Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Letter of Gerrit Smith to Edward C. Delavan.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 406

LETTER

OF

GERRIT SMITH

TO

EDWARD C. DELAVAN.

PRESS OF THE FRIEND OF MAN, WHITESBORO.

LETTER

PETERBORO, Nov. 6, 1837.

EDWARD C. DELAVAN, Esq.,

My Dear Friend,

Why is it that the interest in the Temperance Reformation in this country, is not as general and intense, as it was half a dozen years ago? And again, what is wanting to insure the success of this Reformation?

One answer to the first question is, that the enterprise, having lost its novelty, is no longer attractive to those, who are interested in what is new rather than in what is right. Another is, that some have become indifferent, through their confidence - unauthorized confidence - in its ultimate triumph. They labored in the good cause, until they became confident of its complete success, and then lost their interest in it. It seems not to have occurred to them, that they only are authorized to anticipate the success of a good cause, who persevere in efforts to secure it. Another answer, which some give to this question is, that many, who were zealously engaged in the Temperance Reformation, have lost a great portion of their interest in it, by their espousal of the Anti-Slavery cause. It is true, that the claims, which the cause of impartial and universal liberty is putting forth in our country, are strong and absorbing, but it must be remembered, that "abolitionists" - even those of them, whose interest in their enslaved, crushed brother is the most engrossing - are, nevertheless, continuing to aid the temperance reformation, by inculcating its leading doctrines. Although the abolitionist is laboring in another department of benevolence, still, a very grateful

4

evidence, that abolition and temperance harmonize with each other, is found in the fact, that you very rarely meet with an abolitionist, who does not defend and exemplify the principles of the Temperance Reformation. Indeed, the motto of immediate, entire and universal abstinence from sin, is, as I shall attempt to show in another part of this letter, much more appropriately claimed by the abolitionist than by the subscriber to the principles of the Temperance cause - these principles being either imperfect in themselves, or but partially applied.

I will give but one more answer to my first question. It is that the cause of Temperance has no longer on its side the power of fashion. Whilst distilled spirit only was proscribed, the upper classes of society, with whom alone resides the power of giving tore to its customs, through the magic influence of fashion, were willing, and to some ex tent, desirous, that the Reformation should proceed. But, when a more thorough work was determined on; and the demon of intemperance came to be pursued among the wine bottles, then were the refined and polite suddenly transformed into implacable enemies to the Temperance enterprise. They could endure, and even favor the banishment of vulgar drinks; but that the beverage of gentlemen should be stigmatized and proscribed; and that the spirit of reform should be so stern and impartial, as not to spare the usages and ceremonies which distinguish the abodes of fashion and splendor from those of plainness and simplicity, and which in the eyes of so many, are the conventional, distinctive mark of true politeness; - that the Temperance Reformation should degenerate into downright Vandalism was more than their patience could endure. That the cause of Temperance "did run well," whilst it was in agreement with fashion, is not marvellous: nor, on the other hand, since it has embodied so much of truth and purity, as to incur the enmity of mighty fashion, should its diminished rate of progress be deemed inexplicable. The spirit of the old dispensation of the Temperance Reform was partial. It passed by the rich man's decanters and demijohns, to quarrel with the poor man's jugs and bottles. What wonder is it, that they, whom this spirit gained to our cause, should fall away, when we assail every species of the drunkard's drink, and scorn to purchase accessions to our

5

ranks at the expense of righteous impartiality; - and when the unpalatableness of truth neither deters us from urging it, nor weakens our confidence in its efficiency. It was a common remark, in the first years of the Temperance Reformation, that our object was to make the drinking of distilled liquors unfashionable. So far as this was our object - certainly, so far as it was not our object to show the practice to be wrong rather than to make it unfashionable - we were in error. No changes, which fashion produces, can be calculated upon as permanent. How frequently have we seen it restore the very styles and customs, which, but a few years before, it had exploded. The practice it has banished, its potent wand can recal. The sobriety it produces to-day, it may exchange for drunkenness to-morrow. If the principles of temperance ever attain universal prevalence, not the fickle goddess, but the steadily operating power of reason and religion will have the merit of the glorious triumph.

