Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-17

the action they have taken in regard to
the pending question Of license or no
license. There are two manifest rea-
sons Why preachers should take reproof
kindly. One is that they draw their
doctrines from Book which says,
Rebuke q wise man, and he will love
thee Another is that it is sometimes
their dissgreeable duty to reprove, and
| il they claim the right to administer re-
proof while they disdain to receive it
their arrogance would be insufierable.
As one of the ministers Of Richmond
have no quarrel with those who have
been Gliding us. But have we de-
served rebuke? that's the question. II
we have, we should receive it and learn
wisdom; if we have not, we must still
20 forward in the course marked out,
bearing reproach for Christ's sake.
One writer reminds us that preaching
the Gospel and preaching prohibition
are two things entirely distinct. 1t is
freely admitted that prohibition is not
the whole of the Gospel, and that if a
preacher confines his ministrations ex-
clusively or mainly to that subject he
is censurable. But / utterly dissent
from the view that every treatment
of prohibition in the pulpit is a
departure from the Gospel. What is
the Gospel? That Jesus Christ came
into the world to save sinners. To save
them for what? Merely from a fiery
perdition in the next world. By no
means; but primarily and chiefly from
sinful practices in this world. Conse-
quently in preaching the Gospel We
must preach the necessity Of hating and
forsaking all unrighteousness and OF
having no fellowship with it. Are we
then departing from The Gospel when
we preach that men should not give
the endorsement Of their vote to
perpetuate and maintain the iniquity
of the dram-shop? "But it has
now become political question: So
it has; but has it thereby ceased to be
moral and religious question !?
Polygamy in Utah has become politi-
cal question. Is that any reason why
a Christian pulpit in Salt Lake City
should be silent concerning the great
wrong that Mormonism perpetrates
against the purity and happiness Of
home? II the question were before the
people of Utah whether polygamy
should be legalized or not, would rot
the Christian ministers Of that Territory
be guilty Of the basest treachery to
the Gospel if they failed to urge
the people by all the sancti-
ties of religion to cast their votes against
practice SO vile and revolving? But
you can't make men virtuous by law"
Well, if that is an argument against the
law of prohibition, it is an argument
against all law, both that Of God aud
man. And if it is an argument against
law, it is equally an argument against
license, for license never made men
virtuous. How many men were ever
made virtuous by having license from
the State to tempt and destroy their
fellow-men? How many men were
ever made virtuous by license granted
to the saloon-keeper to debauch them?
Another writer has nothing to say
against any individual action that min
listers might think it their duty to take,
but complains that " forty-odd minis
ters," as body, should have assem-
bled and declared their opinions. The
ground of the complaint is that such an
assembly was an attempt to " bring the
influence Of the Church to bear on the
political fight nowgoing on in the State"
| do most firmly believe that the inhu-
ence of the great body Of Christian
people--if that is what is meant by
"the Church should be brought
to bear on the present bat
tie for prohibition. There are but
three positions that can be taken. If
Christian people take position against
prohibition they side with an institu-
ton which throws itself as a mighty
barrier in the way Of that cause Of re-
ligiOn which they profess to have
espoused; if they attempt to be neu-
trail they expose themselves to that
whitening censure pronounced upon the
Laodicean disciples: Because thou
art lukewarm, and neither cold nor
hot, l will spue thee out of my
mouth ~; If they declare against IL
cense then they range themselves on
the side Of Him who came into
the world "to destroy the works of
the DEVIL" and to save men, not to
destroy them. But it is entirely mis-
take to suppose that the action of the
ministers was ipso faeto committal Of
the churches. The whole body of min
listers could no more commit the whole
body Of churches than the individual
minister could commit the individual
church Of which he was pastor, except
the mere moral infuence-no doubt po-
tential-which comes from the fact that
" forty-odd ministers" had met and
deliberated and advised with one an
other as to what they should do in the
present crisis, and after thought and
prayer they had solemnly decided with
perfect unanimity that they would give
their support to the local-option cause.
This fact goes forth to the world for
what it is worth, that's all. If it
hurts anything on earth it only hurts
that which ministers Of the Gospel
were called to hurt. A third writer
blames the ministers who gave the sane
ton Of their presence to the great tenn
perance meeting at the Academy of
Music last Sunday afternoon, and rather
charges them with Sabbath-desecration
in doing so. On what ground? A poll
tician spoke. Well, haven't we been
praying that God would make our men
in high political position honest and
true, lovers Of the right, and champions
Of the right? When one steps to the
front to scourge wrong doing and plead
for virtue shall We seal his lips, and say
to him, "You are . politician; sit
down and hold your tongue on the
Lords day, when great moral ques-
ton 10 under discussion? All you are
1T for Is 70 speak during the wax In q