To: Mr. C. H. Gauss-
St. Charles -
Mo.
From: In 5 days return to
S. M. Watson, Howell, Mo.
Postmark: Dec 1 1910 Howell, MO
Howell, Mo.
Nov. 30th, 1910.
Mr. C. H. Gauss --
My
Dear Friend --
Your letter reached me yesterday. I fully agree with you in the
position you take.
I have never known of a person who was led into drunkenness
by partaking of of wine at the communion. I never knew a person
who said such a thing about his own experience. If I were to hear
any one say it I should consider his assertion as very weak. Either
doubting his sincerity or, believing him to be mistaken, I should say
that something else led him to get drunk. I can not believe without
absolute proof which it is not possible to produce that any person going
with the right motive to the communion table was ever tempted to indulge
in drinking after leaving it by the small quantity of wine of which
he then partook. The burden of proof is upon those who make the
assertion and they can not furnish any proof whatever.
But even if we were compelled to admit the truth
of the assertion, that would not make it right for us to change an ordinance
instituted by Christ. We are to observe all things whatsoever
he has commanded us without attempting to modify what he has prescribed.
We are to do what he says and leave all results in his hands.
He is certainly able to administer the principles of his Kingdom.
Some years ago I read a book written by a socialist who held that because
money is so easy to steal and is such a temptation to many people the
government ought to abolish money. Why not adopt his view and
apply it to the benevolent work of the church? Why not say that
because, perchance, some formerly dishonest man who is now trying to
lead an honest life may be put in charge of the funds of the Church
and be tempted to steal them the Church ought never to collect money
for any purpose? but we know that the Bible does authorize the
collection of money; and for any one to condemn the custom upon the
ground that it is too dangerous or in anywise wrong
is to question the wisdom and morality of the scriptures.
The one, single question for us to settle is, Did
Christ authorize the use of wine (the fermented juice of the grape)
in the communion service? If he did that is all that we need to know
to determine our duty. Believing that he did how can we refuse to use
it and substitute something else? Some assert that wine is too
dangerous to use -- others that it is worse than dangerous, an abomination
and a curse. The church listens to the complaint and discontines
its use in the Lord's Supper, substituting something else which is considered
better. What is this but to impeach the character of Christ?
I do not assert that all who advocate the use of
unfermented grape juice are wilfully setting aside what they Know that
Christ sanctioned. Some doubtless believe that grape juice is what was
used, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. And this
is certainly true: that many people do not
care what kind of wine Jesus
used. they will have the unfermented any how. Some
of this very large class asserting that it does not really make any
difference what is used so it is the fruit of the vine, and some that
whatever Jesus did when he was on the earth he would not sanction the
use of wine if he were here now. As to the fruit of the vine idea,
I can admit it thus far: that if I could conceive of a case where
unfermented wine were the only kind which could possibly be procured
and it were used only for that reason I shoul not consider its use improper.
But when I know that real wine is rejected because it is considered
an evil thing I can feel nothing but disapprobation of such a course.
And can any body fail to see that this is really what is at the bottom
of the movement against the use of fermented win? Men who hold
our view are frequently charged with encouraging the drunkard in his
course. Let those Christian people who make this charge beware
lest in departing from a plain institution of the Scriptures they help
forward that Spirit of unbelief which would utterly reject the Bible
as the rule of faith and practice.
I should like very much to
see you and if I can find time when in St. Charles will come to your
house, but it is not probable that I shall be in St. C. very soon.
I wish you would come to see me.
With best wishes for all
yours I am
Your sincere friend
S. M. Watson
Home
