A Great Responsibility.
By Editor
IN the Christian at Work, a writer, after recounting some of the terrible effects of the use of liquor, asks the following questions:— "Who was to blame in this case? The father of course. Yes, the father was to blame. But was there no one else to blame? Yes, the rumseller. Any one else? Yes, the minister who gave his countenance at the sideboard, and joined in the social glass. Any one else? Yes, the members of the church who were frequent visitors, and who, in the presence of that sinless child, gave their influence and example to the practice. Any one else? Yes, the law which tolerates the manufacture of the vile poisons, which are still circulated and sold through the country, at the expense of poor, suffering humanity, dismantling our houses, and filling our cemeteries and potter's-fields with graves, and our jails and penitentiaries and an unseen hell with their victims. If every member of the Christian church in the country would vote for a prohibitory law, it would carry, and there would be no more rum made and sold. Why is this not done?" Dr. Barnes once said that there was no power outside of the American churches which could perpetuate American slavery, if it was not upheld by the churches. If we are responsible for the good which we can do, but which we neglect or refuse to do, then, according to Dr. Barnes' declaration, the truthfulness of which cannot be doubted, the American churches were responsible for all the evils of slavery, including the war which resulted in its abolition. And upon the same principle they are now answerable for all the evils of the liquor traffic, if it is in their power to suppress it. The evils—the horrors of the liquor traffic cannot be estimated, or conceived by a finite mind. More innocents are yearly crying to Heaven for vengeance against the dealers in intoxicating drinks, than were slain under the order of Herod. And if the American churches have it in their power to stay this evil to any considerable extent, their culpability must be great indeed if they refuse to do it. The gospel inculcates two great principles—love to God, and love to man. But love to man is sometimes taken as a test of the sincerity of our love to God. The apostle asks, "He that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" And the Saviour (Matt. 5:43-48) makes universal or disinterested benevolence the perfection of Christian character. Therefore they who turn away their ears from the cries of distressed humanity may well expect to have their cries unheard in the day of reckoning. Matt. 7:21-23; 25:41-45. The churches cannot plead as an excuse that this would involve a political issue, for they have voluntarily entered the arena of politics, in which they take an active part. If they take part in the administration of the government, they are responsible for their neglect of the poor and the oppressed; for protection is one of the chief uses of civil government. A government which refuses to protect the innocent who are oppressed and abused is unworthy of its name. A government which sanctions abuses, and refuses to redress wrongs, is nearly as bad as anarchy; it takes the right of self-defense from the subject, while it refuses to act as the defender of the down-trodden and the helpless. Temperance reformers (professedly so, at least) say you cannot make people good by law. This is a very flimsy pretense. You can restrain vice and crime by law, and by law punish the man who willfully and feloniously injures his fellow man. If not, why do we have laws. What is the use of law? Shall we abolish our criminal courts, and throw open the prison doors, because we cannot make men good by law? Shall we let the depraved, the vicious, prey unrestrained upon the helpless, and undermine the morals of society, because we cannot make them virtuous by law? We are opposed to enforcing religion or religious tests by law. Such action is entirely outside the province of civil government. But restraining vice and punishing crime is quite another thing. No government has a right to license men to invade the rights of other men, or to demoralize society. Such action is a usurpation of powers not inherent in any man, or capable of being conferred by man. We know of no reason why any man should be permitted to deal in intoxicating beverages, nor why a church should not be the strictest kind of a "temperance society," in the highest and best use of the phrase. We echo the query of the writer quoted—"Why is this not done?" Can the churches professing the religion of Christ—the religion of humanity and universal benevolence—tell why?