DISTINGUISHED CLERGY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 89, 28 November 1911, Page 5

DISTINGUISHED CLERGY.

THE CHURCH TEMPERANCE SOCIETY. FORCE AS A MORAL FACTOR CONDEMNED. LET MODERATES CONSIDER. It has already been shown that most of the higher type of the clergy denounce in no unmeasured terms Prohibition and its twin evil, No-License. It must be admitted that the sensa-tion-monger among,the Prohibitionist parsons is ready to cast aside the calm regenerating influence of the Gospel for the- loud-sounding, hig-drnm pow- | or fo Prohibition and No-License. Behind all this fume and fury the Prot hibition parson thinks lie is doing something for the good of the people. He is deluding himself and those lie would guide, and the truth is not in him. How do wo know? Is the petty, peddling Prohibitionist parson right, and the distinguished clergy, the leaders of religious thought and opinion in the world, altogether wrong? Catholic Church Prelates. To begin with—Cardinal Gibbons says: “I am persuaded that it is practically impossible to put Prohibition into effect in any large community.” Right Rev. Mgr. Franz Goller says’: “The Pops certainly docs believe in temperance; that is, moderation in all things; but not absolute Prohibition. That is not the spirit of freedom, but of autocratic government. The Holy Father himself takes a glass of wine, and helie-ves that men should ho allowed to use their own judgment in writ they sliould eat and what they should drink, and not have other men decide such matters for them.”

Pope Loo XIII., in a letter to Archbishop Ireland, said: “A Catholic priest cannot bo, strictly speaking, a total abstainer, because he must drink alcoholic wine at every mass he says, and that may lie almost daily. ’He could not sanely advocate Prohibition, which, strictly carried oat, vonid make the procuring of wine—materia sacrament!—an impossibility. And yet outside of this sacramental use, which is of necessity, hundreds of priests lead a life of abstinence and by their personal example, and evangelical labours,' become veritable apostles of temperance.” Th 3 Anglican Church. At the General Convention of the Anglican Church, Protestant Episcopal Church Temperance Society the following declaration was made; “Recognising temperance as the law of the Gospel, and total abstinence as a rule of conduct, essential in certain cases, and highly desirable in others; and fully and freely according to every man the right to decide, in the exercise of his Christian liberty, whether or not he will adopt said rule, this society lays down as the basis on which it rests, and from which its work shall be conducted: union and co-operation on perfectly equal terras for the promotion of temperance between those who use temperately and those who abstain entirely from intoxicating drinks' as beverages. - ’ This is consistent with the law of the Gospel, but it is opposed to the principle (?) of Prohibition. ..• :: i

The late Bishop Potter, a leading American Anglican, said: “Our prohibitory laws; whether we put them in operation on one day only, or on all days, are as stupid as they are ineffectual.”

Bishop Webb: I believe that the general tendency of the Episcopal clergy is to favour, rather than oppose, the well-regulated hotel. The hotel, when at its best, certainly has many things in its favour. It is a gather-ing-place of people, and in many places good people.” Bishop Moreland : Another false notion ' is that the abuse of wine prohibits the use of it. Some people are injured- by drinking coffee. Must all the world, then, give up its morning cup? It never helps any cause to raise false issues about it, or defend it with unsound argument. The Rev. D. Rainsford docs not mince matters. He says boldly: “To drink is no sin. Jesus Christ drank. To keep a saloon is no sin.” Bishop Grafton: “I cannot see the benefits to be derived from compulsory abstinence. Rabid temperance workers have accomplished very little.” V Other Liberal Clergy. Dr. Lyman Abbott, formerly of Plymouth Church, now with ex-Prcsident Roosevelt, editing “The Outlook,” speaking against compulsory methods to enforce moderate drinkers to give up the use of alcoholic beverages, said : “It was not the method of Jesus. He lived in an age of total abstinence societies, and did not join any of them. Jesus emphasised the distinction between His methods and those of John the Baptist; that John came neither eating nor drinking j the Son of Man came eating and drinking. He condemned drunkenness, but never in a single instance lifted up His voice in condemnation of drinking. On the contrary, He commenced His public ministry by making,, as a rule, wine in considerable quantity, and of fine quality, and this apparently only to add to the joyous festivities of a wedding.” “Rev. Dr. Howard Crosby, of the Presbyterian Church, goes so far as to say. that ‘Prohibition is the greatest enemy to a much-needed reform.’ ” The Rev, Carl Eissfeldt, of the Lutheran Church, speaking as its representative at the annual conference, Wisconsin, said: “We cannot join hands with the prohibitionists, because their prnciplo is wrong, insofar as they mixgood use and misuse of things, that in themselves are gifts of God. We regard this as a wrong principle, to prohibit on account of misuse the use, manufacture, and sale of anything that in itself is not bad.”

The late Rev. Henry Ward Beecher put the case for the Moderates in this language: “If you say to me that I ought not to drink, perhaps 1 would agree'with you; but if you tell mo that I must not drink I will drink, because I have a natural right to do so—to drink what I please.”

Now, in the face of all the foregoing declarations, will any honest reader affirm that the notoriety-hunting prohibitionist parson is to be compared in point of sanity, learning, ability, and devotion to religion and love of humanity with any of the great names mentioned P Then why follow them. The prohibition parson is a misleading person. Vote-to display your determination to !)o free, and strike put the bottom lines on both voting papers.*