NATIONAL LIBERTY AND TRUE TEMPERANCE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 288, 25 November 1911, Page 2

NATIONAL LIBERTY AND TRUE TEMPERANCE.

Short papers in Defence of Rea.sonable Individual and Social Liberty as against Prohibition. BY PROFESSOR SALMOND. (Rcpi inted from the “Otago DailyTimes.”) At a recent meeting of the Dunedin Presbytery the following resolution was passed unanimously 'The Presbytery reaffirms its former resolution with regard to its attitude to the Xo-license movement, believeing that the reform will be in the best interests of the community, and urges upon office bearers, members and adherents to exert their utmost influence and to use their votes with a view to the total suppression of the liquor trafic ; and, further, enjoins all the min isters within the bounds to bring this matter before their respective congregations. With a view to giving practical effect to the above it is recommended that the ministers arrange for an exchange of pulpits c.n some suitable date before th? election.” This is an even* unprecedented in the history of Presby terianisin— excepting in America, where all things are possible. It seems to have attracted no attention whether owing to indifference, contempt or acquiescence, it were hard to say ; but it is an event specially demanding attention. It was icported that the mover urged that the business of prohibition should receive from every minister as much prominence as possible perhaps not quite realising the meaning of what he was saying He- also exhorted that every effort should be made to secure that all the members and adherents of the church should do their duty at the elections—thenduty being to vote for local anCl national prohib ; tion. To what n aV! -’ we come! And the well-disciplined members of the Presbyterian Church neither peep nor mutter piotest. It is true the word ” Duty -- •■Moral Duty"—is not written in the body of the resolution. But it is there by necessary implication. Ihe •Dover was only giving the resolution its natural and intended interpretation ; and not a dissentient xotee was heard against the proposal to lav a moral injunction on the con-o-rc nation that the requirements ot Virtue and religion demanded at their hands a vote for prohibition. There are unquestionably certain cardinal principles of moral conduct also certain manifest and accepted applications and deductions from them, which all ministers are boun i earnestly to inculcate on the minds of he people. But that it is a sinful thing to sanction by a vote the existence of wine in the countiy and a departure from Christian duty to drink a glass of wine, seems to be a very remote uncertain, as is also a much disputed deduction. Neieithe'c'-'"" tli< v are < nj< ined- an injunction is p.aec.l u.> them-to. appear in their pulpits an-l pcm-laini that this i' 1 ■ ‘-- u ■' an,o ' l K moral duties. Wc are to be told that we sin if we do not vote fm prohibition: for to omit duty is to commit

The argument on behalf of prohi bition is'simply that it is the most efficient remedy for an adnntt; a evil. It is to be judged enDreiv uy rffrrcnve to its efficiency, to vote f () v it can only '><' a moral duty toi ;u< ’h as earnestly believe r.i its tit to secure the end. and to vote kgainst it is equally a moral duty in the case of -u<h as earnestly believe that it is a futile and a misehievon.' device. But the Presbytery wdl have it to be a moral uuty absO.ute lv and universally, one to be enjoined on congregations imnscriniinatelv. The ministers are to ring out from their pupils. - Thou shall not vote f’.r continuance.’ as they proclaim -Thou shalt not steal. It =eems never to have occurred to any of them that they were arrogating to themselves an autnoritv ■\vhici) even the Apostles disclaimed. Paul well knew that in the detailed, and concrete applications of principlethe minds of the best men will diffei and that we must leave ample room for the free decisions of the indi\ id-

ual. His ruling runs on these lines: — Let every man l>e fully persuaded in his own mind.” “To his own Master he standeth or falleth.” He dissuades us from "receiving men to j dmibtfii] disputaiions.” But the I members of the Dunedin Presbytery j have no suc-li delicate scruples. They I will enjoin on us our duty in a matit< r where (he keenest division of I opinion prevails. i Prohibition is a political measure, j none the less so that it is designed I to subserve moral and religious ends, <a political measure on whose merits there runs through the State the wildest discrepancy of sentiment. The ministers are enjoined to epnvert tlie pulpit into a political platform and in the face of the congregation, in connection with public worship, take sides. This intrusion of politics into the church and into the sanctuary is a strange new development. It will be resented as clerical domination, for we are not babes, but full-grown men, and do not require to be instructed how to record our votes. The ministers must very well know that a very large portion of the members of the Church regard prohibition with strong disapproval, and utterly disbelieve in it. No matter ; they must have their ears dinned with it on Sunday, and when they go to church for rest, and peace, and freedom from mundane passions, they are to be vexed and irritated by having this obnoxious thing obtruded on them. Have they no claim to have their convictions and their feelings considered ? Is there no danger attaching to these enthusiasms—lest, perchance, instead of spreading light and love, they may throw firebrands or bombshells into the heart of the congregations I It is to be hoped that the ministers will seriously consider the dangers attaching to the course they are pursuing, and what must be the outcome of its immanent logic. If it be moral duty to vote for prohibition, .then no disbeliever in it who speaks and votes against it can be considered fit to be a member, far less a minister, of the church ; and to this it has come already in some parts of America. Even here already we hear some speaking of prohibition as part of the ethical creed of the church. Have they considered how they are straining to the breaking point the reverence and loyalty of a very large section of the church-membership 1 If they will inquire among the merchants, farmers, lawyers, doctors, professors, members of Parliament, they will be surprised to find how few the prohibitionists are in these circles. If they look round they wi|l see that nearly the whole secular press of the Dominion is against them. Are they really ready to stand up in the pulpit, and with the authority of their office declare to stich a body of dissentients that they are neglecting duty unless they vote for a measure which they regard as obnoxious and irrational ? It is a bold and perilous procedure thus to risk cutting themselves adrift from the sympathies of so large a sectioii of the masculine intelligence of the country. In Maine, where this kind of action has so long prevailed, thfe church attendance is the lowest of all the American States, and there is probably a reason for it.

There are in the Dunedin Presbytery so many excellent men of liberal minds and sound judgment that it is hard to understand how such a resolution was ever carried. The explanation is probably this : Certain enthusiasts concoct a motion in private, and suddenly lay it before the meeting. It is heard read in a cursory manner, and there is neither time nor opportunity carefully to weigh its words, fl any misgivings suggest themselves, they are suppressed, lest their expression should give rise to prolonged and perhaps unpleasant discussion. They say, therefore, within themselves, “Let it pass ! We do not need to take it very seriously, nor to implement it any more than we like.” So the motion passes, not exactly unanimously, bue nemine contradicente. This attitude is intelligible, and to some extent commands one’s sympathy; but it may be questioned whether it is in harmony with the highest ideals of public life ; and it is very plain that it may readily degenerate into moral cowardice. It is not the first time that a small band of enthusiasts has driven a body of prudent and sensible men into courses which they really disliked, and which they afterwards regretted. We expect, however, that the resolution passed will have its way, notwithstanding this or any other protest. When the day comes round for the universay exchange of pulpits that they may with one voice shout “Prohibition!” it is to be hoped that due notice will be given that we may be warned to. stay at home. We do not go to church to be vexed in spirit, irritated, or humiliated.*