TOTAL ABSTINENCE A CHRISTIAN DUTY.

A Lecture

Delivered On Thursday Evening, June 27, 1850

BY THE REV. PROFESSOR FINNEY,

OF OBERLIN COLLEGE, UNITED STATES,

At The Surrey Chapel (Rev. J. Sherman's)

 

“It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.”  (Romans 14:21)

 

This is equivalent to saying “it is appropriate”.  To say that a certain course of action, in this sense, “is good”, is the same as saying that it is best, it is for the general good, it is appropriate, and therefore right, that we should neither “eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which our brother stumbles, is offended, or is made weak”.

In the early days of Christianity, there were several topics hotly argued in the Church, some of which had been presented to Paul for his opinion.  One of the questions from the Church of Rome was, whether it was O.K. to eat meat, since it was customary, after animals were presented for sacrifice to the idols, to take them to the public market to sell.  Many, therefore, believed that they would be supporting idolatry by purchasing some of that meat that had been offered to the idols.  Many, for this reason, abstained from the use of meat altogether, lest, they would appear to patronize idolatry.  In the eighth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, you will find a lengthy reference to this subject.  The Apostle concludes by saying, “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble”. He told them, in response to their questions, that it was lawful to eat meat under ordinary circumstances; yet, if by doing this, he would cause any brother to stumble, and the harm done would more than counter balance the good to be derived from it, he would deny himself for that reason.  Paul said that if by eating meat, he caused his weak brother to stumble; he would not eat meat as long as he lived, if necessary. Eating meat sacrificed to idols was not unlawful all by itself; however, Paul taught that it was necessary to take care lest eating it would cause his brother to stumble.

Having been requested to preach on the subject of TEMPERANCE, I will begin:--

I. BY DEFINING MY POSITION; I shall then,

II. ESTABLISH THAT POSITION;

III. ANSWER OBJECTIONS TO IT; And finally

IV. EXAMINE THE POSITION OF THOSE WHO OBJECT TO MY POSITION.

The question can be viewed in many ways.  It can be argued from many different viewpoints.  It can be discussed, for example, as a scientific question; and, in America, it has been extensively regarded in this light.  I do not intend to take up this point tonight; I will simply examine the religious bearings of temperance.  I am well aware that the scientific view is extremely important; it is easy enough, however, to simply discuss it as a religious question, without entering into the scientific aspect of it.  My position, then, is, not that the use of intoxicating drinks in any quantity, and under all circumstances, is necessarily sinful; nor do I take the ground that any use of it is wrong, independently of the circumstances under which it is used, and the reasons which have prompted such use.  I don’t take the ground that any use of it is wrong, without taking into consideration the circumstances for which, and the reasons why it is used; for I can think of circumstances were it may be the duty of an individual to drink, even enough to produce intoxication, in order to meet some physical emergency. 

Physicians maintain this ground, and patients may think that it is necessary under certain circumstances.  Therefore, it is taken innocently.  Taking alcohol is right or wrong according to the reasons and circumstances which demand its use.  Strictly speaking, nothing is right all by itself, but that love which the law of God commands.  Nothing is wrong all by itself, but the opposite state of mind.  But it is not my purpose to discuss this question, but only to say that when we investigate the lawfulness of any particular act, such as the use of alcohol, we must understand the circumstances for which, and the reasons why it is used, in order to understand whether it is right or wrong in an individual case.

The question is not whether it may or may not be used as a medicine when recommended by a competent physician.  I don’t deny that it may be used as a medicine under certain circumstances; nor do I say that it is wrong to use wine at the table of the Lord.  The Temperance Question has suffered a lot of controversy on this point; for if Christ has ordered the use of wine on that occasion, and as matters are left so that it cannot be positively determined whether His wine was alcoholic or not, the question shouldn’t be discussed; since the amount used at the Communion Table is so very small.

Paul enjoined Timothy to “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities”.  (I Timothy 5:23)  It was O.K., therefore, for Timothy to take a little.  The Apostle Paul did not require him to take much; nor is it necessary or usual to take much at the Communion Table, so that this part of the question does not strictly belong to the Temperance Reformation.

The question is not whether or not it would ever be necessary, or whether or not it could be an indispensable article of diet; I would take the negative view.  However, I can’t discuss this issue right now, because it would carry me too far from my main purpose; nor do I mean just now to affirm, even, that it would never be useful to people in robust health, as is commonly supposed.  Since I can’t enter into the scientific bearings of the question right now, I will not try to determine whether its use is or is not necessary or beneficial to people in feeble health.  I must make the question one of self-denial for the sake of others.  I would like to question if alcohol is really needed or useful under any circumstances at all; but right now, I must content myself with the assumption that, under some circumstances, the moderate use of these drinks is useful.  I will take up the matter, then, in this way: Is it your duty to forego the use of these drinks as an act of self-denial for the sake of others?  I love to discuss the question in this light; because, if these drinks are useful, it gives the Church an opportunity of manifesting her love for the Savior by their sacrifice.

I. I WILL STATE MY PROPOSITION, WHICH IS SIMPLY THIS: THE MANUFACTURE, SALE, AND USE OF INTOXICATING DRINKS AS A BEVERAGE, OR AS AN ARTICLE OF LUXURY OR OF DIET, OR TO PROVIDE THEM, AS SUCH, FOR OTHERS, IS NEITHER BENEVOLENT, NOR APPROPRIATE, AND IS THEREFORE, WRONG.

In other words, that “Total abstinence from the manufacture, sale, and use of intoxicating drinks as a beverage, or as an article of luxury or of diet, and total abstinence from offering or providing them for others, under the present circumstances of the Church is appropriate, and therefore a duty”.

