What was the temperance movement?

Not to anticipate, however, the Temperance Reformers may be divided in twain. One party consider that alcoholic liquors are essentially poisonous* and therefore evil as a beverage; that in Scripture times there were two distinct genera of wine, etc., — the one unfermented and a blessing, the other fermented and a curse. But the moderate own that the use of alcohol is not in itself sinful; that inspired men, and even Christ Himself, did not abstain; that the habitual use of fermented beverages may be sanctioned by the Bible: still they plead that, though lawful, it is not expedient. It is plain that the latter system destroys the former. Among themselves the difference is keenly felt, if we may judge by the unusual acrimony of their recriminations. The partisans of expediency pronounce the doctrine of the ultra-teetotalers to be "preposterous and pestiferous lucubrations," "mischievous error," and "modern delusion," and hear in return that, in its present shape, their theory is "an absurd and blasphemous abomination, and the sooner it is universally scouted and scorned, the better" — "a fraud and a counterfeit of the worst description." Since this is their spirit to each other, he who is forced to condemn them both, can expect little courtesy from either.

On leaving the Gloucester station the other day, I found that one of my fellow-passengers was a lunatic, in the care of a keeper. I soon found that this keeper held some most dangerous opinions respecting the Temperance movement. With him temperance was a John the Baptist, to prepare sinners for Christ; and, as near as I could make out his meaning, he thought it was about one-half of a sinner's salvation; a sentiment as much like blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, whose blessed work it is to bring sinners to Christ, as anything I have heard.

I should be most sorry to speak one word against temperance as a great social benefit amongst men. Right glad should I be, where drunkenness is such a frightful evil, if there were not a drop of drink to be got in the land. Entirely apart from the question of a sinner's salvation, there can be no doubt the moral government of God so orders things, that a sober man must enjoy a greater amount of social happiness than a drunkard. But when the foundation of the gospel is attacked, is a Christian to be silent? God forbid. This caused me to speak very strongly of the use that Satan may make of the Temperance movement. This may startle my reader; but let me remind you that it is ever Satan's policy to use the best things adapted to accomplish his purposes. He is wont to appear as an angel of light. I will just refer to a parallel case. No one can question that the law of God is holy, just, and good. No one can question the immense benefit of that law in God's moral government of the world; or that in this respect, and for this purpose, to abolish it would be to turn this whole world into one wide hell. And yet it was this very law that the ministers of Satan were seeking to mix with the work of Christ, for justification before God. The Epistle to the Galatians was written for the very purpose of meeting this work of Satan. Now, if he took up so good a thing as the law, is it any wonder that he should take up so good a thing as temperance, and use it in the same way? It was not enough, said they, for salvation, that a man should believe in Christ, he must also be circumcised and keep the law. This keeper was just saying the same thing over again; trying hard to prove that it was not enough for a poor, lost sinner to believe in Christ. He must take the pledge first, and be a temperance man; then he was fit to believe in Christ. Mix the two together, and the man might be saved. A man must have poor eyes that cannot see this to be the devil's work over again.

A correspondent has applied to us for an opinion on the subject of the use of fermented liquor in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. We desire to treat with respect the conscience that feels a difficulty in this matter, though we cannot say that the question has ever troubled us. We simply use the wine appointed for the purpose, asking no question for conscience' sake. But we are thankful for the communication just now, and we deem it right to avail ourselves of it, for the purpose of addressing our readers on the very important subject of the use of wine and other stimulants in a general way. We feel bound to speak plainly on this or any other question which may come before us; and in acquitting our conscience in the matter, we must candidly confess that we have recently witnessed much and heard much to alarm us in reference to the use of stimulants. We do not want to startle our readers, or create any sensation. Far from it. We merely want to raise a warning voice against what we are convinced is a very great evil — namely, the abuse of stimulants. We do not presume to lay down rules, or to dictate to others; each one must judge, as in the fear of God, whether he really requires to "use a little wine:" but we have no hesitation in saying that the Lord has been dishonoured, His Spirit grieved, His cause injured, the testimony marred, and souls stumbled, by professing Christians indulging in the use of strong drink. We are aware that 1 Timothy 5:23 will be referred to as divine authority for the use of wine on medical grounds; and most assuredly, had we only to do with self-denying Timothys, there would be little fear of their abusing a divine prescription, and therefore little need for us to write these lines. But, alas! alas! self-denial is, now-a-days, the exception, self-indulgence the rule. We fear that many who are not in Timothy's state, either as to soul or body, draw a plea from this passage for a practice which they really love, and for which there is no real need. Drunkenness prevails to such an extent that it really becomes Christians to bear a decided testimony in their personal habits. We know, on divine authority, that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused; but we know, on the same authority, that "it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbles, or is offended, or is made weak." (Rom. 14:21) We are not now writing in defence of what is called total abstinence; nor do we mean to advocate the principle of vows and resolutions. We merely wish to call the attention of Christians to this one question; namely, is it right, is it spiritual, is it Christ-like, all things considered, to indulge in the use of intoxicating drink? Would it not be better, in every way, to abstain from that which is productive of such misery and moral degradation? Self-denial is good. It is a great thing to keep the body in subjection. The Christian should never suffer himself to become the slave of a habit. How much better it would be, in every respect, if all that is spent on alcohol and tobacco were devoted to the work of the Lord, or to the poor. May the Lord lead us to lay these things to heart!

