Year: 1872

= '~~S wv Va AAsVAlCdtluR UIluk m o.


rally Wrongs


This is question in the discussion Of


which, doctors disagree Without at


tempting to decide the case, we wish in q


lew words to give our opinion


Many people lay great stress upon the as.


sertion that the use of inebriating beycra-


ges is not sinful per &c., and from this ad-


mitted premise they draw the illogical con-


clusion that it is not sinful at all Now il


ought to be borne in mind, in the discus
sion of this and all other moral questions,
that the sinfulnsss of any action. and the
ground upon which it is considered sinful,
are distinct questions which ought never to
be confounded.


| While we freely admit that the use of
drink is not malam in se-ern IN its
o'cn nature, as theft and blasphemy are !;
we firmly believe that it is morally wrong,
because it sets a pernicious example and in
almost every instance injuries the indiuidu-
al who INDUCES in it. Good men in all ages
have united in condemning many things,
which though no. intrinsicly, evil, and not
expressly forbidden by the law of God, are
proved by experience to be pernicious in
their influence and results. A yotary of
pleasure might argue with truth, that dane
ing, horse racing, and theatrical exhibitions
are not sinful that there is no intrinsic evil
in exercising the limbs gracefully to the
sound of music, in cultivating and exhibit
ing the speed of horses, or in initiating the
various scenes ofhuman life upon the stage;
but if he should infer from this that chris
tian man may without sin frequent the Ball
room, the race course or the theatre, his
conclusion would evidently be unfounded
and false. Yet this is precisely the argu-
ment of many who contend that because
the use of intoxicating drinks is not sinful,
a man may use them without committing
moral wrong. Good men in every age have
condemned the amusements to which we
have alluded and there is not an evangel-
ical church in christendom but would ex-
clude man who INDUCES in them, from its
communion. The discipline of most churches
expressly prohibits them. Now surely the
church does not exclude man from her
communion for conduct which is not sinful
1t is therefore the opinion of the evangeli-
cal church, that it is morally @rong to at
tend the ball room, the theatre, or the
horse race because it exerts pernicious
influence upon the individual and upon
those who are affected by this example,
And for similar but still stronger reason
we believe that, in the present state of So
ciety, it is morally wrong to use intoxica-
ting beverages of any kind. When min
lister of the gospel or private christian (for
the law of God speaks the same language
TO both, and they are equally bound to see
a consistent example.) when professional
christian is seen tripping it upon the light
fantastic toe, or sanctioning by his presence
that fountain Of iniquity, the theatre he
is guilty of an inconsistency, which does
great injury to the eanse of religion. And
in our opinion the example of him who in
dulges in the wine cup is still more perni-
cious.


The Bible, without attempting to specify
every form of evil, lays down broad princi-
pies for the regulation of human conduct
1t teaches us to abstain from everything, the
use of which would injure ourself or our
neighbor. A conscience regulated by the
spirit of christian benevolence will be more
anxious to ascertain the results of our con-
duct, and to avoid that which is evil in its
influence, than to discuss abstract questions
of right. In the exercise of this spirit Paul
declares, 'sif meat make my brother to Of
fend, | Will eat no flesh while the world
standeth. For meat destroy not the work
of God. Ali things indeed are pure but it
is evil for that man who eatheth with Of
Tense. 1t is good neither to eat flesh, nor
to drink wine, nor anything whereby my
brother stumbleth, or is offended. OF is made
weak Upon this broad principle we base
the doctrine that in the present state of So
cietv, at as the christian duty Of eoerg man
to abstain from the use Of all antortcating
beverages. To violate this Duty in our opin-
ion, is a moral wrong; because it is not on
ly neglecting an opportunity for doing good,
but setting pernicious example