Such being my position, I will now proceed

II. TO DEFEND THIS PROPOSITION.

(1.) The abuse of a good thing is not always a sufficient reason for completely abstaining from its use.  Food, clothing, the doctrine of justification by faith, many of the best things are abused.  It is therefore, not a universal rule that the abuse of a good thing is a sufficient reason to completely abstain from using it.  But I will have the opportunity to refer to this statement again; because while I admit that it is not a universal rule, it is a good rule, and under certain circumstances it should be obeyed.  In other words, we are obliged, under certain circumstances, to abstain from something that may be or is useful, because of its great abuse.  Although I admit the rule is not universal, I shall attempt to show, that the abuse of alcohol is a good reason that it should be abandoned as an article of luxury or diet.

( 2.) All men are required to be benevolent.  All men, under all circumstances, should love God supremely, and their neighbor as themselves.  Everybody is required to obey this rule.  No exception is possible.  But what is benevolence?  Benevolence is good will.  It implies a willing of every good, according to its known relative value.  There must not be any special attention given to a certain good, just because it is your own.  You must not ignore its relative value.  When your neighbor’s good is more important than your own, it must have the preference.  If, by denying yourself a small good, you can gain for him a greater good, it is your duty to do it.  Christ acted on this principle; in the atonement, the great principle that everything turns on is the principle of sacrificing to self a less good, or taking on self a less evil than would befall others, or sacrificing a less good than we can obtain for others.  Since the law that requires us to love our neighbor as ourselves clearly points out what we must do; it is very easy to see that this principle must be the one on which Christ acted, and on which the whole plan of salvation turns.  Christ planned, by taking on Himself certain evils, to secure to the universe a good that was greater than the evils that He suffered.  It was, therefore, in strict accordance with true benevolence that He came forward to make atonement; for the sacrifice He made was a less evil than would have resulted if He had chosen not to suffer and die for us.  Because of His nature and relations, He could magnify the law and make it honorable, saving multitudes beyond number from eternal suffering, and securing for them an amount of good far exceeding the amount of His sufferings, even though they were inconceivably great.  His benevolence led Him to make a personal sacrifice for the sake of a great good.  The apostles also proceeded on this principle in increasing the kingdom of God that their Lord and Master had begun.

Everybody here knows the following facts:

(1.) Intemperance prevails in this land to an alarming degree, far more than people are generally aware of.  I have been surprised, since I have been here, to learn how ignorant most of the people are, concerning the statistics of the extent that intemperance prevails in this country; everyone, however, knows and admits that it prevails to an alarming extent.

(2.)Intemperance is one of the greatest evils that infect society, whether we look at it physically, morally, or socially.  When we look at it physically, we must admit that it is one of the greatest physical evils, producing more sickness and death than any other evil.  Morally, it does more to demoralize society by drawing thousands into all forms of vice, corrupting the Church, and costing it thousands of souls every year. Socially, it poisons all the fountains of social intercourse.

I could say a lot here as well as talk about its political aspects.  If I have time, I might expand this statement, and add such a mass of statistics and facts that have been gathered and published, both in this country and in America, that you would admit that, as an evil in society and viewed in all its bearings, it has no parallel in the history of this or any other nation. 

(3.) Another fact that can’t be denied, is, that the good which results to the Church and the world from the use of alcohol (admitting, for the sake of argument, as I said before, that good does result), is microscopically small compared to the evil that results.  Who doubts this?  You can admit that some good does result; but who does not know that the evil resulting from its use is indefinitely greater than the good.

(4.) The Christian Church is called to be a society whose business it is to reform the world.  Its sole business in the world is to enlighten and save it, everything that it does in the world is to be done in to accomplish this end.  Its primary purpose, the end for which it lives (or ought to live), and moves, and has its being, is to glorify God by saving the world from every form of sin.  Christ said, “You are the light of the world”, “you are the salt of the earth”. 

(5.) The church is required to reform the world.  Christ requires the church to convert the world, not, of course, in her strength, but in His strength.  Since Christ has promised to be with His Church, it is the Church’s duty to put away every form of iniquity from the world, and to make disciples of Christ from all the nations of the earth.  Christ requires it; He has promised His aid.  It is therefore her duty to reform the world.  The reform, to which I address myself this evening, is indispensable to the success of the Church in her great mission.  It is so great an evil, that the Church can, by no means, be excused form bringing about its removal.

(6.) The Church is able to produce this reform, if she is united, and if she uses its money, time, and talents wisely.  If she does this, she will be able to enlighten the world and settle this question forever, by putting away this mighty evil.  This reform is indispensable to the success of the Church, to secure the end for which she lives.  Judging from the success which has attended efforts made where the Church has been united, and where she has used the right means in a right spirit, she can thoroughly rout this enemy of mankind and banish it from the world if she enlightens the public and brings the whole force of her precept and example to bear on it.  Many cases that have occurred in America showed that even a few individuals in a Christian community could exert enough influence to put certain evils away. 

Who doubts that if the British Churches were united in this matter, an influence could be brought to bear, which would rout this enemy, and bring about this reformation?  Suppose every minister and member of the Christian Church in this country should frown on alcohol, and men of all ranks in society who profess to be Christians, should immediately undertake with all the force of their influence, both by example and precept, to oppose it, how long, do you think, would intemperance fill this land with crime, woe, and mourning?  No one can doubt, that, in the course of a few months, liquor stores and bars would shut down, and the Church would be purified.  Anyone opposing would not dare show his face in the streets after being rebuked from every pulpit, and from every Christian man in every place.  Why, the four winds would blow a rebuke in his face!  It is easy to put it away, if the Church, whose duty it is to unite for this purpose, would do so.  Now, if it can be done by the Church, and it must be done, and the evil that would result from letting it remain is vastly greater than the evil that would result from putting it away, then it is the duty of every Christian to do what he can, by precept and example, and every other lawful means, to put this evil away.