In answer to the question: "What is lacking to insure the success of the Temperance Reformation?" I will advert to but two deficiencies. Before the Temperance cause can be crowned with triumph, there must be a great increase of benevolence - of the self-denying, self-sacrificing benevolence inculcated in the Holy Scriptures. In the case of thousands, and tens of thousands of those, who have subscribed the old pledge, it is manifest, that selfishness, and selfishness only, moved them to forego the gratification of drinking ardent spirit. They will not consent, though they know, that the salvation of the drunkard demands it, to the invasion of the fashion of wine drinking nor, have they enough of self-denial to be willing to forego the supposed profit of furnishing materials for the manufacture of intoxicating liquors. You and I have many an acquaintance, who, though his name has been upon the old pledge for years, and who, though he is aware that countless numbers of his fellow men are perishing, body and soul, because of the sustained custom of drinking fermented liquors, has not, nevertheless, enough of self-denial to refrain from contributing to that ruinous custom. There are, in this neighborhood, persons, who have subscribed the old pledge, and even the new pledge also, who continue to take grain to the distiller, and hops to the brew-

6

er: and who, in this wise, give evidence, as abundant as painful, that their connection with the Temperance Society is the offspring of any thing rather than benevolence. I am unacquainted with a country church in which there are not farmers, merchants, or others, who are unwilling to deprive themselves of the advantage of a share in the Satanic work of making drunkards: and I presume that the city church is rare, in which every member frowns on the fashion of wine drinking.

What then is wanting in the great mass of professing Christians, that they may engage heartily in the work of delivering the poor drunkard, and staying the desolating tide of intemperance? Is it more light? Not so much this, as it is more love - more of that Christian sympathy which exclaims "who is weak and I am not weak?" When we go with a case of human suffering to our neighbor of well known benevolence, it is to solicit a share of his benevolent feeling: - but the work, in the case of our selfish and hard-hearted neighbor, is to create benevolent feeling. So it is, respecting those professing Christians in our country, who withstand the appeals of the cause of Temperance. It is not so much that they need an increased knowledge of the miseries and ruin of intemperance - for they are already extensively instructed in them: but, that they must have a spirit of benevolence - of self denial - before they will devote themselves to the work of lightening those miseries and averting that ruin. We know many professing Christians, to whom we would no sooner go with the claims of the perishing drunkard or crushed slave, than to so many blocks of marble. They want benevolent hearts - new hearts; and not until they have them, will they be ready to embark in our enterprises of charity.

Whatever stress may be laid on the power of worldly principles to advance the cause of temperance, and, especially, on its obvious advantages in a political and economical point of view, Christian benevolence must, nevertheless, be the main dependence, and these principles and advantages be ranked no higher than auxiliaries. When, however, I consider the feebleness of this benevolence, the fear prevails in me, that, for the present at least, the progress of temperance has nearly reached its utmost limit in this country. And has it never occurred to you, my dear friend, that there must be more religion in

7

our country, before there can be much more temperance in it? I do not mean the religion which fights for its creed and is proud of its orthodoxy. Of that we have quite enough already. I mean the simple, practical, Bible piety, which sees a brother and pities him, even in the debased and outcast drunkard, or in the despised and forgotten slave.

Do not suppose that I would advise to any relaxation of our temperance efforts. I would have these efforts renewed, and multiplied, and more earnest. If there are any benevolent spirits not yet interested in our cause, they must be enlisted; whilst, even upon the most selfish and obdurate, the claims of that cause should be unceasingly pressed, if it be only to show them how great must be the selfishness and obduracy which can withstand these claims.

