The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1886-05-05
The Bible Of 1t.

Wnere he mas the plank In his platform
against "sumptuary legislation" A Pro-
hibitionist is badly off when he directs an
"old politician" to go to the Bible. That
good book is full of Murphyism, but E. s.
could not find any st. Johnism in 1t with
search warrant. God says, II set before
you blessing and curse" "a blessing
II fye obey and curse II ye disobey."
From this 1t will be seen that God has CIV
en- man free, self.determining will which
cannot be forced by any power but that
which is omuipotent; and that God him.
self never will force 1t, is declared In the
most formal manner throughout the whole
of the sacred writings. Argument and
testimony are not force, but are the prln-
ciples Of moral suasion. 1t is the theory
of Gods law that everything in nature
man uses is only injurious when misused.
Man is punished for his abuse, but the
law of God nor man does not command
the destruction Of the things he abuses.
The point we wish to call the attention Of
E. s. tots, that the prohibition he teaches is
annihilation, and out Of that theory comes
the utter abSurdity and impracticability of
Prohibition. The divine law simply says,
"Look not on wine when it is red," but
because "old politicians"a fair.haired
Prohibitionists (the latter on the sly) do
that sometimes and getmore than they can
carry, it does not follow that the wine
ought to be abolished. The thing to do is
for the marshal to take them to the cool
er. - ...
The latter-day prohibitionists would
find fault with the Creators arrangements
in the garden of Eden. God said: Let
the apples on that tree alone the prohi-
bitionist would have said; Abolish the
apples and kill the devil" Here was the
first practical test of prohibition. The
devil was the saloon.keeper, the apples
the interdicted beverage and Adam and
Eve the customers. The devil was the
same old chestnut he is today, and he
had an easy task in tempting the sinless
pair to break the law of p rohibition
What did the law.giver dor Abolish the
forbidden fruit, and destroy the DEVILS
business? No, he simply drove the them
out of Eden, and gave the woman's seed
power to bruise the serpent's head, spe.
cies of the legislation which the g. o. p.
would call the eternal principle of regu-
lation," kind of "Scott Law" as 1t
were, to restrain Satan, and provide
against the evils resulting from his wick.
ed capers, which is about all the world
has ever been able to do
Nowhere in the Bible is the manufac-
ture of strong drinks prohibited, nothing
but their Incorporate use. Noah appears
to appears TO have been the first manufac.
turer of intoxicating beverages and was
the first man to get drunk. "And Noah
began TO be husbandman, and he plant
ed Il vineyard and he drank Of the wine
and was drunken" Probably he did not
understand the strength and intoxicating
power of wine, but after he found it out,
we do not read that he prohibited the
manufacture or use Of II There was a
species of prohibition, or rather an injunc-
tion, leveled at Aaron and his sons, ap.
plying, however, only to certain time
and place, which said: "Do not drink wine
nor strong drink thou, nor thy sons with
thee, when ye 20 into the tabernacle Of
the congregation" At other times and
, places there was no prohibition, even
against these priests of the Most High.
T. The NaZarite was commanded TO "sepa-
rate himself from wine and strong drink,
and he shall drink no vinegar of wine, or
vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he
drink any liquor of grapes" The Nazar.
ite being an emblem of man in his para
disical state, he was forbidden that tree
and its fruits by which Adam fell Here
is the nearest approach to prohibition In
the Bible, but there is in it none of the
annihilation theory Of the modern Prohi.
bi;ionist. In acknowledgements of the
bounty and goodness Of God, the law Of
Moses concerning offerings said; "Thou
shalt not delay TO offer the first Of thy ripe
Truits, and Of thy liquors" In enumerat.
ing the gifts of God to man the psalmist
hys; "He giveth wine that maketh glad
he heart of man" Christ made wine out
IL water to make merry at a wedding feast
md Paul advised Timothy to drink wine
for his Stomach's sake. 1t is very evident
hat the Bible is not a prohibition docu-
nent In the sense that Il. s. teaches that
loctrine; and In directing us 20 go To- the
Bible aud avoid blunders, he has stood
his own heory on its head. Some people
re verdant enough to say that the wine
the Bible was not intoxicating; that is
b say, Noah and Lot were not drunk as
March hares and the guests at the we'd
bling feast were merry on colored water.
kIy friend, you can find more argument
/ an almanac in favor of the prohibition
nnihilation theory than In the Bible. The
Eenunclation of the drunkard, and the
having about "red eyes, Of those who tar
I-y long at the wine, In the Bible, are lev.
eled at the abuse Of wine, and cannot be
tortured into abibical boycott Of its man
Illacture and temperate use. .A