I don’t think anyone, who has ever examined this question, doubts that stopping the manufacture, sale, and use of intoxicating drink as a beverage or an article of luxury or diet, is a condition of success in this enterprise.  As long as a minister uses it himself, he can’t have much influence in staying this tide of desolation.  This is generally known and acknowledged in this country; as well as in America.  We have tried every ground a Christian could take on the question, and the conclusion we have come to is this; that we must have total abstinence or total failure.  Let any minister continue the use of alcohol and try to reform his congregation. He will fail.  Let any group of people try moderate use, and everybody will hold their views.  Drunkards will claim that they only drink in moderation.  Everyone will admit that they only use alcohol moderately.  No man will say that it is right to get drunk.  All will take the ground of moderation.  Moderation!  What’s that?  Intoxication!  What is it?  Where is the line?  Examine this question; and you will find that if the Church is to do anything, she must thoroughly wash her hands.  The Church must take this ground: that as a beverage, or an article of luxury or diet, she will not indulge in it. 

The questions will not now be argued, whether it may or may not be used as a medicine; but, according to the terms of my proposition, I will try to prove that the law that requires universal benevolence, requires us to aim at promoting our neighbor's good.  And if our neighbor stumbles or is injured by what we are doing, even though it may be by his own consent, yet if, after all, the injury to him is vastly greater than the good to us, benevolence demands that we should, for his sake, deny ourselves.  This is especially true where the difference is very great; where the evil to him is enormous, infinitely greater than the good to us; and total abstinence on our part, is the only condition of saving him from the evil.

The spirit of the Gospel clearly requires this.  I have already said, it is easy to show that the whole plan of salvation turns on this great principle of Christian benevolence, of one man denying himself of a good for the sake of obtaining a greater good for others.  True love is when one individual takes onto himself certain sufferings, and endures certain evils, in order to avoid inflicting greater, though deserved, evils on others.  Now, the apostle Paul acted on this gospel principle when he said, that if eating meat should cause his brother to stumble, he would no longer eat meat as long as he lived.  He could live without eating meat, even though it is useful.  He could eat other things.  Although meat is good, it is not a necessity of life.  It was not necessary in such a sense that he could not do without it.  Consequently, the great abuse of meat was a good reason for his abstaining from eating it altogether.  The same, he said, was true with regard to wine, “It is good neither to eat meat, nor to drink wine, nor anything that causes your brother to stumble, or offends him, or makes him spiritually weak”.  (Romans 14:21)  Now, by “anything”, he did not mean to say he must forego those things that are necessary for life or salvation; but only those things that can be spared, those things that are dispensable.  We should abstain from the use of all dispensable things rather than stumble our brethren.  By refusing to do this, we walk uncharitably, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel.

The intelligence and conscience of the Christian world demands that the Church should take up this question.  It seems now to be called up by the providence of God, and most pressingly urged on the Church.  The public conscience is beginning to wake up to this subject in this country, and, to a greater extent, in America, because more has been said there than has been said here.  But, I have never been anywhere, since this subject has been so thoroughly discussed, where the consciences of all classes of men, infidels as well as Christians, did not immediately demand that the Church should take action.  The law of benevolence requires that, not only Christians, but all men, should take up this reform, and deny themselves, for the sake of the good which may result.  The Church of God is clearly under rebuke on this point.  I might mention many cases where the Spirit has been clearly grieved by this holding back, cases where ministers of the Gospel have failed where they did not preach with that unction and power that anoints the Gospel, where the Christians have dwindled away in number, while those who remained had decreased in spirituality.  I could present many examples of this, from different Christian denominations, wherever this subject is neglected, since it has come up in the providence of God.  It is remarkable to see the extent that this has been manifested in America, where the displeasure of the Almighty has been visible towards those who have withstood this reformation.

It strikes me, therefore, that as a matter of self-denial and as a matter of Christian duty, on the ground of expediency and charity, the question is perfectly clear; however, there are still many objections, some of which I will now answer.

If I admit, for the sake of the argument, that intoxicating drink is a good; I must also admit that it is dispensable.  And since it is easy to show that the evils resulting from its abuse are much greater than the good that can be gained from its use; the law of benevolence therefore demands abstinence, because, for the most part, its use is an evil rather than a good.

III. I WILL ANSWER OBJECTIONS.

1. Some object, saying that, “Christ used alcoholic, or fermented wines; and that, if benevolence required abstinence, He would have abstained”.  This needs to be proved before it is assumed as a certain truth.  I do not know that He did; and I will not affirm that He did not.  The sweet wines were called “wine”, as well as the fermented.  To establish the fact that Christ used fermented wines, Luke says that He was accused of being a gluttonous man, a wine drinker, and a friend of publicans and sinners.  (Luke 10:9)  Jesus neither expressed or implied that He did not drink fermented wine; but even though He did not deny that he drank wine, it no more follows that He did, than the fact that He did not deny that He was a glutton implies that He admitted that He was a glutton.  But, even if Jesus had used fermented wine, the circumstances under which He used it were not only justified, but also might have demanded its use in His situation.  I have already said, that the use of wine is not wrong in itself.  It is presumed that there was a good and urgent reason for not drinking water, and drinking a little wine instead.  Please observe, however, that, in this situation, wine was to be taken as a medicine, and not as an article of luxury or diet; from which it may fairly conclude that Timothy was not in the habit of taking wine in any quantities; because he was encouraged to only take a little.  If Timothy were used to drinking wine regularly, this injunction would have been unnecessary.  A lot of people think that the apostles and their assistants never said anything about temperance, and against the use of alcoholic drinks.  We can safely say that Timothy did not normally drink wine.  After all, he actually needed Paul’s injunction to induce him to drink some, even as a medicine.  Observe what the apostle says: “It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak”.  Is it likely, then, that after using such strong language, that Paul neither drank wine, nor recommended it to be used, as an article of luxury or diet, especially where the circumstances were such that its abuse would be a great stumbling-block to the Church?  No!  It’s not likely that Paul would contradict himself this way!