The other deficiency of which I am to speak, and which must be supplied before the success of the temperance cause will be certain, lies in its foundation principles. It is true, that a great improvement has taken place in these principles; but they are not yet what they must be, in order to answer the demands of truth and insure complete success. The declaration by the National Temperance Convention, in May, 1833 - that the use of ardent spirit, as a drink, is immoral was a very important advance in our principles, and one that has been pretty well sustained by the friends of temperance. A like advance is to be seen in the position, that the use of fermented liquors, as a drink, is inexpedient; - a position, which, notwithstanding the extensive and virulent opposition it has encountered, has contributed to correct the public sentiment, and to elevate the standard of temperance. But the temperance reformation will never be placed on its proper basis, until its friends adopt and maintain the doctrine, that the use of any kind of intoxicating liquor, as a beverage, is immoral.

It seems to be generally thought, that a public sentiment against the expediency of drinking fermented liquors, is of nearly as great avail, to the cause of temperance, as the like sentiment against the morality of the custom. But this is a great and pernicious error. Compared with that of its immorality, the conviction of the inexpediency of a practice, has but little power to deter from it. The last few years

8

afford abundant evidence, that, however conclusively it may be shown, that slaveholding is inexpedient, the conscience of the slaveholder remains undisturbed, until his inexpedient relation is shown to be unmoral also. All Dr. Fisk's and Professor Stuart's arguments to show, that the relation of slaveholder and slave is inexpedient, have been far more than balanced by their unhappy admission, that it is not malum in se - that it is scriptural and innocent. The slaveholders would very cheerfully vote gold medals to all titled divines, who oppose slavery in the way Dr. Fisk and Professor Stuart do; - that is, bearing it down with the little finger, and yet holding it up with both hands. That we may be content to aim at nothing further than to establish the point of the inexpediency of drinking fermented liquors, we are told, that the clear - sighted man will perceive it to be immoral to do that, which is inexpedient. But, all men are not clear-sighted - and some, who are, will not admit this coincidence of inexpediency and immorality. Where the immorality of a practice is argued from its inexpediency, there can not be that certainty of the justness of the conclusion, that there is, where the immorality is proven from the immediate violation of the principles of morality. For, in addition to the room there is for doubting, whether, in the given case, immorality necessarily follows inexpediency, the question may always be started; whether the fact of the inexpediency itself has been justly settled by fallible human reason. Hence, wherever the immorality of a practice admits of direct proof, instead of being merely inferable from its inexpediency, the great importance of insisting on its immorality, and of not being content to establish its inexpediency. To illustrate this importance; - suppose, that the Bible specifically required attendance on public worship, half a dozen times during the Sabbath; - suppose further, that the claim to this attendance were to be urged on no other than the comparatively low ground, that in the judgment of wise and good men it is an expedient observance of the Sabbath and promotive of true religion would not the claim be open to debate, and is it not very probable, that many, on whom it should be urged, would, with perfect self-satisfaction, presume to array their own judgment against the fallible human authority on which, and on nothing better than which, the claim rest-

9

ed? But, suppose this attendance to be urged on the high and true ground of a specific Bible command; then they, who could withhold it with undisturbed consciences, must first have rejected the supreme authority of the Bible.

I surely need not multiply words to show that, where there is an immoral practice, we can not, without great and criminal infidelity to the cause of truth and holiness, forbear urging its immorality. If, fur instance, slaveholding is a sin, then we must not, as did the "American Union," save the conscience of the slaveholder, by calling it a "wrong." An instance occurs to me of the advantage and duty of declaring God's testimony respecting this crime. A slaveholder came many miles out of his way to converse with me on the subject of slavery. With the "American Union," he was ready to admit that it is "wrong." Indeed, he regarded himself as an abolitionist. Nevertheless, he wished me to understand, that he was not a Garrison abolitionist: - in other words, that he was not in favor of calling slave holders by hard names. I pointed him to one of the passages of the Holy Scriptures, which prove, that the slaveholder is a sinner of the deepest die, and that he is verily a manstealer. An arrow of conviction entered his soul. He did not leave me, without giving me the strongest assurances, that he would, on his return home, emancipate his slaves. A letter, which he wrote me, a short time after, shows, that the passage, to which I had called his attention, was still doing its perfect work. In this letter he says: "'Or if he be found in his hand,' is written on my eyeballs. I thank you for turning my attention to the verse. I hope I shall never forget it. My prayer to God is that I may not." How different this effect of laying God's testimony on the conscience of my visiter, from the probable effect, had I addressed him in the soothing strains of expediency - put into his hands a New York Observer or Boston Recorder argument against slavery - or made Bishop Hedding or Dr. Miller, instead of the Bible, his anti-slavery teacher! And, as is the duty, in our dealing with the slaveholder, of trusting in the Lord's wisdom, and not leaning to our own understanding, even such is it in our dealing with the drinker of intoxicating liquors. It the using of these liquors, as a drink, and consequently

