Blue-grass blade., 1891-10-31
@s%&h
&szsS'>r
ssThe Christian Standard ON
the Wine Making at Cana
Of GaliIee.

ssThe Christian Standard Oh
the Wine Making at Cana
Of Galilee.
"The Christian Standard, al
organ oftAe Christian or Disciples
church, published at Cincinnati
Ohio, talks like a religious paper
should do. on the subject of the
liquor iniquity.
It recognizes, of course, our per.
sonal duty to abstain from the use
of intoxicants, but it goes further
than this and says we must use
our civil right to put down the
liquor traffic, by voting for Prohi.
bition.
But in it's issue of September l6,
there is discussed question bear
ing upon the liquor traffic that is
going to test the moral courage of
the editor of that paper. It is
that story about Jesus making
wine at Cana of Galilee.
Bro. TiIlman of Knoxville, Ten
nessee, is a total abstinence man,
and he objects to the fact that
the STANDARD Bible Lesson Com
mentary" teaches, that at Cana of
Gdiliee, Jesus made "real intoxi-
eating wine'' and encouraged its
use.
He most pertinently and forci-
bly, says:
The example of Christ is the end of
III controversy. No expediency can
ever require of us any course of con-
duct different from that of Him who
came to save the world. We can not
be under higher obligation to regard
fbe weak brother than was Christ
hImgeH Let some one answer these
0neutions: If Jesus made "real" lint
: 1ionting) wine at the wedding feas-
~ gallons Of it t)-made it to be used
. = be&erage, and ordered it so used
- oof Tie brewer and distiller of our
On dny 1hznished with a justifica-
6foGR HJesus drank "reai' (intod-
el1l6E1 vine, knowing, as he did most
p that millions essaying to fol-
-. uould nll into everlasting
- nok ooxoneIJed to the
weak men? And If by his example he
said: ssDrink, drink, like do, in mod
Grafton. good real wine, /" where shall
we get an argument for total absti-
nence9
To this Bro. A. n Gilbert of
Cleveland, Ohio, who writes the
Standard Bible Lesson Commen-
tary, makes a most sensible and
honest and just reply.
The su bstance of his reply is
that he appreciates the very nat
ural difficulty and embarrassment
of Bro. Tillman; that he is sorry
the difficulty does exist, and that
his prejudices against the liquor
traffic would make him remove it
if he could, but that as a faithful
commentator on the Scriptures he
is bound to recognize the exist
ence of the difficulty.
These good brethren are equally
honest and equally right in their
views. The first, as a moralist,
has right to object to any NOR
alist making wine and encour-
aging the use oft.
That the making and drinking
of wine is wrong is one of the set
tied and established facts among
Prohibition moralists, and can no
longer be open to discussion with
out a surrender of the very basal
principles of Prohibitionists.
That the wine that Jesus is said
to have made on that occasion,
was the same "real, intoxicating
wine" that is commonly alluded
to in the Old and New Testaments
as being dangerous, is beyond
doubt, according to all well es-
tablished principles of translation
and criticism.
All the efforts to make it ap-
pear that it was merely fresh and
unfermented grape juice, are sim.
ply the apologies and evasions and
subterfuges of men who are
driven to a last extremity. Such
-reasoners assume a position and
then argue to suit the assumption,
instead of accepting the evident
truth in the case, and abiding the
consequences.
All the liquor papers appreciate
that they have the believers in
the infallibility of the Christian
Scriptures at a disadvantage on
this story of Jesus making wine,
and they are continually quoting
it, and with absolutely resistless
force.
1t does not amount to anything
to quote other passages of script
ure against the use of wine. AS
Bro. Tillman says, "The example
of Christ is the end of all contro-
versy". We are all accustomed
to say factions speak louder than
words; and if there were plain
and unmistakable utterances OF
Jesus against the drinking Of
wine, this reputed miracle at Cana
would more than cancel them.