2. Others object that if temperance, in the sense meant here, is a specific branch of the great reformation to be carried out and perfected by the Christian Church, why didn’t the Apostolic Church do it?  They had very good reasons for not doing it.  There were several other important questions other than the use of wine, such as war and slavery for example, which were not raised as distinct subjects; and I know that this fact has been used by some people, and even by ministers, in such a way as to lead many people into infidelity.  They say the apostles could not have been inspired men, neither could Christ have been what He professed to be, or they would have used all their influence to suppress war and put an end to slavery and intemperance.  Let us ask, for a moment, whether it would have been appropriate for them to do anything else than what they did concerning this matter.  The fact is, they had more important issues to address.  Most of the world at that time did not know that Jesus was the Messiah; as a result, if Jesus tried to exercise authority on these issues, and made those reforms an important goal, He would, by doing this, have diverted public attention from the first great question of His Messiah ship.  The same was true with the apostles.  The advent, Divine authority, and resurrection of Christ were the first issues to be settled.  It is easy to see that it was completely inappropriate to raise any excitement on other points until these foundational issues were established.  It was necessary, first, to show that their revelation was from God, that Christ was the Messiah, and that they were His inspired and duly commissioned servants. 

Suppose, either by precept or example, they had raised questions about temperance or slavery, they would have abandoned their main position, and would have left undone the work they had been commissioned to do.  Their first great business was to establish the fact that what they set forth was a revelation from God, and not to take any particular branch of reform and make that an issue, thereby drawing public attention away from their main issue.  If the question could once be settled that their message was a revelation from God, they would then be in a position to allow the Church to take these reforms up in detail, and apply its great principles to the annihilation of every form and degree of evil. 

It took Christ and His apostles their lifetime to settle the great question that Jesus was the Messiah, the Divine authority of the apostles, and to establish, beyond a doubt, the fact that what they delivered to the world was truly the mind and will of God.  Now, they no doubt wisely avoided getting bogged down with many issues and branches of reform, before the one great question was settled; that they were commissioned by God to give to mankind a revelation of His will.  They no doubt carefully avoided making such issues either by precept or example; and so it is not strange if they used wine moderately, since it was the common drink of the country.  I suppose they could not have avoided this very easily without having created quite a stir concerning this issue.  I judge this from the fact that the very practice has often provoked vehement discussion at tables I have sat at.  You cannot abstain without stirring up some excitement.  At some tables where I have refused to take wine, I have been obliged, in self-defense, to discuss the question.  No doubt, this would have been the case with Christ and His apostles; and it might have been, I don’t say it was, for this reason, that they were unwilling to create a public uproar on the subject at that time, and under those circumstances.  Who does not see, as I have said, that the most important issue at that time, was whether their revelation was from God. 

If you look through the Bible, you will find principles that condemn war, slavery, and intemperance as well as every other form of vice.  No one, I presume, will accuse the apostles of being warriors, slaveholders, or intemperate men.  But listen, Christianity should not be charged with these evils because its principles condemn them everywhere.  Nothing is more certain than this, that the Gospel of Christ condemns war, slavery, intemperance, and every other form of iniquity.  Let no one, therefore, reject the Bible on the pretence that it sanctions or ignores at such evils as these.  God has proceeded step by step in His various reforms, as mankind was able to bear them.  There is no reason to find fault either with the Bible, or with God's dealings on these questions.  I think, that what I have said on this subject will be quite enough to satisfy men who were willing to be satisfied concerning the examples of Christ and the apostles.  Admitting they used it moderately, the reasons for taking wine, that I have named, are too obvious to leave any stumbling-block in the way of any honest mind.

3. Many claim that many manufacture, vend, use, and offer alcohol as indispensable to health.  Now, more than 1,000 medical men, and among them, many of the principal physicians of Great Britain, have testified that it is wholly unnecessary, and alcohol can be safely done without.  In America, I may state, the fact is established in hundreds of thousands of cases.  The deacon of the Church to which I first belonged, was an elderly man, and was accustomed to drink alcohol in small quantities before his meals, since his “appetite was poor”, and since his “physician had recommended him to do so”.  Now, soon after my conversion the temperance question came up in the United States generally, and particularly in that neighborhood.  As the Church began to examine the matter, they found the influence of this deacon stood directly in their way.  Many of the members were ready to go through with temperance for the sake of the public good; but Deacon Cleary, being an elderly man, did not take up such reforms so quickly.  Finally, some of the brethren went to talk with him.  But he said he was “sure he could not do without it”.  He was “sure he should die, if he wholly abstained”; but he “would use it moderately, as a medicine”.  After a while, however, he said his life was not that important.  It was less important that he lives, than that he should stand in the way of reform.  He thought the devil was trying to take his life, and he would rather, therefore, give it up, than be a stumbling-block.  “You may have my name”, he said, “and whatever influence I possess”.  Now, listen; in a couple of years, his strength was renewed, and he became a completely different man; and, on being asked what he thought of giving up alcohol, “Oh”!  He said, “My youth has been renewed.  It was the devil who made me think I couldn’t live without it”!  This has been the experience, in countless cases all over our country; and, there, I have not heard this argument for years.  It is not contended for, as a necessary part of our diet, or, at least, this has not been an issue, to my knowledge, for years.

I once used it moderately and occasionally myself, but I have now abstained for twenty-five years; and surely I have performed as much labor, I think, as any minister, either in America or in Europe; and I can say that my health is better now than it was on the day I stopped using it.  I can do more now than I could when I was accustomed to using it moderately; and my experience is supported by countless experiences of others.