2

10

the making and selling of them for a drink, be a transgression of the Divine law, instead of being merely inexpedient, how immensely important is it, that we press the drinkers, makers, and venders - those destroyers of the body and soul - with the strongest possible motive to forsake their evil ways! - how immensely important is it, that we startle them with the declaration of their sin, instead of deepening their guilty slumbers by our talk about the inexpediency of their wicked practices.

But we are required to prove, that to use intoxicating liquor, as a drink, is immoral. When I speak of immorality in this letter, of course I refer to something opposed to the morality of the Bible. The Bible clearly and abundantly forbids man to injure himself: and observation and science have made the fact evident, beyond all controversy, that in all intoxicating liquors, there is an element known under the name of alcohol, which is as certainly poisonous as arsenic or henbane, and which, no more than these poisons, can be received into the stomach, without violating the laws of health and life. Equally well established is the fact, that the other ingredients in these liquors do not neutralize the poisonous properties of the alcohol. It hardly need be added, that no intelligent and sober person in our country believes; that a man in health requires any of these liquors to preserve his health.

No further evidence is necessary to show, that the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage, is immoral. Whether such liquor should have a place in the materia medico, or in the ceremonies of the Eucharist, is entirely immaterial to the object of this letter - to the object of showing that it is immoral to use it, as a beverage. Alcohol, as well as other poisons, may be useful in the treatment of disease; though the candid man, after reading Dr. Muzzey's Prize Essay, will hardly claim its indispensableness, even here. I also readily admit, that its poisonous qualities should not exclude it from use in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, if the Divine Being, who instituted this ordinance, requires alcoholic liquor to be used in it. The guests of that royal feast must not hesitate, if the King command it, to taste of arsenic itself.

11

Suppose I were now told, that the Apostles used alcoholic liquor, as a beverage. I should ask for the proof. Suppose that proof, irresistible proof, of the fact were produced. I should then reply, that they must have been ignorant, that such liquor is deleterious as a beverage. What! the Apostles ignorant! Even so: - for, when we have admitted, that for all the purposes of their high tailing, they were under the infallible guidance of Divine inspiration, it, by no means, follows, that they were privileged on all subjects with peculiar sources of instruction. Least of all may we suppose, that, in all their practices - and, in those, even which relate to meats and drinks, they were exempted from mistakes. On the contrary, I suppose that the united wisdom of the Apostles in dietetics fills far short of what is known on this subject by an intelligent modern physician. The supposition, that the Apostles knew the poisonous property of alcoholic liquor - its great injuriousness to man's physical and moral constitution - and is till used it as a drink, is at war with their professed regard for life and health, and makes them guilty of a wilful contravention of their own principles.

We may be told, that, according to our doctrine of the immorality of using intoxicating liquor as a beverage, the Apostles could not have so used it, without being guilty of doing what is morally wrong. But, revolting as this conclusion is, it must not be suffered to deter us from insisting on the doctrine: and we should the less hesitate to come to this conclusion, since there are instances in the Holy Scriptures to confirm its truth - instances, which show, that the Apostles were capable of departing from moral rectitude - instances, I may add, which show that the Heaven-taught principles, not the erring practices, of the Apostles, are to guide us. It by no means follows, however, that, because it is morally wrong for us to use alcoholic liquors as a beverage, it must have been morally wrong for the Apostles to do so. In the progress of science and providential developments, we, of the present favored age and country, have come to learn, that alcoholic liquors are poisonous and very injurious to man's physical and moral constitution. The Apostles, on the contrary, may have believed them to be healthful: for, although they could not fail to see

