West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1888-10-05
PROHIBITION AND THE CHURCH.

Reprinted from ollT issue or September
23rd ISL 81 e 81
The Princeton Resie,s for July has p
very able arfi, aesk bio Rev. Sanford 81.
Cobb which veS""asr Sc and ss our
readers. -
The discussion Of prohibition tails
naturally into two pats fret, as "a
civil law; and second, -as--a-preeept-
of morals. These two aspects are
logically quite distinct, yet they are
constantly confused, and the advo-
Gates for prohibitory Legislation
draw their strongest plea from NOR
al cosiderations. ~ .,axn
Those asking the Church to exert
her influence to accomplish prohibi.
tiou must base church action on one
or the other of two grounds:
l. THAT ALL DRINKING OF INToxI-
GIANTS is SINFUL. ..t..ly--i ias OH
But this is not o true proposition.
Drunkenness is wicked. yet the mod
crate use Of liquor is as sinless as
the use of bread. Both reason and
Scripture says that intemperance is
wicked, but neither reason nor Scrip
ture suggests that the temperate use
of stimulant is sinful. (The exam
pie of the moderate drinker is anoth-
err matter, and will be discussed here
after. ~e'ei t""
Some things are wrong because OF
their intrinsic nature: To steal is in
trinsically wrong. There are other
things which would not be wrong
unless forbid by statute; tn SNUG
gle, to throw garbage in the street,
to fish at all seasons, to charge for
the use ofmoney more than Il certain
rate of interest, are things which are
wrong only because forbid by stat
ute. To steal would be q sin al
though. the civil law was silent; but
morality and the Bible know moth
ing about smuggling until the civil
law defines it, and forbids it. When
the Legislature forbids an act then
both morality and the Bible make it
a matter of conscience and says
''obey the law" To be drunken is
q sin, but to use stimulants within
the limits of entire selfcontrol is
not wrong; and to profess that the
Bible forbids intoxicants is to weak
en- religious influences and to dis
credit the sincerity OF the argument
Assuming then that the use ofin-
toxicants is not intrinsically sinful,
we come to the second, and the only
other ground for church action,
which may be thus stated:
3. The CIVIL LAW SHOULD COM
MAND TOTAL ABSTINENCE BECAUSE
SOME PERSONS DRINK TO EXCESS.
The proposition TINS stated does
not raise the question Of the sinful
ness of drinking; the proposition is,
that the evils resulting from the
abuse of intoxicants are, in many
cases, so enormous as to make it q
matter of public policy to forbid the
manufacture and sale Of liquor, and,
being matter of public policy,
church influence should be exerted
to accomplish the proposed legis!a
ton.
Let us analyze this proposition
and bring its competent parts dis
tinctly into view.
(1) Drinking in moderation is
not a sin; (2) Many persons drink
to excess which is 4 sin; (3) Drunk
enness by some persons brings such
enormous evils that, the welfare of
society, (public policy,) requires a
law to forbid the manufacture and
sale of liquor, and therefore, "a 1t
is positive christian duty to insist
that a law be enacted prohibiting
the use of liquor. s. .i. 20 81.
But, as before explained, if the act
is not sinful it is outside the juris-
diction of the church. If the act
Injuries society the civil law should
deal with it,-not the Church. The
public welfare may require Il law
regulating the rate Of interest on
money, but 1t is not matter for &C.
clesiastical interference. IT, the
same way, the public welfare may
require law forbidding the use of
innor hut as its use lin modera
ton is not sin, this is not mat
ter for ecclesiastical interference.
The misery anil tears of once happy
homes, ruined by drink, appeal so