4. Many support drinking, saying that the rights of hospitality demand it.  Now, what does this mean?  The rights of hospitality!  Does any man have a right to expect me to do what is inconsistent with benevolence and then call that hospitality?  No!  Do you think that you will be accused of selfishness instead of benevolence, by refusing to provide liquor?  The fact is, that if your reputation suffers for doing your duty, let it suffer; for the man who is not prepared to do this, is not prepared to go the length of taking Christ and His apostles as his examples.  Men, when they bring up such excuses, and accuse others of selfishness, are they really satisfied with their own reasoning?  As long as they accuse others of selfishness and disregarding the rights of hospitality by not offering alcohol, I can’t believe that they are satisfied with their reasoning.

5. Some object to temperance because they cannot employ laborers without providing liquor, or giving them the means; they will obtain it one way or another, and if they don't give it to their laborers, the laborers won’t work for them.  Now, farmers in our country usually furnish their laborers with board; and people have insisted that the men will not work unless they give them alcohol in some form.  But if they were to advise their “hired hands” not to drink it, and set the example themselves; and if they were to give them in wages the amount of what it would cost to furnish them with the alcohol; if they were to do this it would be fair.  Where it has been done, as far as I know, the workers have been satisfied.  Increase their wages by giving them the worth of the alcohol in money, and the laborers will not only be satisfied, but glad that such an experiment was ever tried!  There is no difficulty in overcoming these obstacles.  If Christian men will only persevere in taking the right stand, their “hired hands” will soon be influenced by them not to take it.  Finding they don’t really need it, they will be glad to receive the money instead.

6. Another objection is that teetotalism becomes a religion; and therefore, there is danger in promoting temperance.  Now, I never knew an instance of this kind in my life.  On the one hand, we have observed that when we can get people to abstain, they almost always come to a more just understanding of God and religious truth.  When we encourage them to abstain from drinking, they see far more clearly the need for a change of heart and a religious life.  It is strange indeed, to think that after clearing a man’s whole system of this abomination, we should make him more likely to deceive himself!  This danger, therefore, is very small.  But there is a lot of danger on the other hand. 

Those who make this objection don’t seem to understand that there is a danger of being deceived by the spirit of alcohol, a danger of confusing the influences of alcohol, with those of the Spirit of God.  Now, every physiologist is aware that there are certain people, on whose minds stimuli, in certain forms, produce certain impressions, and, in many cases, these impressions encourage them to think and talk about religion.  For instance, when I was a young man, I was teaching school one winter in a certain neighborhood, and boarding in a certain house.  The head of the family was an intemperate man, and often came home from the tavern totally intoxicated, so much so, indeed, that he couldn’t walk in a straight line.  Now, when he came home drunk, he usually prayed with his family; while, when he was reasonably sober, he would never say a word on the subject of religion.  Such was the tendency of his mind.  This is an extreme case, I admit; but I have known many cases involving the same principle.  I have seen men exceedingly fluent in prayer, and flippant in religious conversation, after taking a little alcohol.  I knew a minister who never preached fluently unless he was well steeped in alcohol, and when I rebuked him for it, he told me that he would rather give five dollars for a gill of brandy, when he had to preach, than preach without it.  He could speak, preach, or pray, after taking alcohol; rob him of that, and he seemed to have no more of the spirit of preaching than a stick or a stone.  For years, he went on in this way; and when the Temperance Reformation compelled him to abandon alcohol, he resorted to opium as a substitute.  There is a tendency in many minds to do this. 

But, in justice, I should say that I am not aware that it has been customary for ministers of the gospel in America to take alcohol in any form just before going into the pulpit.  Never in my life, to my knowledge, did I so much as hear of liquor being kept in the vestry, in any form, for the use of ministers or church officers.  But I cannot express my astonishment and grief at this custom as I find it exists, in some cases, here in England.  I have sometimes found a man praying with very much apparent fervency; but when I’ve come near to him, I found that his breath reeked with alcohol!  Take the alcohol away, and see how he would pray then!  If you want him to be fervent in prayer, you must give him alcohol.  If you want to see that there is nothing but spiritual death in him, deprive him of it.

In America, before the Temperance Reformation, many such cases occurred.  Many years ago I was working in a town in the State of New York during a revival of religion, and boarded with a deacon who always had a glass full of old cider on his table.  His eyes glistened after drinking it, which he drank in large quantities.  I spoke to his pastor about his general character.  The pastor said he was “always in the Spirit, always ready”.  I told him I was afraid he either was, or would be, an alcoholic.  The minister was quite shocked.  I said that his speech and general appearance was consistent with one who keeps himself highly excited with alcohol.  The minister never thought of this.

It was the custom of the temperance men to send lecturers around where there had been revivals; so they might make their appeal while the public conscience was awake, and men’s minds were yielding to truth, and easily won over to the reform.  They visited the place referred to, but this reputed good man resisted the Temperance Reformation; and, to the astonishment of everyone, it was found that he was a secret drunkard, that he had often been seen drunk by his family at different times, extending over many years.  He was, of course, excommunicated from the church as a drunkard.  By now, he may be in a drunkard's grave!  So often, I have seen such results to those who opposed the Temperance Reformation, that I have come to fear, that ministers, or professing Christians, who continue to oppose it, will become drunkards.

7. “So many people have become abstainers”, people object, “and have turned back again”.  I have very frequently read this, and have been shocked, I cannot tell how much, to hear it sometimes even from professing Christians.  Lets say that it is true, what does it amount to?  Even if nearly everyone turns back, what then?  It wouldn’t be surprising that they would turn back, if the Church stands aloof, and opposes the reformation.  Suppose they should try any other branch of reform, and the Church, with its weightiest influence, opposes them, who would be surprised if they became faint-hearted?  If the ministers, and nearly the entire Church simply frowns, or, at least, fails to smile, it wouldn’t be surprising that the masses would turn away, thinking that the Church is wrong.  Who doesn’t see that it would be almost miraculous that such masses of people would continue to stand by the reform under such circumstances?  Suppose great revivals of religion should spread throughout the land, and great efforts are made for reform.  But, suppose again, that the ministers and Churches should rise up and denounce these revivals as the work of the devil, and throw their whole influence against it, discouraging the efforts, and setting their faces firmly against it.  Should the converts under these circumstances, backslide, and then the Church says, “there, you see, these revivals are good for nothing; half of you backslide”.  Is it any surprise that they have backslidden?  It is easy to see, then, why such people return to their own vomit; and yet these are the same people that make this an obstacle, and object to the reformation.