p246 Edward Foley, I do not judge temperance societies to be good or scriptural, because they impose another law, and give other motives and other obligations, than scripture or the doctrines of Christ give, and though in particular instances where followed with an unfeigned desire for good, God may have in sovereign mercy overruled them for good (as I dare say may have been the case), yet their general moral effect has been harmful, as all unscriptural things must be. But this is not the ground I go on here, though it is a monstrous thing to substitute an unscriptural invention of man for the institution of God, in a matter which, as to institutions, forms the central expression of the christian system. Further, I think all vows or undertakings of this kind to be positive sin: and am I really to give up the scriptural remembrance of Christ to support a system whose basis I believe to be really (though unwittingly) a sin?

The attempt which is now being made to substitute moral restraint for the liberty of truth, is very clearly manifested in a series of tracts published by the Temperance Society, designated the teetotal series, with the text, "Let your light shine before men." The tract No. 7, is an appeal to christian principles in behalf of total abstinence, etc., addressed to mechanics who are members of christian churches. Now, whilst the Temperance Society professedly stood on merely philanthropic ground, it might, as it made no pretensions to be considered christian, have been suffered to pass unnoticed, soon to yield its testimony to the failure of the combined force of self-interest and moral restraint against the evil which is in man. But since it has come to tread on the hallowed ground of Christianity, and to propose itself as subsidiary to, if not a substitution for, the grace of God, such attempt, whether in ignorance or intentional, to subvert the truth needs a plain exposure. And in this one tract there is hardly a precious truth left untouched. The invitation is to christian friends.

"We are anxious to obtain your support: and when we assure you that our sole object is 'Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, and good will to men,' we are sure you will attend while we urge a few reasons why you, as christians, should come forward in this glorious work. Statesmen have legislated for the suppression of this awful vice; ministers of Christ have exposed the sin and its awful consequences; and benevolent men have exerted their influence in public and private life, to stem the torrent; but all has been in vain."

Since the days of Cain, man has never wanted some new or revived invention wherewith to patch up his outcast condition. If Teetotalism, then, had come forward merely as a medical discovery, or even as a branch of philanthropy, it might have passed unnoticed save by those whom it concerns. But seeing that, in its grossest form, it taunts the servants of Christ with their vain efforts, and professes to outdo the Gospel; seeing that, in its least offensive shape, it claims Scriptural authority, and aspires to be the pioneer and the handmaid of the Gospel, the subject calls for a passing notice.