12

their ruinous power, when drank freely, they may, nevertheless, have believed that, moderately used, they were not only a beneficial, but a well nigh indispensable beverage. Now, it is not certain, that such ignorance on the part of the Apostles, of the properties of alcoholic liquors would have been inexcusable. It is not certain, that they are to be judged for not coming to that light, which they not only did not, but which, in the imperfect state of science, and under their other dis advantages, they perhaps could not know. For you and me to refuse to avail ourselves of modern improvements in travelling would be to despise the Scriptural inculcations of the value of time. But it does not follow that our fathers, who spent a week in travelling from New York to Albany, or half that time on the way from Albany to Utica, are to be condemned for not having attained to that celerity of locomotion, which is the fruit of the maturer science and skill of the present age. No more certain is it, that the Apostles are to be found guilty, because, in respect to meats, drinks, apparel, facilities of travel, &c., they were far behind the knowledge of the present age, and knew not what in their age was unknown. The Bible condemns men for not coming to existing light - to light already revealed. It does not condemn them for not coming to the light, which is yet to be evolved.

And now suppose I should be told, that even the Savior himself used alcoholic liquors as a beverage. Here, as in the former case, I should call for the proof; and if, as is supposed, in that case, conclusive evidence of the fact were adduced, my confidence, that it is morally wrong to use such liquors as a drink, would not be at all diminished. The principles and precepts of his word, and the corroborative teachings of his unfolding providence would still compel me to believe, that to use such liquors as a drink is morally wrong. But, is it supposable, that any of the Savior's acts or practices contradict the instructions of his word and providence? It is not. We must, however, bear it in mind, that these instructions are the rule, not of his, but of our conduct: and therefore to insist, that the deportment of the Savior must have uniformly harmonized with these instructions is no less than to maintain that the God of Heaven must Himself have invariably been governed by the principles and motives which He enjoined upon man.

13

But it is asked, if the Savior's deportment - his actions and practices - be not our example. I answer - only so far as they illustrate the precepts and rules given for the direction of our life. If any conduct of our Savior was such, as not to harmonize with the lessons, which his word and providence give us to learn and obey; then there is, in this fact itself, conclusive proof, that such conduct is not for our example. For to suppose, that the Savior would demand our imitation of himself on a point where his word and providence forbid it, would be to suppose, that he is an imperfect and erring being.

If the reasoning, on which I have denied to supposed practices of the Savior the obligation of an example, be correct; then, if it were true, that He used alcoholic liquors as a drink, his doing so would not be an example for us. And here I would remark, that it is by this reasoning, perhaps, that the disciples of Christ can justify themselves, if at all, in declining, to imitate Him, in his resort to force to clear the temple, and in the language of harsh rebuke and wither in a denunciation, which be often employed, as when he called men hypocrites, children of the devil, and even Satan himself. They would take the ground, that in all this, in which He acted "as one having authority " - the authority of God - His deportment does not harmonize with, and does not illustrate the principles of human conduct, which he inculcated; and therefore does not demand our imitation.

I have not said what could have induced the Savior to use alcoholic liquors as a beverage; and I might totally err, were I to attempt to assign the cause. But, whatever the cause, the purpose of my argument does not require the knowledge of it. It is enough for this purpose to show, as I trust has been done, that even if our Savior did use poisonous liquors as a drink, it does not follow that we may innocently do so. If He did so, it was probably the Divine economy, that He should in no wise avail himself of His omniscience in respect to His food; but that He should, like other men, eat and drink what custom placed before Him. If He used alcoholic liquors as a beverage, it was probably according to that Divine policy, under which he was to come "eating and drinking " what they ate and drank with whom He associated. But, that we are to be thus "eating and drinking" - that,