8. Some object, saying, “we should seek converting men to God, and aim at making them Christians, and temperance will take care of itself”.  But let me say there are thousands and thousands of people who never can be made Christians until they abandon alcohol.  How can such men become Christians, when half their time they are under the influence of alcohol?

Suppose they were converted.  Can they be expected to remain faithful, to never backslide, unless they abstain?  If such men are to be saved, the proper means must be used, and the stumbling blocks removed out of their way.  I believe the saints will persevere; but I also believe it will be because the stumbling blocks will be overcome, and moved out of the way.  It was believed, when our missionaries first went abroad, that the question of caste would “take care of itself”.  It was said the natives were “sensitive on this issue, therefore do not attack it.  Make them Christians, and caste will take care of itself”.  But one of our missionaries (whose name I was glad to see in the British Banner yesterday addressing this subject), once told me this,  “We have done wrong.  We have allowed men to believe that they could be Christians, and keep their ideas of caste, believing that Christianity would remove this feeling.  But we find we have thus allowed an element to exist in the Church, which, if it remains, will ruin it.”  He said that when he went back to India, he would have to “excommunicate many whose spirit of caste had overcome their Christianity, instead of the opposite course, as they had hoped”.

9.  Others object, saying that good men have used it.  Yes they have; but good men have also engaged in the slave trade.  John Newton, for instance, was a slave trader for some time after his conversion; and Whitefield was a slaveholder; but they were not fully informed on this issue.  When such things are done in ignorance, the men may be Christians in spite of that fact.  But it does not therefore follow that in these days of enlightenment men may either hold slaves or vend, use, or offer alcohol, now that the truth has been presented to them, and an entirely different aspect of the question has surfaced.

10. Some say, “I can do nothing by myself, and my individual example can do so little, therefore although I am not interested in alcoholic drinks, it is useless for me, as an individual, to make an effort”.  Now, the sad fact is that there are so many who say this.  In fact, if every man would lay aside this excuse and act, there would be a great army in this enterprise, and no one would think or talk about being alone.  Stand up, each one of you, for yourself!  Give the influence of your name and your example.  When will this work ever be done while everyone sits and cries, “If I come, I must come alone”!  But if you most come alone, then come alone, and, at least rid your selves of this abomination.

11. Almost every time I’ve brought this subject up in conversation, and other ways, since I have been in this country, I have heard the objection thrown out that the cause of teetotalism has become odious by the imprudence, mismanagement, and false position of its advocates.  I have heard the same objection made repeatedly in America, to both the anti-slavery and temperance reforms.  It has been common there, for those who withhold their influence from these reformations, to say, “We are in favor of temperance”, or, “we are opposed to slavery; but we cannot identify ourselves with the abolitionists”, or “we cannot identify ourselves with the teetotalers, because we cannot approve of many of their measures and arguments”.  I have been in the habit of making this reply.  Brethren, show us a better way; come forward and take the lead; we will give you the lead, and we will be glad to follow, if you will come forward and give us the benefit of your wisdom and prudence in precept and in example.  Why do you stand back?  Why do you leave it for others to go forward, and then complain about their lack of wisdom?  They would have been glad to avail themselves of your wisdom and experience, if you will allow them to do so.  If you will lead this enterprise, we will be glad to have you; and if you will not, why not?  Why not?  Do you stand back and refuse to put your hand to the work because you think you are wiser that those who are pushing these reforms?  The sad fact is that the most influential people in society remain silent until less influential, and less wise people are compelled to do something, and they go forward according to their best judgment.  Then these wise men excuse withholding their influence altogether, because, they say, the cause is not promoted in the wisest manner!

IV. I WILL EXAMINE THE GROUND OF THOSE WHO OBJECT.

I could attack their position from many points, and examine it in many ways; but I prefer today, to present it in the form of what logicians call the “argumentum ad hominem.”  Sometimes we have an argument pressed on an individual in this way: he admits certain truths, and, by admitting these truths, we can present an argument, based on his own grounds, that will have a bearing directly on him in view of his own premises.  This is what logicians call “argumentum ad hominem”, and this is the argument that I will use in our discussion tonight.

In England, you have agreed that slave holding is illegal.  Between you and me, we have no difference of opinion on this subject.  You believe, that making, vending, and holding men as slaves, is sinful, and a great abomination in the sight of God, and that it should be immediately abolished.  Now, in view of this admission of yours, I can say, that the liquor-trade is as damaging to society as the slave trade.  I can only go rapidly over this part of the subject. 

For example, who would rather have your son or daughter, husband or wife, taken away from your family and sent into slavery, because, even in slavery, he or she might have the use of reason, and, at least, be moral and religious, than become a hopeless alcoholic?  I need not say, that I do not, in any degree, sympathize with slavery.  My tongue has not been silent against it, nor has my pen been useless. I have used both tongue and pen to rebuke this great iniquity.

One of the features of slavery which has, perhaps, been most complained about is its tearing apart of family ties, tearing children from their parents, and sending family members to different parts of the country, thus separating them forever.  Now, look at alcohol.  Doesn’t alcohol do worse than separating one from another?  Yes, indeed!  I would rather have my wife torn away and made a slave, and my family broken up, than that we should become a family of drunks!  Who does not know that there are more ways than one to lacerate the heart, to tear the family into pieces, and to bring about domestic ruin?  Slavery is bad, but the sale of alcoholic drinks, which ruins thousands of families, is worse than selling them into slavery.  The one is bad enough, but the other is still worse.  Wouldn’t you rather see your own family sold into slavery, than that they should become a family of drunks?  Slaves are slaves by force; drunkards are drunkards by their own consent.  A man, when he becomes a slave, commits no sin.  A man, when he becomes a drunk, ruins both his soul and body.  Both of them appear wrong under the light that the Gospel pours on them, when they are presented and developed in their proper aspect.

