CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9369, 20 May 1889, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

TEMPERANCE V. TOTAL ABSTINENCE.

TO THE EDITOR. Sin,—l have read with much pleasure a letter under the above heading in your issue of the 16th instant. While agreeing with all the opinions your correspondent has advanced, I, for my part, would venture a step further, and ask, where all this great flood of prudery and ultra-Puritanism ls likely to land us ? As a child, some twentyfive years ago, I can recollect being taken in to my parents at dessert and having a glass of wine given me as a customary tiling, and at the three or four schools I was sent to a glass of beer was invariably served out at dinner to each youthful debauchee. I would humbly ask —were my parents and my masters right or wrong, and is it my duty to revere or to execrate their memory ? Again we hear a great deal of the decadence of the religious spirit amongst us, and some in their misguided zeal have attributed ib to the want of total abstinence teaching in the churches. I submit that there is a real danger of the fear and love of God being lost sight of altogether in this new, narrow, and untrue reading of the law of Christian Liberty.. A nauseous effeminacy, and an altogether superficial righteousness is fast taking the place of the old manly conception of religion and religious duty which obtained in the days of our fathers, and I take leave to doubt, whether (in spite of their having had to do without Bands of Hope, Mutual Admiration Societies, and all the other " tea and toast" advantages, and opportunities of publicly denouncing their neighbours, which surround the Christian of to-day),they were not after all more charitable, and therefore better than ourselves. In conclusion, it is my firm conviction that, if we press this prudery of ours too far, there will ensue a re-action, to which all the license of the Restoration days will seem mere child's play.—lam, etc., Another Clergyman. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —A letter, signed "Clergyman,"full of fallacious statements, appears in your issue to-day. The first is, that the clergy alone can decide as to time and fitness for discussing social questions. Have the ; people, then, no voice in intimating moral j necessities ? We are informed on authority j which ought not to be questioned by "Clergyman," that at one era in the history of the Church "Both prophet and priest, were profane; yea, in My house have I found their wickedness," saith the Lord; and at another, "That the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink." How, then, in the face of these statements, and in spite of bitter experience, can we confide our religious and social interests to the clergy ? The second heading of "Clergyman's" discourse is, that the clergy should not be the tools of a faction. Surely this gentleman's moral views are badly perverted when he compares a great philanthropic movement like temperance reform to a business carried on for gain. The participators in that movement receive neither fee nor reward except the approbation of a good con- , science. Is it possible that a person signing ?

I himself" Clergyman" does not comprehend the Christian principle of self-sacrifice. The third fallacious statement is, that it is a waste, of energy to preach on total abstinence. Do prodigal sons never enter a church i Are church attenders in a state of crystallised excellence ? And what about the divine principle of teaching line upon line, precept upon precept '!" Besides, what need has a Christian congregation of being instructed in what they already know, and yet for 1800 years the same story of redeeming love has been the theme. A fourth fallacious statement is, That total abstinence is nowhere enjoined in Scripture. The great principle of love is taught therein. This involves the practice of total abstinence. Our duty to mankind makes us act on the lines laid down by Paul. To hurt a weak brother is to sin against Christ. This may be done through drinking intoxicating spirits, and the Apostle adds, " It id good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, oris made weak." Then,' fifth. It vexes the righteous heart of ''Clergyman" that total abstinence occu pies a more important position before the public than is warranted. He is singular in his opinion. The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone declares that the liquor traffic involves Greater calamity than the combined evils of war, famine, and pestilence. Mr. Gladstone evidently thinks total abstinence important. But what is important in the opinion of "Clergyman?" Are bodily and mental suffering of any consequence ? Is the peace of families of any moment? Are parental care and good behaviour on the part of sons and daughters worth considering Is human life itself precious ? If these are all of prime consequence then is total abstinence justly considered a question of the first importance. And so we find that nature's noblemen ox all ranks and conditions of society amongst all Anglo-Saxon communities vie with each other in the interest they take in this quesStatesmen and divines, judges and magistrates, literary men and physicians, together with the philanthropic of all countries, advocate, while many of them exemplify, the principle of total abstinence in their own persons. And if "Clergy- ; man" has really at heart the abolition of '■ commercial immorality, gambling, and the social evil, lie ought to become enrolled under the bannerol total abstinence. What is at the root of the evils he names, if not mainly poverty, and by what means will a man become most quickly poor if it is not by the ruinous fascination of intoxicating drinks ? We see then that Mr. Gladstone's words were too well justified by the facts. If this is so, how can any Christian do otherwise than abstain for the sake of his brother. And if this duty is incumbent on every Christian, how are we to estimatt " Clergyman," who inculcates the opposite! This gentleman were amusing were the subject not so serious. Those who agree with him are "the best thinkers," while those who are not on his side are but superficial. And he can see as far through a millstone as the best of us, since he has discovered that attending a band of hops blunts the moral sense. Does this man bring up an indictment against the Church of God, which so universally in the present century has inaugurated these children's societies, which have been so fruitful of blessing? And yet he is a "Clergyman." Let intoxicating drink flow down our streets like a river; let riotous and maudlin drunkenness, as a matter of course, result ; let it go on without let or hindrance to tin, " wee sma' hours ayont the twal," and it is a proof of freedom, and an evidence of civilisation. "Clergyman's" letter is a heterogeneous mass of rigmarole. We have all read the story of "Rip Van Winkle, but who ever expected him to turn up ii Auckland ? What a splendid friar he woulc have made in the Middle Ages ! Seriously, however, this letter could only have been written by one who would gratify appetite, no matter how many sunk in destruction as he passed by. How could such a one minister to the spiritual wants of a congregation ? A clergyman proceeding on such lines could not be successful. Perhaps lie will kindly give the public his name, so that they may be enabled to judge of the facts by his own career. Meantime, manv will hope that no other personage could be found to write such a letter, and truthfully subscribe himself "Clergyman."l am, &c. , Layman. May IG, ISS9. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l rarely pay any attention to an onymous correspondents, for I think it very cowardly for a clergyman in a majh to indulge in such severe censures upon a portion of his fellow citizens who seek to save the people from the degrading vice of intemperance. If, as he says, there are vices destroying a hundred times more of our people than the drink destroys, by all means let him take off his coat and seek to save them, and the temperance advocates will commend him for doing so. If your correspondent is sincere, and believes what he says about vices one thousand times more injurious than intemperance, he is not I fear following in the footsteps of the Master, for if he had honestly and faithfully done so he would have made " his mark" before now,. and we should not have any occasion to ask his name, for all would have known Mm. To conclude, there is no necessity for me to answer or expose the fallacy of his arguments, for this has been done scores of times, and living witnesses every day bear testimony to the false conclusions he arrives at.—lam, etc., Joseph Newman**