Second:  What moral right has a Christian to spend for intoxicating liquor money needed for the many noble and needy causes that appeal to a Christian’s heart?  The Christian, repeating the language taught him by the Master, prays to the Heavenly Father, “Thy kingdom come;” what right has he to rise from his knees and spend for intoxicating liquor money that he can spare to hasten the coming of God’s kingdom on earth?

Third:  What right has a Christian to throw the influence of his example on the side of a habit that has brought millions to the grave?  We shall have enough to answer for when we stand before the judgment bar of God without having a ruined soul arise and testify that it was a Christian’s example that led him to his ruin.  Paul declared that if meat made his brother to offend he would eat no meat.  What Christian can afford to say less in regard to intoxicants?  If the Christian drinks only a little it is a small sacrifice to make for the aid of his brother; if the Christian drinks enough to make stopping a real sacrifice he ought to stop for his own sake, on his family’s account and out of respect for his church.

While the harmfulness of liquor was the foundation upon which the opposition to the saloon was built, it may be worth while to add that popular government, by putting responsibility upon the voters, compelled the Christian to vote against the saloon licenses.  In all civilized countries the sale of liquor is now so restricted that it cannot be lawfully offered for sale without a license.  As the license is necessary to the existence of the saloon—­as necessary as the liquor sold over the bar—­the Christian who voted for a license became as much a partner in the business as the man who dispensed it, and he had even less excuse.  The manufacturer and the bartender could plead in extenuation that they made money out of the business and money has led multitudes into sin.  For money many have been willing to steal; for money some have been willing to murder; for money a few have been willing to sell their country; for money one man was willing to betray the Saviour.  The Christian who voted for licenses had not even the poor excuse of those who engaged in the business for mercenary reasons.  As the consciences became awakened, therefore, Christians, in increasing numbers, refused to share responsibility for the saloon and what it did.

Science contributed largely to the final victory.  People used to say that drinking did not hurt if one did not drink too much.  But no one could define how much “too much” was.  The invisible line between “just enough” and “too much” is like the line of the horizon—­it recedes as you approach until it is lost in the darkness of the night.

Science proved that it is not immoderate drinking only, but any drinking that is harmful, and, therefore, that the real line is that between not drinking and drinking.

Science has also demonstrated, as I have shown in another lecture, that drinking decreases one’s expectancy, according to insurance tables; a young man at twenty-one must deliberately decide to shorten his life by more than ten per cent. if he becomes an habitual drinker.