It is because the slavery question is settled in this country, and is considered morally wrong, that I address the question to you in this way.  Because you English people admit that slavery will not be tolerated, and that, however convenient or necessary some may claim that it is, they may not have slaves as their servants, even if it were impossible to get servants without slaves, as slaveholders maintain.  You will hear no such arguments.  I honor you for the ground you take on this question; but I would like to see you take an equally consistent ground on the liquor question.

In both cases, the demand sustains the trade.  If nobody bought slaves, nobody would raise them: and if nobody used alcohol, it would not be manufactured and sold.  More than this; if nobody abused alcohol, though it were a useful article of diet, yet there would not be enough demand to make it a profitable article of manufacture or sale.  It is the enormous abuse of it that makes it so profitable.  The sale and manufacture is undertaken on the assumption of its abuse.  I doubt whether there is a single manufacturer or vendor in Great Britain, who will deny that it is the abuse of alcohol, that makes selling it so profitable, or that alcohol is made and sold on this assumption.

In both cases, also, the enormous quantity advertised for sale increases the demand.  When once the thing spreads, its spread everywhere increases the amount of temptation, and increases the demand.

The extent that these evils are sustained and defended by the same arguments is remarkable.  Some even appeal to the Bible.  Some say the Bible sanctions and sustains slavery; others are content that the Bible recognizes its existence, but does not condemn it.  The same course is taken on the liquor question.  They say, the evil existed when the inspired men lived, and that men were allowed to use it.  The Bible is quoted as approving it.  Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to fully trace the parallel between these two evils, or you would be struck with the extent to which these issues are supported by the same arguments.  Intoxicating drink, then, is a greater social, political, domestic, individual, and moral evil, than slavery.  It introduces more immorality.  It does more harm to the cause of religion, it does more to ruin the bodies and souls of men, than slavery.  No well-informed person can consistently deny this.

Both are persisted in for the same reason.  Their usefulness and need, are pleaded for in the same manner.  The spirit of selfishness acts the same in both cases.  In America, we find the same difficulty, in both cases, in the way of getting rid of these evils.  Both are so firmly fixed in the habits of the people, so many interests are at stake, so much property is invested, both in ardent spirits and in slaves, there are so many difficulties in the way of getting rid of both, it is astonishing to see the extent that these difficulties are the same.  We find the same reluctance to examine the question on the part of those who are connected with either of these trades.  Many pulpits were once closed to both these questions.  Preachers refused to talk about these subjects from their pulpits.  They are as afraid of rebuke and reproach as the press is.  Some said that they were not proper questions for the pulpit, especially on Sunday.

Concerning intoxicating drink in this country, the situation is the same as slavery is in our country.  In the North of our country, ministers preach, in season and out of season, against both those evils on the Sabbath as well as on other days; but at first, they were sneered at.  People were very sensitive about discussing these subjects.  They said it would produce divisions in Churches.  It did!  Nevertheless, it must be done!  The same sympathy for those who are committed to both these evils has been manifested under the name of charity.  We often have been called on to be charitable concerning those engaged in the manufacture, sale, and use of these drinks, as well as towards the slave dealer and the slaveholder.  The same arguments are also used in both cases.  There has been the same sacrifice of ministerial character, some of them have been banished from their pulpits, for lack of sympathizing with these reforms.  In America, this has been the case, to a lamentable extent.  Ministers now begin to take high grounds on both questions.

I wish I had the entire ministry of Great Britain here before me this evening!  I would ask them, if they continue to stand aloof, in what light will the public come to regard them?  For I have understood that one body of ministers have actually refused to receive a petition on the subject that was presented to them for consideration!  Now, who does not know that such people must suffer in the estimation of those who inquire?  When you consider that 60,000 of your fellow-countrymen annually go down to a drunkard’s grave, when every year some 40,000 or 50,000 are excommunicated from your Churches for this sin, when the people become fully alive to these and many similar facts which could be stated, they will consider ministers, who withhold their influence on this question, shameful.  Yes!  The ministers are deceived if they think the people are satisfied with their present position on this question.

I am glad to find that so many of them have already given the weight of their example to this reform, and among them the excellent minister of this place (Rev. James Sherman).  I congratulate you, brethren, on this point.  Since I have been in this country, I have been thrown into the company of ministers, and have been shocked!  For years, until I came here, I have not seen a minister drink a drop except at the communion table.  I have seen enough in America to demonstrate that, there, no minister can be sustained by public confidence who withholds the influence of his precept and example from the Temperance Reformation.  And if you will continue to use it, and refuse to rebuke it both by precept and example, you must expect to lose the public confidence; and, as certain as God rules the world, you ought to lose it!

I speak in love, with all my heart.  I know very well that there was a time in my own country, when the question was not thoroughly understood.  It was used, because it was considered necessary; many, however, though still thinking that it’s useful, denied themselves because of its abuse, and the great evils that come from it.

But let me say again.  There is the same tendency to infidelity, resulting from the conduct of the Church, concerning both these questions.  In the United States, it has been common for people to say there can be no truth in religion, because the Church, and especially the ministry, do not come out and take decided ground on these questions.  The same is going on in this country, concerning the Temperance Reformation; multitudes are losing their confidence in ministers and Churches, in the Bible, and even in religion itself.

I have pursued a parallel between the slave traffic and the traffic in alcoholic drinks.  I have only suggested points for your consideration.  Perhaps I should do well to say that a tract has been written and published in the United States, by one of our best men, pursuing this parallel.  I have not read this tract, but it made a deep impression, as it well might; for who cannot see that, in every part of society, intemperance is an evil as damaging as slavery?  And when light is cast on it, the crime of both is great, if not quite equally so?