14

like Him, we are to accept of feasts and even "great" feasts, with which men may honorus - that we are, in such respects, to conform to those around us - is no more evident to my mind than that we should adopt the austere and ascetic life, which it was equally the Divine policy, that John the Baptist should lead. It was right in the Savior thus to do: it was right in the Baptist thus to do; - for it was unerring wisdom, which dictated the course in each case. But the course, which the same wisdom has prescribed for us, may differ widely from them both. It was right in the Savior to leave his parents to seek him "sorrowing:" - but would not such conduct in another child, only twelve years old, be condemned as unfilial by the principles of the Savior's own word? - would it not, indeed, violate the command to "honor father and mother ?" And who will pretend, that the language to his mother, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee" is suited to the filial respect, which the Savior's word inculcates?

It may be said, that, instead of reasoning to show that the Savior's use of alcoholic liquors, as a beverage, could not have been amongst his practices, which we are at liberty to follow, we ought rather to revise our premises, to see if it be certain, beyond all doubt, that such liquors do violate the laws of health and life. This would be a wise admonition: and never, until we are thus certain, that a given act or practice of our Savior contradicts His rules for human conduct, should we presume to affirm, that the act or practice was not intended for our example, and to illustrate these rules. Accordingly, it would not be proper to apply the principles of my reasoning to the case of the Savior's supposed use of alcoholic liquors, were not the evidence of their pernicious qualities clear and irresistible.

But, if admonition be necessary on the one hand, so it is on the other. If, on the one hand, we must be well assured, that alcoholic liquors are poisonous and pernicious, before we adopt the reasoning in question, so, on the other hand, we must be as well assured before we refuse to adopt it, that the Savior did make the supposed use of alcoholic liquors, and that if he did, we may follow him in it. There are thousands of persons, who feel that it is morally wrong to use alcoholic liquors as a beverage, who are restrained from confessing it through

15

the apprehension, that they would thereby contemn the Savior's example. It behooves such persons to consider whether this apprehension be not groundless, and whether it be not absurd to suppose, that the Savior could have set an example, which would contravene His word and providence. We enquire of such persons, whether it is conceivable, that the authority of Christ can be found both on the one side and on the other of a proposition. We inquire of them in the language of the Apostle: "Is Christ divided?"

It is a further question with some, why, if the Savior did not, we should, undertake a specific temperance reformation. The Savior's instruction, if perfectly obeyed, would, no doubt, free the world from every sinful practice. But, it was his mission to inculcate rather than to carry out the principles of his religion. His ministry was too brief to allow of much more than the assertion and measurable explanation of these principles. He left it for his contemporary and future disciples to apply them successfully to the accomplishment of every needed reformation. To say nothing of other reasons, which would be like to make the Savior unwilling to have the public mind engrossed, during the three years of His ministry with the evils of intemperance, gambling, slavery, or any other pernicious custom or institution, I will barely advert to two. 1st. He would thereby have lost the opportunity, to a great extent, of effectually inculcating the general truths and doctrines of the Gospel. 2nd. His disciples must first be made acquainted with these truths and doctrines before they would be furnished for the work of reform. We see, in our day, that a man must be thoroughly furnished from the armory of Divine truth, before he is fitted to make successful war against such a monster as intemperance or slavery.

I have said, that there is a defect in the foundation principles of the temperance cause. I might go farther, and say, that the principle, which, above all others, should be amongst them, is entirely wanting. I refer, as you are, by this time, prepared to expect, to the principle, that the use of alcoholic liquor as a beverage, is morally wrong. The blessed and glorious cause of Anti-Slavery, to which we have given our hearts, is full of instruction on this point to the friends of Temperance. That

