LETTER XXXV.
Dear Charles,—And so you have resolved to hold on to
your temperance society a little longer. Well done!
Charles, I do by no means condemn your clerical brethren
for their withdrawment in some places and on some occasions.
It must be granted, that when rabid ultraists insist
on the paramount importance of a temperance principle, and,
invading the sanetity of the church, meddle with the wine
in the communion; or say that the Sabbath is as well, if not
better kept, by devoting it to temperance purposes, and run
a sort of opposition-line against the regularly ordained and
divinely authorized worship of the day; and when, in irresponsible
conventions, they pass their impertinent resolutions
that churches shall admit or not admit whom the conventions
affirm are or are not suitable members, then may the clergy
well be alarmed and indignant, and if they cannot control
the fanaticism of the voluntary moral association, based on
one principle or phrase of a moral code, properly enough
withdraw their name and influence.
It is, indeed, exceedingly provoking that an assembly of
the most heterogeneous ingredients—some perfectionists—
some very far from perfection—some that go to church on
the Sabbath, and others that spend the Lord's day in pleasures—deists—atheists—profane
persons—impure—(for this
medley is found in some conventions professedly moral)—
that such a mass meeting should dictate a church discipline!
and prescribe the manner of the ordinances!!
I believe with you, Charles, that it is not demonstrable,
from either reason or Scripture, that the temperate use of intoxicating
liquors, and especially wine, is wrong per se;—
and that, not as a medicine merely, but as an occasional
beverage. A state of the world may occasionally exist when
expediency demands an entire or very great abstinence from
what is lawful. The Rechabites were praised, not for abstaining
from what is unlawful, but from what is lawful; in
obedience to the wish of their father, they neither bought
land, nor planted vineyards, nor used wine.
Be it remembered, we are to abstain from lawful things,
when conscientious and docile persons would be misled by
our use of such things, either to use the same unlawfully,
or to use analogous unlawful things. In this case, if eating
meat or drinking wine necessarily mislead a brother—i. e.
a conscientious Christian brother, as to belief or practice, we
must abstain till his knowledge is large as our own. But if
all around have knowledge, and do easily and necessarily
know what is sinful and what is not sinful; if they can
plainly enough distinguish between use and abuse; if, out of
mere petulance, or prejudice, or to harass, they affirm that
if we do what all know is right and allowable, they will do
what is wrong—that is manifestly a case widely different
from the other. Hence, while on the first principle we yield
our rights and abstain from a lawful usage, we are not bound
to yield, on the latter principle.
Peculiarity of circumstances, as possibly in the temperance
case, may render it advisable to abstain wholly, for the
time, from wines and alcoholic beverages: but this is not,
after all, on the conscientious ground. We are all bound to
set a good example to men, that they may know what to do
without hearing our logic; for the most efficacious logic for
the mass is our personal behavior. In temperance, owing
to accidental causes, the example might not be useful unless
it were a total abstinence.
I repeat that an essential distinction is to be seen here.
We are all bound to show, by our example, how lawful
things may be lawfully used; and need only then abstain from
the abuse. We are not to abstain from what is lawful and
right, except when truly conscientious and weak good men
must, of necessity, misinterpret our lawful conduct.
Apply this remark to temperance. We are bound to set
before all men, and at all times, an example how to use
drinks temperately. If men see, or can easily be made to
see, the true distinction between the temperate and intemperate
use; that is, between the lawful use and the unlawful
abuse; then is the sin their own, in case they affect to plead
our proper behavior as a good reason for their improper behavior.
Deny this plain principle and its plain inferences,
and the door is wide open for every monstrous absurdity in
life and logic. An impudent fellow may then say, “If you,
who can afford it, wear a fine coat, I, who cannot, will have
one also;”—or, “You are rich, and eat mutton chops and
oysters moderately; and, therefore, I will eat cold beef immoderately;
and on you shall be the sin of my gluttony.”
