THE WESLEYAN CHURCH AND THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume VII, Issue 348, 25 March 1897, Page 10

THE WESLEYAN CHURCH AND THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

In our last week’s issue we dealt at some length with what took place at the re-cently-held Wesleyan Conference, re the proposals of the Wesleyan body in dealing with the liquor question. In this issue we shall conclude our commentary on the proposals indicated. As was expected, the most intemperate, intolerant resolution was proposed by the Rev. F. W. Isitt, and we are pleased to know that most of the reasonable members of the conference (clergy and laity) refused to support or accept the narrow, bigoted principles contained in Mr Isitt’s resolution. The “ church fathers,” by a majority, practically declared it to be an insult to a large and influential section of Christians in this colony to affirm by motion that no person should be qualified for any office—administrative or otherwise—who had anything whatever to do with the liquor traffic or with the promotion of its twin brother, gambling. Had such a sweeping resolution been passed and practical effect been subsequently given thereto, it must have resulted disastrously to the interests of the Wesleyan church itself, and have caused intense pain to a large section of the adherents and supporters of the Wesleyan creed. The writer of these lines can well remember when it was not not looked upon as derogatory to the dignity, or subversive of the interest of the Wesleyan church, for a Wesleyan minister of the old school, under the simple method of itinerancy which obtained in the rural districts of England, to sit down with a farmer’s family of an evening, take his glass of beer or some other kind of alcoholic beverage, smoke his pipe with his host, and before retiring to bed offer up a prayer for the welfare of the family, and never once thought of tendering any

apology to the deity for having drank his beer and smoked his pipe ; and we ask the Rev Mr Isitt if these simple, homely ministers of the Gospel did not, like the founder of their church, John Wesley, accomplish more real good for the church and for humanity than all the bigots in New Zealand, be they clergymen or laymen, who would bar a Christian from any participation in church government, simply because he refuses to be dictated to as to what he should drink and the nature of the amusement he may see fit to indulge in. Then there is another phase of the question, viz., the invidious distinction it would create between one section of the church and another; and, in addition to this, what a reflection it would be on some of the best men the world has ever known —now departed this life—who were not only mighty pillars of the church during their lifetime, but at the same time were largely and actively engaged in the wine and spirit trade. Take, for instance, the case of the late Mr Thomas Macky, who, for nearly half a century, was a wine and spirit merchant, carrying on business in the City of Auckland, and during the whole time he was known far and wide for his broad sympathies and his practical generosity, his broad catholic spirit of Christianity, as one of the most revered elders of the Presbyterian Church, as superintendant of a large Sunday School, as a lay reader, and in every respect as a typical Christian gentleman. A gentleman who never went to his business with-

out devotional exercise and never failed to ask for the Divine blessing for his family and his undertakings. Do not the Rev. F. W. Isitt and Co. realise that this man had the true spirit of Him they profess to follow, and do they not, from a Christian point of view, realise that in church matters they are not worthy to be associated with or partakers in the same Christian work, as was the man upon whose memory they have cast such an unjustifiable slur, such an unmitigated insult ? Then we have in our own midst some of our hotelkeepers holding high office in the Anglican Church. Are Messrs Isitt and Co. prepared to say to those men, “Come not near me ; I am holier than thou.” In fact it is impossible to be too strong in our condemnation of such pharasitical doctrines, and

feel certain that no section of the Christian church will be more emphatic in condemnation than the reasonable, thoughtful members of the Wesleyan body itself. We observe the Rev. Mr Simmonds thought the growing sentiment would abolish abuses without legislation. In this opinion we partly agree, although we cannot admit that there are many abuses in connection with church officials to abolish. But if the Rev. Mr Simmonds would stiive at one full swoop to abolish the bigotry, the intolerance, the habit of exaggeration which practically amounts to untruth, the assumption of excessive holiness, the attempt to ostracise from religion and society every person from his church who is responsible for such a state of things, commencing with the Rev. F. W. Isitt, the world at large would recognise a huge diminution of abuses in connection with the workings of the Christian church of which he himself is an honoured and respected minister.