16

cause owes its prosperity to the fact of its sure foundation. God directed the far-seeing and dauntless Garrison, and the few, who were associated with him in the beginning of this enterprise, to base it on the principle, that slavery is sin: - not its accidents and appendages

only - not that but certain modifications of it - are sin: - but that slavery is essentially and without reference to its accidents, appendages and modifications, sin. There were enough before - there are enough now - to agree that some kinds of slavery are sin. These are slaveholders even, and that too without number, who are forward to declare, that a too much starving slavery - a too much whipping slavery - a too much killing slavery - a too much tearing husband from wife, and parent from child slavery - is sin; - but, all this while, they contend, and not a few of them with the weapons of Lynch law in their hands and its murderous spirit in their hearts, that slavery itself - that the relation of slaveholder - is innocent - nay, even holy and Heaven approved. Now the advocates of temperance are ready to declare, in respect to alcoholic drinks, as slaveholders are, in respect to slavery, that certain kinds are sinful. The National Temperance Convention of May 1833 declared it morally wrong to use some kinds of alcoholic liquors as a beverage. The wine bibber, the cider and strong beer toper in the Temperance ranks, all denounce the drinking of the rum and whisky, brandy and gin, modifications of alcohol; whilst for alcohol itself, they strenuously contend, and go on drinking it in their favorite beverages. How gross is this inconsistency! - and how wicked is that common excuse which makes the Savior the minister of sin! The wine bibber drinks his wine under the plea that the Savior drank it; and the drinkers of cider and strong beer justify themselves by the argument, that if there be Bible authority for drinking alcoholic wines there surely can not be against drinking liquors, which contain less of the intoxicating principle. Not a few of the churches have, for a long time, recognized the doctrine, that to use certain kinds of alcoholic liquor, as a beverage, is morally wrong. It is well, however, that they have had too much sense of the inconsistency of their principles, to discipline for the offense. And it is to be hoped that there never will be any ecclesiastical censures for drinking intoxicating liquor, until

17

they shall fall, as readily and unsparingly on the wine bibber as on the whisky drinker - on the rich man as on the poor man.

My dear friend, the cause of Temperance can not make rapid and sure progress until this great fundamental error, to which I have called your attention, is corrected. The earnest and powerful efforts for Temperance made by our excellent friend Professor Potter and many others, are more than neutralized by the wrong, fatally wrong, position, which they take, that the use of alcoholic liquor as a beverage is but inexpedient - not immoral. Until this fundamental error be corrected, the Rev. Dr. Tappan of Maine will be liable to repeat the injurious remark, "that the use of any intoxicating liquor as an article of drink, under existing circumstances, is scarcely to be justified." And even Professor Goodrich himself, notwithstanding his approaches to the right ground, will probably continue to array his influence on the side of the false and pernicious doctrine, that it is not "sinful in itself" to use every kind of alcoholic liquor as a drink. Until this error be corrected, other American Missionaries besides Rev. Mr. Schauflier, will be propagating among the heathen the ruinous sentiment, that though "total abstinence from spirituous liquor should be urged without exception," we should urge "abstinence from wine as a habitual beverage on the ground of expediency, moral influence, and a preventive against the production of that artificial appetite for more and more still, which the daily use of wine is at least apt to produce."

In my judgment, a National Convention could not be called for a more important object than that of discussing the propriety of basing the Temperance cause on the principle, that the use of alcoholic liquor as a drink, is morally wrong. Let this principle, which commends itself so strongly to common sense, and which is so clearly deduced from the teachings of the providence and word of God, be adopted by such a Convention, and not the Anti-Slavery, cause itself would advance more rapidly than the cause of Temperance. These sister enterprises would then go on, hand in hand, sustaining and accelerating each other's progress by their respective efforts to advance the common cause of immediate and total abstinence from all sin. Were the principle for which I contend, adopted by the Temperance Society, the

3

18

Church also would speedily adopt it. Her discipline would then extend to the filthy vice of using intoxicating liquors as a beverage; and he, who is guilty of this impurity, no more than he, who defiles his soul with falsehood or adultery, would be suffered to retain or find a refuge within her sacred enclosure. The practice of using alcoholic liquors as a beverage might, it is true, still continue and long continue, out of the Church: but, when it is once branded with immorality by the Church, its after struggles will be for existence, rather than extension.

With great regard,

Your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.