The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-06-11
THE REMEMBRANCE CRUMPToN.

ton. of this city, who is President of the Anti Saloon League of Alabama. In 1t he proves himself as unreasonable and intolerant as Rev. Brooks Lawrence. Superintendent of the League, and ed- itor of The Citizen. of whom we wrote some days ago.
 1 Mir. Crumpton takes to task MT. Glass. of The Advertiser, for some of his remarks at the Law and Order Leagues indignation meeting the other night. He loses his head and goes as far as to say that Mir. Glass's ut- terance and attitude were bordering dangerously near to blasphemy" and that he took "a bold. bad stand" | It is great pity that a man who wears the cloth and who holds such an influential position should have so little breadth, so little tolerance of differences of opinion, and. in his im- puisiveness, display so little of the spirit of charity so constantly taught by Christ in precept and example. He talks more like Saul of Tarsus than Paul the Apostle. He has more zeal | than wisdom or charity.
 The particular words of MT. Glass which pr. Crumpton denounces are these: Nowhere in the Bible is there . commandment not to drink liquor. and Christ himself taught it's proper use by example" With this as a text pr. Crumpton goes off into most illogical diatribe about the Scriptures position on intemperance. There was nothing in a thoughtful consideration of the quotation to warrant such a faliacious argument and such a ridiculous con- clusion.
 MT. Glass asserted that there is no commandment in the Bible not to drink liquor. Dr. Crumpton himself is forced to admit this, saying: Mo- where does God say in so many words Thou shalt not drink liquor.'" But he attempts to distort various texts, which he quotes. into 6 command. His virtual position is that God at Nit. Sinai forgot to make an eleventh con- mandment to the effect. "Thou shalt not touch Intoxicating liquor." and that Christ in His life neglected to reme- dy the oversight. That has been the trouble with intolerant, impulsive. un- wise men in all ages: they have at- tempted to write into the Scriptures ideas that are not there. That spirit has caused all the inquisitions and re- ligious prosecutions. which are such blots on history and have done so much to hold back the true work of Christianity.
 pr. Crumpton's quotations are all directed at excesses in the use of li- Quors, at intemperance and drunken ness. For those texts we have the pro- foundest respect and the utmost sym pathy. And when MT. Glass said that Christ himself has taught its Qi- quor'sD proper use by examples" not for one moment did he intimate that Christ | taught their improper use. pr. Crump- ton does not show to advantage in fairness or reasoning power, when he ignores MT. Glass's distinct position. and attempts to place a far-fetched construction on his words.
 There is abundant Scripture to war rant positively Mir. Glass's assertion as to Christ's attitude. Not only did He make the best wine used at the mar riage feast in. caana. thereby unques- tionabiy teaching that there were times and places for a temperate use of alcoholic drinks. but he seems to have used 1t Himself on occasions. In Matthew xii. 1s are these words:
 The Son of man, came eating and drinking. and they say; Behold q n man of publicans and sinners: But wis., dom is justified of her children
 The same statement is repeated in Luke vii. 34.
 Here are two other quotations which. while not showing Christs direct teaching by example. do show what the great Apostle Paul taught as the priv ilege of Christians.
 Let no man therefore judge you in meat. or in drink. or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon. or of the Sabbath days."-CoI. ii, 1e.
 Drink no longer water. but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often informities."-I Tim. V. 2S.
 So much for the criticism of Mir Glass's assertions as to the Scriptures He yet maintains that there Is no in- fraction of the moral law in the proper use of liquors.
 Next Dr. Crumpton turns off to the other question of the moral right of the prohibition law He insists that MT Glass begged the question, that all prohibition laws are directed to the traflc, to the selling. Unfortunately for the soundness of his logic he makes this admission: "One (person) may have as much as he will for his own consumption. Apparently he forgets his interpretation of the Scriptures that there Is command not tc drink at all He recklessly allows the individual the personal right to all he wants But he denies him a legal place