TEMPERANCE SERMON,
{"newspaper_name": "The Columbian fountain.", "edition": "01", "page": "p4", "byline": "BY REV. DAVID bIERRILL."}
{"character_count": 4615, "word_count": 902, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9825000166893005], "ccnet_perplexity": [924.5999755859375], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
morn In time past, and IL hath Deen testueu 10 HE
owner and he hath not kept him in; but that he hati
killed man woman, the OK shall be stoned
and his owner also shall be put to death" Exodus
xxi, %, 20.


The principle of this law is all that we
are concerned with at present. And 1t is
very plain one-and very broad one
brought out here in specific case, but ex-
tending to ten thousand others


It is this. Every man is responsible to
God for the evils which result from his self
ishness, or his Indifference TO the welfare Of
others. This principle will help us to Illus
trate the law.


"If an OK gore man or woman, that
they die, then the OK shall surely be stoned,
but the owner of the OK shall be quit" The
design in stoning the OK, was to produce an
effect upon men--to show them how highly
the law-giver valued human life The very
beast that destroyed it should be cast forth
as an abomination.


God SAYS to Noah: "Your blood Of
your lives will require: at the hand OF
every beast will require it, and at the hand
of man. A stigma shall be fixed upon
man or beast that shall destroy him who is
made after the similitude Of God. But why
is the owner in this case quit or guiltess
Simply because the death is not in any way
the result Of his carlessness, or Of his self
ishness. From anything within his know
ledge, he had no reason to expect such a
result. But If the OK had been wont to push
with his horns, and he knew it, he shall be
responsible for the consequences, whatever
they may be. For he had every reason to
expect that mischief would be done, and
took no measures to prevent it. And if the
OK kill man or woman, the owner hath
done the murder, he shall be put to death.
Why? The death was the result Of his
selfshness, or of his indifference to the lives
of others. And, according to the law Of
God, his life shall 60 for it. The princi-
pie Of this law is a principle of common
sense. 5 ss,


You see fellow-creature struggling in
the water. You know that he can never
deliver himself And you know that very
little assistance, such as you can render,
will rescue him from watery grave. You
look on and pass by. True, you did not
thrust him in, but he dies by your neglect.
His blood will be upon your head. At the
bar OF God, and at the bar of conscience you
are his murderer. Why? You did not
kill him. Neither did the owner Of the
OK lift a hand. But he shall surely be put
to death. You had no malice, neither had
he. You did not intend his death--at the
very worst, you did not care. This is just
his crime He did not care. He turned
loose a wild, fiery, ill-tempered, ungov-
ernable animal, knowing him to be such
and what mischief that animal might do, OF
what suffering he might cause, he did mol
care. But God held him responsible.


Take another case upon the same princi-
pie. And it is concerning this which has
caused fear and trembling to the most OF
us. Your dog has gone mad. You hate to
kill him, for he HAS OR HAD some good
qualities. You hate to tie him up for it is
( too much trouble; and you hate worst Of
! all to believe that he is mad 1t has been
testified to you that many have. died Of his
bite already, raving mad and that many
more in different stages of the disease, are
coming to the same miserable death. But
still you will neither shoot nor shut up the
cause of this wretchedness. You affect to
doubt whether any one of them had the
real hydrophobia, or whether the bites will
produce the same effects again; and SO you
leave. him loose among your neighbors and
your neigbors' children. Is it not dictate
of common sense, that you ought to be re-
sponsible for the result3 And you are.
All that perish by means Of this animal, are
virtually slain by your hand. They owe
their death to your carelessness or your
selfshness, and it is vain for you to say,
had no malice, did not set the dog ON, they
might have kept out Of the way, and if he
was mad, it was none of my concern; let
him look out for himself Would not this
be adding insult to injury; and instead Of
proving your innocence, prove you wretch
( past feeling But what has all this to do
with the object Of this address Much,
every way We wish to act upon establish
ed principles. We have endeavored to es-
tablish one principle, viz: that every man
is responsible for evils which result from
his selfishness, or Indifference to the lives OF
men.


In other words to make man respon-
sible for results, it is not necessary to prove
that he has malice, or that he intended the
results. The highwayman has no malice
4 against him he robs and murders, nor does
bo ,loo;ro hia death hut his money. and II