CHRISTIANITY AND PROHIBITION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18676, 4 October 1922, Page 5

CHRISTIANITY AND PROHIBITION

TO THE EDITOR. Snt,—l am sorry to bo so long in replying to your correspondent, Dean FitcneU. In rny last letter to your columns I argued that, so far from their being opponents of prohibition as wc understand it in our democratic community, it was impossible that (he question could have been presented to the mind of New Testament writers as it is to ours, and that in any case those writers thought under such limitations that it absurd to attempt to quote them as the final arbiters in such a question as the right of a modern community to rid itsoit of what it knows to be a curse to the couniry. As an illustration of this I said that the institution of slavery, which was in full swing at tho time, was never so much as questioned in the New- Testament. The Dean attempts to discredit that statement by quoting the words of St. Paul, "Masters, render unto your slaves that which, is just and equal, knowing that ye al’io have a Master in heaven, ’ And again words in which ho asks a Christian master to treat his slave as a brother. But. obviously, these quotations do not touch my position, much Jess make it untenable. Doubtless such admonitions were often used by the more humane among the Greeks and Romans. In all this it is not Paul the apostle denouncing tho institution of slavery, but Paul tho Christian bespeaking humane treatment for men who were almost without legal status. Surely, if St. Paul hud realised tho essential infamy of slavery as such he would have mentioned it when writing to a Christian slave-owner. But ho didn't. Ho tells them to treat their slaves well, and give them "that which is just and equal” But the first item in that which was “just and equal" was surely their freedom, and that is not mentioned. There is no tittle of evidence against my _ contention that “as an institution slavery is never so much as questioned in tho New Testament." In view of till this, take the Dean’s attempt to score against prohibition by pointing out that St. Paul did not say, "Drink no wine," but rather, "Be not drunken." Of course, the reason is plain;—ho thought there could be no sin in tlic more fact of drinking wine, as tho prohibitionists to-day think there is no sin in tho mere fact of drinking wine. The Dean says it was within his power to say "Drink no, wine," and "his word would have been law in tho Christian societies under his charge." The case, then, stands thus: St. Paul did not use his authority to stop wine-drinking among Christians because ho did not think it was wrong if not carried to excess; and ho did not use his authority to prohibit slaveowning among Christians because he did not realise the wrongness of it so long as it was not associated with cruelty. II a master were cruel, the cruelty was wrong, but that did not carry the condemnation of lliq institution that made one man the absolute property of another. Yet tho Dean would fain make out that in the matter of slavery St. Paul was an abolitionist, and that in the matter of wine, too, ho would hay© been a prohibitionist if it had accorded with his judgment! The negro slave trade flourished on °Biblo texts and the tacit apostolic acceptance of tho institution. Sir John Hawkins and other heroes of his kidney who made wealth for England in the infernal business had no qualms of conscience, and usually interlarded their letters, and, if my memory is not at fault, even their logs, with tiio most pious reflections and expressions of gratitude for divine assistance and protection There may be a distinction in the mind ot tho Dean, but it is not apparent to m« If apostolic authority could he fairly quoted in favour of tho institution of slavery , ver> likely the Dean would say: “fco much the worse for apostolic authority, at least on that subject.” And that would he my reply if the Dean could convince me that apostolic authority could ho fairly quoted against ths demand of a majority ot the people of this country to rid itself of a defiant -and incorrigible curse. God did not blow out the candle when the last apostle fell aslec> Prohibition is often represented as an attempt to compel people to bo good, to "mates them moral oy Act of Parliament.’’ Pro hibitionists arc not such fools. Wo know that some ot the finest men in every community have their daily allowance of aloo holio drink, that oven the excessive drinker is not necessarily a bad man for the fact, but rather the slave ot a physical craving that hy imperceptible degrees has got the upper hand. Excessive drinking may usually be associated with a lowering of the moral tone, but it is alcohol that has done the mischief. The Dean says; “Emphatically St. Paul taught that no drunkard could have part in tho kingdom of Gccl." Unfortunately , he gave ns no definition eithe/ as to what constituted a “drunkard" or ot the “Kingdom of God” from which ho was excluded. And he seems to have had mnotion of tho pathological aspects of habitual drunkenness as a disease. Prohibitionists aro not out to damn the drunkard, but to damn the alcohol. The Dean presses into his sendee an obscure passage of Scripture (Col. 2, 20-23) which has always puzzled commentators. Tho writer docs not explain the situation his words were designed to meet and tinprecise application of his dicta. But bo condemns the principle expressed in ihe categorical “Touch not, tnsto not, handle not," and the Dean forthwith annexes him as one moro advocato for "continuance!” It is ill' the same to mo whatever tho exact bearing of the passage may turn out to bs. “when the mists have rolled away.” But wliai could be moro likely than that the “touch not, taste not, handle not” eimply referred to acme superstitious notion of defilement through 'physical contact with anything that had been connected with idolatrous worship i* The true situation in tho controversy oi> the prohibition question is often lost sight of. Tho law puts upon tho citizens the whole responsibility for the continuance or otherwise of tho liquor trade. Every three year/, it accords to every elector tho privilege and responsibility of saying whether he is willing to carry the trade upon his conscience nr not. If I vote “continuance" I endorse the licensed trade in intoxicants, .and, virtually, my name is on every license that is issued A’o wonder that so many citizens decline such a responsibility. If the law expresses the mind of the country, I think prohibition is bound to come. And if anti-prohibition-Isis are sincere in their opinion that America is hound to revert to liquor, and that the same thing would happen in Kcw Zealand were prohibition to be carried, it is clearly their best policy to help to get pro hibition as soon as possible, -so that the reaction may be correspondingly hastened, and an end put to the, triennial hubbub and uncertainty.—l am, etc., X. Sauginson. St Clair, October 3.