THE NO LICENSE QUESTION.

Colonist, Volume XLV, Issue 10545, 21 October 1902, Page 2

THE NO LICENSE QUESTION.

; REPLY TO REV. WILLIAMS. To the Editor. gj r> —Kindly allow me space to point out the utter inadequacy of the Rev. Williams' reply to my letter of Tuedsay last. He did not|attempt tb justify his position as a Prohibitionist clergyman by ref erence to Christ's actions and teaching. I repeat that no clergyman can condemn moderate drinking without condemning Christ, for He certainly drank wine, and further, commanded His followers for all time to do likewise in remembrance of Him. How then can it be wrong to do as Christ did? The rev. gentleman cannot .answer" this question, nor have I ever met aProhibi- 1 tionist clergyman who could. The j Rev. Williams must remember that it wag not only at^the Feast of the Passover Christ drank wine. He must not forget that although he terms my Biblical references ' unwarrantable assnmptions and illogical references," he did not upset a single point adduced in support of my contention that Prohibition cannot be supported by Christ's actions, as shown in the Book, which should be the rev. gentleman's guide. He complains that 'I airily and confidently write of what Christ did, and what He would do if He were a voter in New Zealand." Surely he complains without reason! Christ was a moderate drinker, and. keeping that in mind, I said that He certainly could not vote for Prohibition. Would it not be blasphemy to say that Christ, if voting, would vote bo as to condemn His own action in "drinking wine? Does not the rev. gentleman believe, that Christ was the all perfect one? We- are taught that Christ -is the great pattern for us. Did He not say "Learn of me." Bearing this in mind, can we think He would have a habit that would be injurious to us if copied? I unhesitatingly say it is unchristian to suppose such a thing. That Christ, who died to save the world from the consequnces of sin would, drink wine if it were a sin to do eoti I cannot believe, and yet that is the position the rev; gentleman is forced into by his line of argument. The whole Christian fabric falls if that were true. Mr Williams insiniL-, ates that the liquor in use at Jthe time was' very different to that sold in hotels now. I grant him that it was not labelled "Ushers," or even ' ' Old Port, ' ' but, if, when taken" in excess it did not produce a similar effect, how could Christ, St. Peter, St. Luke, St. Paul, or St. James condemn the drunkenness they saw around them, or taking an instance recorded in Genesis, " How - could Noah get drunk?" I can give chapters and verses if the rev. gentleman requires same. _ Coming now to the question of insanity, he says, "on the testimony of those best able to judge, drink is themost prolific cause." Let me recommend the rev. gentleman to consult any of the superintendents of our asylums, and he will alter his opinion. One cannot enter into details on this question.' He next charges me with '..playing the unsavoury .part of a resurrectionist, and having exhumed the somewhat high-smelling question of compensation." I cannot congratulate the rev. gentleman on the elegance -of his simile, but I- can quite understand why, the subject is objectionable to his party. Idp not mind the charge, for I am supported by the opinions of such resurrectionists as Gladstone, Salisbury, Herbert Gladstone, Balfour, Chief Justice Coleridge, Sir Edward Clark, .late Solicitor General, .Bishop of Chester, Right Rev. Dr. Earle, and last, but by no means least, the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. These have all expressed themselves in favor of compensation If Prohibition were carried. In conclusion, I assert that the rev. gentleman has signally failed to explain away the charge of inconsistency which s I made in my former letter. The clergyman who condemns moderate drinkers condemns Christ. rev. gentleman will not stick to the point at issue by newspaper controversy, so I hereby challenge him to meet me m debate, when 'Prohibition from Biblical and others standpoints could form the subject." It is of sufficient interest to attract a fairly large number, who

r would not object ,-ao pay a sxnall charge, and the proceeds could be handed to the Prohibitionist body it the rev. gentleman 'was successful, whilst if the issu<9 resulted in-my favor I should be only too pleased to give anything realised to the Charitable Aid Board. Thanking you for trouble. \ , Yours etc., HARI&Y ATMORE. 17 fch October, 1902^