The Christian reads the Old Testament. He finds that wine intoxicated Noah and Lot, (Gen. 9, 19) and that it afterwards afforded occasion for frequent and solemn remonstrance. (Prov. 20; 23 Isa. 5; 28, etc.) Again, he finds wine brought as a natural comfort to Abraham and Isaac, (Gen. 1; 27) and often so treated, literally as well as figuratively. (Deut. 14, Ps. 104. Prov. 9; 31:6. Cant. passim, etc.) He sees in the New Testament neither contradiction nor difficulty. The Lord commenced His miracles by making water into wine, (John 2) was invidiously compared with His forerunner because He abstained not, (Luke 7) and made bread and wine (which John the Baptist never used)* to be the chosen, constant memorial of His dying love till He come again, the symbol also of our communion with each other. Finally, the Holy Ghost more than once dwells on the end of the drunkard, (1 Cor. 6, Gal. 5) corrects the unhallowed licence of the Corinthian church at the Lord's Supper, (1 Cor. 11) and warns believers, especially such as were prominent, against excess in daily life. (Eph. 5, 1 Tim. 3 Titus 2) At the same time, He takes pains (1 Tim. 5:23.) to remove the scrupulousness of a devoted young servant of Christ, and enjoins the use of a little wine, rather than water, for his stomach's sake and often infirmities. So graciously does God deign to interest Himself even in the bodily weakness and wants of those who love Him! The conclusion is irresistible. Total abstinence, as a general rule, has not, nor ever had, divine sanction. It is a device at issue with the plain facts and doctrine of Scripture, and this as to Christians no less than as to Jews. In the Old Testament yayin and in the New Testament οἶνος — that is, the ordinary words for "wine" in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures — are used both in a good and in a bad connection; because the moral evil lay not in the thing itself, nor in its use, but in its abuse. There were different kinds of wine then, (Neh. 5:18,) as there are now. But not a single text intimates a particular sort of yayin which could not inebriate. Nay, more: what Scripture does say, disproves the fancy, as the sequel abundantly shows. Thus, Num. 6:3 plainly marks off yayin as fermented grape-juice, and that in the vinous as distinguished from the acetous stage; excluding other fermented drinks, vinegar, unfermented grape-liquors, as well as the solid fruit of the vine. We who adhere to the regular sense of the word are not bound to produce specific proofs; we are entitled to take it in the same sense everywhere, unless positive cause be shown to the contrary. But those who affirm that in certain places the word has a different meaning, are, in each instance, bound to give Scriptural reasons adequate to produce conviction. This they can never do. We deny their affirmation: upon them falls the burden of proof.†

I do not admit that Christianity needs to be supplemented, or its holy principles added to, from the repertory of Total Abstinence philosophy or any other. Coming after Christianity, Teetotalism is an impertinence (I do not use the word in an offensive sense); it virtually impugns the wisdom of our Lord, denying the completeness of the doctrine and precepts which, by Himself and His apostles, He has handed down to us.

Besides being a reflection on Christianity, Teetotalism is a REFLECTION UPON GOD AS CREATOR. Now whatever God has created is good; it is man's sin that turns it into evil. Drunkenness is the abuse of a creature of God. The created thing itself is good, and its proper use beneficial. But Teetotalism treating the thing as evil really reproaches God with having created an evil thing, and, pro tanto, reduces or denies man's sin in the matter. It thus throws upon God the blame of man's sin, which is, in principle, just what Adam did when he said: "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." E.J.T.

I do not here refer to the Scriptural denunciations of excess, which are abundant, particularly in the Prophets; nor to all that we know of its evils, because that is not the subject in question. What is now under consideration, is not the abuse of wine, but its use; and Paul, contrary to all ascetic notions, instructs Timothy that, "Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if received with thanksgiving," etc. (1 Tim. 4:4), adding immediately, "If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine" (ver. 6).

I have said that I have no sympathy with Teetotalism, but the searching of Scripture gives me a much more decided judgment against it than I had before. I had looked upon it as a harmless fad, rather good than otherwise; but scriptural investigation shows me differently. Contrasting it with New Testament doctrine, as I have quoted, Teetotalism appears to me to be a REFLECTION UPON CHRISTIANITY. It is the Colossian error of supplementing Christianity from the resources of human wisdom; not openly denying, but adding to it, and thus implying that it is not perfect and complete in itself. Paul says to the Colossians, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world and not after Christ." "Ye are complete in Him" (Col. 2:8, 10). See also verses 16, 20-23 of same chapter.

[* How paltry and beneath, yea opposed to, God's word, is the modern invention of the Blue-ribbon Society! There worldly professors are put under a sort of vow of abstinence from intoxicating drinks to Christ! How dare they profane His name without His word and against it? And how dare Christians lend themselves to such unhallowed unions under the delusion of honouring Him?]

Let us, however, examine their arguments; and first, of those who advocate "thorough and consistent Teetotalism."