able to
the modern question of abstinence from intoxicants. No one can doubt
that 'moderation' in their use by some tempts others to use which
soon becomes fatally immoderate. The Church has been robbed of
promising members thereby, over and over again. How can a Christian
man cling to a 'moderate' use of these things, and run the risk of
destroying by his example a brother for whom Christ died?

THE SIN OF SILENCE

'For though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory
of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me,
if I preach not the Gospel! 17. For if I do this thing
willingly, I have a reward.'--1 COR. ix. 16, 17.

The original reference of these words is to the Apostle's principle
and practice of not receiving for his support money from the
churches. Gifts he did accept; pay he did not. The exposition of his
reason is interesting, ingenuous, and chivalrous. He strongly asserts
his right, even while he as strongly declares that he will waive it.
The reason for his waiving it is that he desires to have somewhat in
his service beyond the strict line of his duty. His preaching itself,
with all its toils and miseries, was but part of his day's work,
which he was bidden to do, and for doing which he deserved no thanks
nor praise. But he would like to have a little bit of glad service
over and above what he is ordered to do, that, as he ingenuously
says, he may have 'somewhat to boast of.'

In this exposition of motives we have two great principles actuating
the Apostle--one, his profound sense of obligation, and the other his
desire, if it might be, to do more than he was bound to do, because
he loved his work so much. And though he is speaking here as an
apostle, and his example is not to be unconditionally transferred to
us, yet I think that the motives which actuated his conduct are
capable of unconditional application to ourselves.

There are three things here. There is the obligation of speech, there
is the penalty of silence, and there is the glad obedience which
transcends obligation.

I. First, mark the obligation of speech.

No doubt the Apostle had, in a special sense, a 'necessity laid upon'
him, which was first laid upon him on that road to Damascus, and
repeated many a time in his life. But though he differs from us in
the direct supernatural commission which was given to him, in the
width of the sphere in which he had to work, and in the splendour of
the gifts which