The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1886-07-21
PROHIBITION.
Did Christ sanction even mod
crate" drinking?


Did Christ sanction even "mod-
crate" drinking?
An argument frequently produc-
ed by .;nti-Prohibitionists is, that
Christ was moderate drinker him
self ard sanctioned the use of wine
That our Savior.the Mighty
Founder of the faith of millions;
the Sow Of God clothed with hu-
manity-either countenanced or
permitted, while he was on earth,
the habit of drinking even moder-
ately, do not believe. do not in
tend to go into a discussion of the
question as to whether the wine
which our Savior made at the we'd
ding in Cana Of Gallilee, was fer
mented or unfermented; whether
it had intoxicating properties, or
whether 1t was simply the juice of
the grape freshly pressed out and
perfectly harmless.
Those who have gone farthest in
to the historical research to eluci-
date this question as to whether it
was intoxicating, have come to the
conclusion that as it was not fer.
mented, itundoubtedly was not in
toxicatiDg.
Those who hold to the opinion
that it was intoxicating may be
sincere In their belief; but sincerity
of belief does not make what they
believe the truth. But let us as
sumo, only for the purpose of argu-
ment, that these statements may
be true, what then? We as fol-
lowers of Christ are bound to COM
mands which he has laid upon us.
Well, now, are we commanded to
drink wine, except at the solemn
celebration of the Lords supper ?
No! Emphstically no!
AS Christ, according to their be-
lief, drank wine moderately"
they assuyesit is not wrong .atshs
present day for all men to be mod
crate drinkers; and that the ex-
; ample of our Savior should be fol.
. lowed. But this assumption does
not follow; for if Christ, as Jew,
strictly followed the Mosaical law,
} are we bound to follow the same
For example, must we abstain from
: food which that law forbade the
: Jewish nation to eat, because Christ
followed It? The argument is ir'
rational, absurd.
1t is common argument with
! the upholders of rum-drinking thai
because Christ did not in so many
words prohibit drinking, it is per
missible to us. What then shall bt
! said of this assumption?
!. The plain truth is, that it is no
of the slightest Importance to Pro
hibitionists, whether Christ dranl
wine, made wine, or permitted hi
) followers to drink wine. If the!
could sustain all these assumption
! (Which they cannot do), wha
would be gained in opposition tt
Prohibition? Simply nothing; TO
this is not a religious question.
: do not believe a good cOnscienciou
Christian man can be other than
Prohibitionist; neither do I believ
a Prohibitionist must be a Chris
l tian. For, indeed, many Prohibi
y tionists are not Christians.
. And more than all this, drinkin,
, wine made from the pure juice
. the grape, asitwas made in Christ
time, is one thing; and drinking
> rum and brandy and whisky, whicl
: were unknown at that day, is quit
: a different thing.
y If such fearful woes, as wer
y quoted in a previous article, wer
denounced upon those who dram
the wines in that day, almost harm
less compared to the hell-broth
that are prepared by the distiller
and rectifiers of to-day, with drug
and poisons added, increasing ter
fold the evils of the liquors them
selves; what words are stron
: enough to express the awful cor
III sequences which will inevitabl
! befall the man who drinks thos
. hell-distilled potions?
= With all the warnings against in
! temperance scattered through tn
# writings of the prophets AN
a apostles, who dare say that Chris
. or Christianity countenances eve
L moderate drinking?
ARBEJA.
It
Democratic success means reput
M l.. 81