The Bible and No-License.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12796, 30 September 1905, Page 3 (Supplement)

The Bible and No-License.

A PRESBYTERIAN PRONOUNCEMENT. The following statement by the Presbyterian Church of New. Zealand on the New Testament and No-License has been handed to ns:— Christian Brethren, —The temperance committee, in complying with resolution of last General Assembly, sends forth this statement on the bearing of the New Testament on No-Licensa, and prays that God may use it to illuminate a large and grave problem -that many may not fully understand. A FEW POINTS CLEARED UP. 1. Let it be noticed. at once that the question dealt with in this statement is not prohibition, for the legislature has not "yet ventured to define that idea. Nor is "the use or abuse" of spirits the question here considered, since everyone denounces abuse and most Christians commend those who "touch not, taste not," etc. The committee deliberately, and bydecision of Assembly, confines its remarks to the No-license question—a question embodied, in an Act of Parliament, and voted npon periodically by the people. 2. Every intelligent reader of the New Testament- knows well that there was no .licensing system—no huge monopoly in the sale of liquor—in apostolic times. Dazzling drixiking-bars did not occupy the corners of the principal streets in Jerusalem when the firet Christians walked those streets. ;The State did ;not then grant a privilege (for a fixed sum) to a few citizens securing them the sole right to trade in intoxicating drink, Hence it is impossible to find in the New Testament any direct approval or disapproval of a system that did not then exist.

3. The New Testament-, however, is not a mere musty volume of sanctions and limitations. It is a living Book; the Lamp of God among men; "a discerner of the thoughts and intents" (i.e., of the nature and purpose) of men and institutions past, present, and to come. Nowhere does it . expressly enjoin the elevation and enthronement of women in her sphere; yet it has raised and enthroned her. No passage can be quoted directly requiring the education of, or the alleviation of suffering among, the toiling milhops of the world; and yet the nations that have absorbed its teachings are forward to . fill the land with schools and hospitals. ois the spirit of the New -Lestament that quickens men to reform bad, arid create pure, conditions of life lhe ethical principles of the old Book are deep, and thorough, and all-inclusive. It is right and reasonable, therefore, to mark the application of these principles to the No-license question, and to consider whether the third petition of the Lord's Prayer is being fulfilled or thwarted by our licensed drinking-bars. PROVIDING FOR CARNAL APPETITE IS FORBIDDEN.

The New Testament, for one thing, plainly forbids, and so regards as unchristian, the elaborate and constant- provision for a dangerous carnal appetite. " Make not provision for the flesh to fulfil (satisfy) the lusts thereof" is a command that- is found in the heart of the New Testament-, and is inspired by the Spirit of God. To provide food for the satisfying of gluttony is opposed to the Spirit of Christ. To sel up vile dens where sensuous passK-ii£ may be gratified is an outrage on the teaching of Scripture. In like manner, to provide places for drinking in order to gratify the alcoholic appetite, regardless of its evil effects, is surely and clearly hostile to that wisdom which "is first pure," etc. Need it be said then, that the drinking bars of our day are not based upon humanitarian, or medicinal, or altruistic principles? No educated' person would dream of affirming that they ate kept open for benevolent or r -philanthropic purposes, or that- the liquor dispensed in them is equally necessary as food, clothing, etc. We know that these places are fully stocked with all manner of intoxicating liquor, and that they literally constitute a legalised provision for, and temptation to, drunkenness in every town. They constantly foster drinking for drinking's eake. They everywhere flourish through the drinking appei t-ite. What then? These bars may now be closed by the vote of Christian electors. - And so all those who vote against theirf act in accord with the principle, viz., of "making not- provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof." MISUSED STRENGTH IS A TWOFOLD SIN. To the devout and. intelligent reader thereof, the New Testament also makes it ' clear that it is a sin for the strong Christian man to use his strength inconsiderately to the moral injury of the weak. The words will bear prayerful examination. They are these: " When indeed ye thus I sin against the brethren and wound their weak consciences, ye sin against Christ " 1 (1 Cor. viii, 12). There is nothing hypothetical in the sentence; nothing about expediency or inexpediency. The apostle' here goes below the surface aspect of the action, and lays bear its inner ethical significance. At bottom, says Paul, this callous carrying of Christian strength tothe moral pain and hurt of weakness is' sin against a brother, and sin against that brother's Saviour. But what was the offence in the apostle's day? It was merely the flaunting of a conscientious scruple, in a young convert, as to the eating of meat that had been offered to idols. A trifle! we would say. Yet Paul, not as a weak brother pleading for the weak, but as a very giant in the service of God, made plain the moral dangers of the strong, and called for strength ennobled by Christ-like sympathy end manful self-restraint. The application of this principle to Nolicense is self-evident. The drinking-bars of this colony not only cause many sad hearts and guilt-stained consciences; they effect the ruin of many weak men and women in body and sold. A paid supporter of the liquor traffic rejoiced to proclaim three years ago that while Gothenburg had 58 drunkards per 1000 population, and Scotland had 16, New Zealand had only 8 drunkards per 1000. Temperance > workers believe that double this number

of drunkards exist in this colony. But take the figures given: what does "it mean? Eight drunkards per 1000 in a population [ of 900,000 means that there at least 7200 I drunkards in these islands—mark you, 7200 [ pitiful wrecks of humanity, slaves of the drink appetite and of our much-regulated system. Every year their ranks are thinned by premature death, so-called accidents, and murder; but these gaps are constantly filled up by the inexperienced and the morally feeble. Well, the scriptural principle under review says to the strong man (who can take or leave his glass, whose vote shuts or opens the bar), " Deny yourself in the interests of the Weak; remove the open snare in which they have been caught and maimed ; do everything in your power to stop the manufacture of moral wrecks." If, however, the strong man rejects the counsel, and wills to have the open bar, whoever may be destroyed, what then? God's Word declares, " When ye thus sin against the weak brethren ye sin against Christ." THE BEST GIVES THEMSELVES FOR THE WORST. Once more: The ideal of Christian life found; in the New Testament is not merely self-denial for the sake of others, but self-giving for the saving of others. This means the consecration of all the Christian virtue and grace men have for the raising and strengthening of the weak and fallen. "He who was rich, for our sakes became poor," etc. Our Lord put all His love, sympathy, purity, power, etc., into the work of our deliverance. Spontaneously he did it. With_ unalterable purpose He did it. With great tenderness and patience He did it.

Are we disciples of this Master? Has He given us power to understand—nay, to rise above—the balefnl spell of strong drink? If so, it is our duty, and should be our delight, to go and do as Ha did. We should be willing to help, not hinder, he weak; willing to clear the stumblingblocks from their path, not place them there. All lawful means ought to be used by us to make it possible for the victims of drink to rise to a purer and more Christian life. We should do it for their sakes. We should do it for Christ's sake. Who died for them. We should do it for the Father's sake. Who made and loves them. We should do it at the ballot box, and outside as well. And thus we shall act- in harmony with the glorious teaching of. the New Testament. ROBERT ERWIN, - Moderator of General Assemblv; JAMES CLARKE, ; " Convenor of Temperance Committee.