WHAT THE "CHRISTIAN OUTLOOK" SAID.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1261, 17 October 1911, Page 6

WHAT THE "CHRISTIAN OUTLOOK" SAID.

» A REPLY TO MR. COMBIE. [To the Editor.] Sir, —Quite a number of people havt perused tho "Christian Outlook" of Sep. teinber 29, 1911, for tho purpose of verifying tho extracts mado from its "loaders," and published in, your paper last week. It should l>o observed that tho "Outlook's" attitudo towards No-License and Prohibition was not then raised; but the Rev. W. J. Comrio is greatly concerned, and now says tho paper is tho official organ of Hie Presbyterian Church of NewZealand, and, like the Church it represents, stands fearlessly Iwth NoLicenso and Dominion prohibition. Sd much the worse for the Church, its organ, and its fetish. However, hero is what tho "Christian Outlook," the orpan of tho Church that stands so fearlessly for prohibition, had. to admit in its leading article of September 2fi, 1911, concerning tho progress o{ prohibition in tho United States. After stating that Maine had repealed prohibition in 1858, the "Christian Outlook" continues:—"Pennsylvania followed tho example of Maine; in New York tho Supremo Court, by a vole of five to tJiny, declared the prohibitory law unconstitutional; and in Indiana a similar verdict prevailed. In 1857 Delaware repealed her law; and was followed in 1858 by Nebraska, while during the next decade Massachusetts and Rhodes Island, and in the seventies Connecticut and Michigan threw prohibition overboard. lowa kept her law albeit greatly weakened by an amendment in 1858, until ISM, when she virtually repealed it. New Hampshire and Vermont went Kick on prohibition as lately as 1003. Thus Maine remained tho solo survivor of the thirteen Antc-Bdhim Prohibition States."

That is a clear-cut extract from the "Christian Outlook," despite the assertion, by Mr. Comrio that it has been "interlarded with other statements.

There was another quotation made, which Mr. Comrio. alleges to hnvo boeu "interlarded with other statements." Thn "Outlook" was writing in its second leader on September 2G about wealth and wealthy men, and taking tho same linn of argument in the defence of individual right to uw> wealth as the present writer uses to defend individual right to use wind or alcoholic beverages; and so this Xo-Lieenso-cuni-Prohibition Presbyterian C.nirch organ, solicitous of money and tender in its regard for millionaires who bestow princely benefactions upon the Church, for preference the Presbyterian Church, and other noble object?, defended these gentry as a class against interference by invoking the aid of the State, and thisi is" the language the "Christian Outlook" employed: "Surely from the point of view of a Church founded on that Gospel of Christ which 'is tho power of God_ unto salvation to everyone that believes,' it is a distressing acknowledgment, of weakness to invoke the aid of the Slate in order to control the individual in respect of his Ufo or misuse of wealth." Tho writer says that with the substitution of "wine" for "wealth" in the foregoing, the langusg* of tho "Christian Outlook" exactly fits his contention with regard to what tho Church's attitude should bo towards the individual nnd hi* npht to use alcoholic'bovcrages. Tho creator "wealth" includes the less "wine.'

Indeed, the Rev. W. J. Comrio nnd every other prohibitionist clergyman must know, if ho knows anything at nil, that that is the very argument used by Professor Ralmond and tho writer -when they contend that it is a degradation of tho pulpit, a travesty upon religion, a rendering nugatory of the power of the when Christian ministers invoke the aid of tho Stale and tho beggarly elements of the lnw in order to control th« individual in respect of his use or misuse of wino. When the Rev. Mr. Comrie. sees how applicable the "Christian Outlook's" argument on "wealth" is to "wine," he will doubtless write and advise the "OuHpqk" to bo logical nnd renounce its prohibition views," and follow Professor Salmond. Tho writer further says.that when (h» people see ministers of the Gospc! «o intoxicnt«l with their No-License and prohibition views as to forget during (his period of intoxication the vows of their ordination and the declarations of their induction obligations, and virtually aban. doning the power of the Gospol for that of prohibition nnd No-License, then the writer is justified, the whole community is justified in faying that tho prohibition clergymen have struck their Gospel colours and raised to an unrrgenerat* world tho dirty tattered raps of prohibition and No-License. These, indeed, nr« tho molten calves tho latter-day A .irons are exhibiting to a Rou!-starvcd world. Why, only a few days ago the HeT. Gibson Smith, himself one of the. most thoughtful men in tho Church of which this "Outlook" is tho official orgnn, told the Rev. W. J. Com lie nnd other prohibition clergymen tlinl "No-Liccnß\ oven if entirely triumphant, would not lvring in the millennium, nor furnish a pwm.munl settlement of the liquor problem," and surely they know what will, for thoy havo it in their own hands. What is tho use of the.ir attempting lo enforce NoLicense and prohibition to oo)ii|x>l the individual lo sobriety by invoking tho power of the lnw? To use tho "Outlook's" very appropriate words, it is "a distressing acknowledgment of weakness. , * —I am, etc, THE WRITER.*