Another may say, “If you recreate and I cannot, if you
have any joy beyond my means or situation, you are a bad
and selfish fellow; and, therefore, I will have and do the
same, if I perish.” Yea, a man might say, “You live in a
three-story brick edifice; and, therefore, I shall knock down
and rob the next man I meet: if you would prevent that
crime, go live in a one-story frame house.” And so people
who do know what is sin and what is not, say, “If you drink
a glass of wine once a day at your dinner, I intend, for that
reason, to drink a gin-sling or a cocktail before and after
every meal; and as often as I can buy, beg, or steal one.”
Supposing, however, the example of the lawful use of a
dangerous thing cannot be seen or be understood without
entire disuse; then, for the time, and under the peculiarity
of the circumstances, the total abstinence is obligatory. In
this category is, in some places, perhaps, the Temperance
Reformation. Hence, if I abstain entirely from the
tabooed
drinks, it is on this principle, and not on the conscientious
principle. I make a grand distinction between causing a
conscientious man to sin, and innocently causing a petulant
man to get very angry.
I do, of course, deem total abstinence only temporary.
A time may come when it would be safe for the public, that
all who can temperately and moderately drink certain liquors,
may do so if they please. The use and abuse are, indeed,
very near one another; but while that is a reason for uncommon
caution and watchfulness, it is not a conclusive
reason for entire abstinence. For, while thousands who
deemed themselves wary enough, have been conquered by
their appetite; yet it is also true, that very many have not
been thus overcome. These opposite results only show, that
some may, and others may not, drink even temperately.
This could be illustrated and enforced in many things
where use and abuse are very near neighbors. Our talents,
learning, appetites, propensities, all are liable to great abuse
and perversion; but who contends that all these things are
intrinsically wrong, and that for fear of evil we must abstain
from all use of our natural faculties, powers, endowments?
Perhaps there is nothing very important to us individually
that is not, just in proportion to that importance,
the more liable to abuse. If an instrumentality of great
power, it is of course a great temptation to use it, in any
way for our purposes; and if our purposes are bad, the instrumentality
will become the means of great evil. The
present condition of man is one of endless warfare and watchfulness;
and evils arise, not from what natural or accessory
powers and means we may severally possess, but from our
intention to misuse and pervert. And this reaches to all the
good things intended for our benefit. The only safety is in
looking to God with an humble and honest prayerfulness to
give us right hearts and spirits. It is both foolish and wicked
to plead our easy liability to commit sin as any excuse for
carelessness and presumption.
Some drinks, dangerous in the excess, may be temperately
used during a long life, as has been seen in ten thousand
instances; although the persons thus using them have been
perpetually in danger of falling into ruinous habits. And
none need more watchfulness than those who live surrounded
with gunpowder. What degree of blame attaches to the
moderate use of dangerous things, where men are not of
necessity driven to use them at all, is a question nice and
intricate. If entire abstinence is imperative in all such
matters, I apprehend the sphere of our movement will contract
to a hollow point—and then unexpectedly explode like
a schoolboy's torpedo.
All this may be deemed bold. But what is gained by
muzzling logic? I have no reverence for a morality bolstered
up by machinery and expedient; and whilst men may be
silenced by authority and intimidated by opinion, they will
not be convinced. And their long pent-up indignation will,
at the first fair opportunity, burst forth with a violence commensurate
with the mere authoritative and mechanical screw
restraining it.
Charles, if any meats or drinks are poisonous, and
therefore not intended for use at all, of course neither Scripture
nor reason allow us to meddle with these. But while
great thanks are due to the learned and excellent men who
have investigated the effects of certain meats and drinks
on the bodily system, and while possibly their modes of exhibiting
these effects may be a kind of in terrorem for men
of passion, if not for men of reason, yet, after all, diversity
of opinion will prevail as to the fitness and unfitness of certain
articles of food and drink for the refreshment or nourishment
of the body.
