THE ARCHDEACON AND HIS CRITIC.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1244, 28 September 1911, Page 6

THE ARCHDEACON AND HIS CRITIC.

A REPLY TO TnE REV. E. 0. BLAMIRES. DOES CHRISTIANITY SUPPORT PROHIBITION? Tho Rev. E. 0. Blaniiros, of the Methodist Church, finds fault with Archdeacon Harper, of Wellington, for tho denunciation of Prohibition as a moral or Christian force. TQio Rev. Blnmires attempts to controvert tho Archdeacon's dictum that temptation is necessary in human life to train and develop character. This

[ Methodist clergyman verily imagines that i if drink is a temptation, then its removal ■ is the cure, whereas the Archdeacon conJ tends that tho instilling of tho principle I to resist into the minds and hearts of ■■ men and women is a greater power and | influence to good and a preservative ' from evil than the mere removal of tho ' thing the abuse of which induces to drunkenness. Now, who is right?-Mr. Blamires or. Archdeacon Harper? Mr. Blamires would engage tho power of the law to make men good, his idea of goodness in this caso being total abstinence or prohibition of liquor and tho abolition of the licensed trade. Mr. Blamires has over-looked first principles in coming to tho conclusion that the use of alcoholic liquor is an evil at all. Can a man bo said to be a sinner who takes a glass of beer, wine, or whisky? Surely there is no violation of good conscience in having a glass of beer or spirits with your dinner? Can Mr. Blamires, or any other clergyman, assert conscientiously that there is any evil, sin, or iniquity in tho common use of alcoholic beverages? Is there any wrong in a glass of beer per so? To illustrate: A man buys a revolver, and shoots himself. Is the fault in tho revolver or in tho man? Would Mr. Blamires prohibit the making, selling, and buying of firearms because a few individuals commit suicide? Of course not. Then bscause a few people abuse liquor, and mayhap do themselves barm and annoy their neighbours, is the entire community to lie converted into a ■ veritable prison house? Yet ttiat is what Mr". Blamires would bring about if ho could. Tho Archdeacon, on tho other hand, would let -the people bo free to choose for' themselves. Ho would, of course, wish that all men.were as ho is— temperate in all things-but he would not abolish the use of anything from which men and women derived comfort' and pleasure. Mr. Blamires would, like many up-to-date clerics, reverse tho order of things. In his eagerness for human betterment he puts tho cart before the horse. Ho thinks and asserts that legislation should precede moral suasion.. To accomplish the socalled moral regeneration of tho world, Mr. Blamires (although he is Divinely bid not to) would invoke "the beggarly "Wsnfs nf the law" to ma ]< 9 mm p ood _ total abstinence—No-License— Prohibition -forsooth-being his ideal of goodness. Paul has told him to let "no man judge you in meat or in drink," yet notwithstanding his admiration for Paul in other respects, Mr. Blamires would, if ho had his way, compel all men by the power of the law to bo as he is—a No-License Prohibitionist. The Christ, Whom he serves, was at a marriage once, and mado wine for the guests: and if we are to believe the story of Cana-and who does 1 not?-the wine that Christ made was gond ,' stuff. Y'et so far advanced is the up-to-date Prohibitionist clergyman that if he ' witnessed such an incident to-dav ho ': would presumably condemn the Miracle- ' Worker. " 1

: No; to do Mr. Blamires credit, we beheve, he thinks he is merely levelling In' 9 guns at tho abuse of alcoholic beverages, whereas ho is really firing at the thing itself, and at its sale and use in a legitimato way. Ho is not going to get men sober or mako'them capable of self-control by Prohibition or No-License. Children and tho incapable must be taken care of, but adults, intelligent men and women, are capable of taking care of themselves. Does Mr. Blamires require ■ n prohibition order taken out against him to keep him from over-indulgence in al-coholic-liquor? Of course not. Why is'hc strengthened in mind and conviction to live soberly and respectably in the community? If he is a Christian man, and only misled or mistaken on the question of Prohibition and No-License, he possesses what the great Dr. Chalmers called "the expnlsivo power of a n-e-w conviction." His conviction is that temperance —nay, total abstinence—is best for him, and ho acts accordingly. Yet was Mr! Blamires or his progenitors before him compelled to believe as ho believes with respect to alcoholic beverages? No; they were free to drink or not as they liked, and Mr. Blamires is tho result-a man of tho opinion that in not choosing to drink h® is right, but ready in a laudable, but utterly mistaken, desire to determine that his way shall be the rule by legislative- enactment for all the people. Is not this 100 narrow a view for a professor of Christianity (0 fake? Is not this belying the' principle of which Christianity itself rests? He must know that if his'prohibition theory were applied to all virtues (hat in excels induce to vice and criminality—and vice is only virtue in exesss— the- world would soon cease to exist. True, Christianity leaves men and women free to think and act for themselves in the use of all Godgiven things, lx? they tfine or water, bread or beer, but tho Prchibili'onist would set up a now form of religion, and I enforce its adoption by flio power of a bare majority. Archdeacon Harner lieves Prohibition is wrong in (lv-<-rv, and wo believe that it is not only wr<m;r in theory, but wrong in princin'e. and antifliristian. TndcMl. the Archdeacon's d«. livcranee must stronclhe-i and sunp'-i-l t'--> conviction of all right-thinking P'-opl-e, rArcluleaeon - Harper's address 011 "Christian Liberty" was published in Tub Dominion of July ,11st last.']

Mr. William Dirked an old settlor of Whareama, died to-day at the ago of sixty-one. Ho leaves a widow, four ' daughters, and ono son. I