It costs the Church more than she can afford, to use alcoholic drinks. The providence of God plainly calls on the Church to act now.  There is a minister in this country whom I have heard openly oppose the total abstinence question, and declare that he has no sympathy with it.  Now, I have been informed that man’s wife is a drunkard; his eldest son, too, is such a beast of a drunkard that he requires someone to constantly take care of him.  The rest of his family will probably go in the same direction.  Yet he “has no sympathy for the Temperance Reformation”!  I myself have seen him drink glass after glass, and that more than once.  What a foolish passion is this!  Yet, what else can he expect?  Let me state that thousands of cases involving the same principle, could be mentioned where people have opposed teetotalism, until the result has been the ruin of their families, or, at least, of some members of their families.

I once urged a man to become a teetotaler, because I feared he would be a drunkard.  He “agreed if his wife would go with him”.  I reasoned for an hour with her; but all in vain.  I said, “You will regret this, mark me”.  She replied, “I’ll risk it”.  Now, in less than five years, her husband became a drunkard!  He is now, perhaps, in a drunkard's grave.

I was astonished the other day, while talking with a brother minister, to hear him say, he was struck with the way I used Lev.10: 9, which clearly states that priests were not, on pain of death, to take wine or strong drink when going to the services of the sanctuary.  “Is there such a passage as this?”  “Yes, there is”, I said.  He could not believe it, so I got up from the table, took my Bible, and pointed it out to him. The passage says this: “Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die. It shall be a statute forever throughout your generations, that you may distinguish between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean."

Now some say, “I take a little, but I really don’t care about It”.  You take just enough to prevent your rebuking it in those who take a lot; for they will turn around and ask if you abstain, and your influence in the matter comes to nothing, or rather it confirms them in their evil habit.  If you care so little about it as you say, what a pity it is you place yourself on the opposite side for something you don’t care about!

I have been informed by one who was a city missionary, and have been repeatedly assured by those who profess to know, that the managers of the City Mission discourage the support of the total abstinence principle by their missionaries.  Now, I cannot vouch for the truth of this; but if it is true, such conduct is worthy of unmeasured rebuke, and may well account for their comparatively small success.  What!  City missionaries, one of whose principal duties it should be, to secure total abstinence among the poor, discouraged from such efforts!  If this is true, it is both shocking and abominable.  It may be untrue; I sure hope it isn’t true.

Can the Churches in England expect a general revival of religion, while they resist this reform, and refuse to come up and lay themselves on the altar?  If they do, I am sure they are mistaken.  It is perfectly clear that the ministers of this kingdom have not earnestly come together to rebuke this sin, and carry forward the temperance reform.  I have occasion to know that some ministers and others, who are themselves abstainers, nevertheless provide it for their guests, who don’t hesitate to put on it their tables for others to use.  Some of them seldom preach against it, and when they do, they are in the habit of giving notice that they are going to do so, so those who don’t like to be rebuked may stay away.  Thus they try to satisfy their consciences, either with bearing the silent testimony of their example against it, or, at most, by preaching a sermon on the subject, perhaps once a year.  Now, isn’t it clear, that this simply an apology for a temperance effort, rather than laying themselves on the altar with a determination to push this reformation?  What are they doing?  Why don’t they, at every opportunity, rebuke this as one of the reigning sins and evils of the day, and of the land?  Why don’t they speak against it, pray against it, write against it, rebuke it everywhere and with every chance they get, like men who have resolutely undertaken to put away one of the greatest abominations of the world?

The fact is, most of the ministers, by their use of wine and other intoxicating drinks, directly affects this evil as it exists in society. Comparatively few abstain, and those, either because they fear they will offend their brethren in the ministry, or their churches or congregations, or all these together, do very little, I fear, to promote this great reform, and put away this wide-spread and overwhelming evil.  And is this the way for ministers of God to treat one of the greatest, most widespread, and most desolating of evils, that ever cursed any country?  Why, really it is lamentable to see to what an extent the leaders of the sacramental hosts of God’s choose to compromise with this evil!  If they hold their peace much longer the stones will cry out against them, and society will universally rebuke them.  For if this is not true, than those laws of mind that have so strongly developed themselves in every other country, will fail to do so in this.  But there is no mistake. The public conscience is beginning to arouse itself, and there is a murmuring, deep and increasing, that will, as time goes on, speak forth in accents that must be understood.  The time has come for the Church of God and her ministers to speak out, and rebuke this evil everywhere and on all occasions.  Will not the brethren come up to the work?

When I first settled in the city of New York, in 1832, I found that one of the elders of the church owned a liquor store.  The Temperance Reformation was just beginning to excite public attention.  I reasoned with him in private, but without effect.  I then exposed his business in my public preaching, and when he objected to my doing so, I told him that as often as I went into that pulpit, he might expect that I should rebuke both him and his business, until he either left the congregation or abandoned his abominable business.  I did so, and did not let him rest until he left his seat, and went to another congregation; and a better man filled his place.

But, I see I have trespassed too long on your time.  The subject is so extensive, that it needs a course of lectures.  I have condensed as much as possible, and tried to present the subject as fully as I could in one lecture; however, I must now leave the subject with a word of appeal to the ladies of England.  The female sex is deeply interested in this question.  You are wives, mothers, and sisters; do you not see the multitudes of husbands, fathers, and brothers, going to destruction using these drinks?  Will you not give the benefit of the whole weight of your precept and example against this crying evil?  Shall women withhold their influence from a cause that appeals so strongly to the sympathies and the hearts of all classes of men?  If the female sex were to unite their efforts, and completely rebuke the use of alcoholic drinks, and refuse to associate with those who do use them, in one year there could be a change that would be the admiration of the world.  Will they not come up to the work?