. Let me remind these persons
that, while human law administrators may,
and too often perhaps do, treat such an
otfense very lightly, the Lord our God will
not suffer you to escape His righteous
judgments. Such a sin, if unrepented of
and unforgiven, will certainly shut You out
of heaven. "No drunkard," is the solemn
declaration of Scripture, "shall inherit the
kingdom of God"
But is he only a drunkard who reels and
staggers? Is not one whose appetite for
intoxicating liquors dominates him, who is
never guilty Of excess" as the Rev. Sgd
ney Smith rema>xed of an English noble-
man, but only of "a certain respectable
and dangerous plenitude"-is not he a
drunkard? Is not, however, "a certain re-
spectacle and dangerous plentitude," ex-
cess? Or. in palmer English, is not being
always full" or being full" pretty often,
drunkenness? Must n man reel and stag
ger before he can be charged with excess?
Does not a man drink intoxicating liquors
to excess who Injuries his health thereby. or
wrongs his family, or units himself for the
duties Of life? Long before a man is reel
ing drunk he has drank to excess? A man
may, undoubtedly, be said to be overcome
of liquor, although his center of gravity
may not visibly be disturbed. Such a man
is, in the sight of God, a drunkard, and
comes under the sentence of exclusion
from His kingdom.
In what, let us now inquire, does the sin
of drunkenness consist? Some men be-
come drunk on a much less quantity of in
toxicating liquor Than do others. Does he
commit a sin who gets drunk on one glass of
whisky, while another who can hold two or
three or more and stand steady commits
no sin? Does the sin Of drunkenness con-
sist solely in becoming what is called, in
common parlance, drunk? Or, in other
words, is everything short of Keeling drunk
permissible? When the Apostle Paul said,
"No drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of
God," did he intend to debar only those
that reeled and staggered? Did he not also
have reference to those that were steady
drinkers, but who may never have been
seen to walk unsteady? Clearly, then, the
sin of drunkenness does not consist exclu-
sively in becoming drunk.
There are q great many persons who, in
the sight of God, are drunkards, who may
not be so regarded by their fellowmen, be-
cause, it may be, they never have given any
ocular evidence of that fact. Although,
perhaps, not coming under the cognizance
of either civil Or ecclesiastical law, their
conduct is unquestionably a violation of the
spirit of Gods law. The qualification OF
their appetite for strong drink has upon
them a morally debasing effect. 1t cher
ishes those passions that are sensual, and
of necessity weakens those that are pure
and good. Such an appetite is emphatic
ally q "lust of the flesh" that "defles q
man." To them, equally with the mar
who drinks until he becomes paralyzed o,
unconscious, applies the dreadful declara-
ton, "No drunkard shall inherit the king.
dom of God"