The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-06-30

Tbs Bible and Prohibition,
We note In the organs 81 the liquor traffe
The statement made that many preachers Of
the best type who are opposed ~ prohibition be-
caose they believe IL is contrary to the Bible. >"
cannot get hearing in the so-caled religious
newspapers
n they cannot get a hearing there they can
get i Ia the organs Of the Beer Trust. They
can De retained BY the Model License League
ana tnt upon the stump They welcomed
with open arms to a hesptabe grave by the
friends OF free trade IN liquor: they can get
they can get an applause such az they DO not
get when they preach plain and simple lessons
from some text OF Scripture.
There is possibly some difference Of opinion
among preachers as TO the practical operations
of prohibition Just as there is difference OF
opinion among men OF all other caiiiugs.
But we think ii liz safe say that there s no
preacher. eminent otherwise who believes that
prohibition Is contrary to the Bible"
Prohibition s total abstinence enforced by
law. The Bible does deal with the statute
law, II deals With The moral law. it deals with
the Individual conscience. There is nothing In
the Scripture forbdding an act Of legislation or Of
governmental authority establishing prohibition.
There y nowhere a condemnation of statutory
prohibition.
II W. are To find this condemnation must
ind somewhere In the Bible condemnation of
total abstinence. Paul said that II by eating
meat he offended his brethren he would not
eat meat as long the world stood. This is
q plea for total abstneuee In order to meet the
urreas onable demands of unreasonable men.
II was not made obligatory upon others. It
vas one OF Pau's rules OF personal conduct
inQFe lS nefnl1k Al the moral law ana notH~
ing In the teachings OF the New Testament which
torbids to abstain from eating meat il
he believe that he is the better for it or any one
else II better for IL there is in the Scriptures
no prohibition Of total abstinence from alcoholic
liquor.
II there is a scriptaral condemnation of pro-
htbiton. 1t against local option well as
prohibition. The only ground upon which one
could ray the Scripture forbade prohibition is
that Il impairs mans free VIII: That II Is
an invasion Of the domain of his personal con-
science.
A local prohibition law that invades the do
main OF CONSCIENCE does much Is impair
mans free villas a state wide prohibition Law.
Ia ethics yorcannor draw a distinction between
any prohibition act however. limited Its scope,
and State prohibition Prohibition is prohibition.
whether ii applies to the precinct, the state or
the nation II there is in the Scriptures pro-
hihition Of prohibition it applies TO precinct. ward,
county and State all alike.
Men may differ the efficacy Of the law
81 as 20 the necessity Of the LAM. Men tla@s-
believe. as Muensterherg teaches that certain
amount OF alcohol is necessary TO save men from
degeneration. There are few who do believe
this aud they are growing fewer. Science and
statistics. experience ana the census all go to
show that the drink evil is ono Of tremendous
proportions dernorazing the community, multi
plying crime spreading abroad poverty and grad
ualiy multiplying the dependents and the de-
ffcients.
an evil against which On behalf ef their Eel
lowraen whole communities have arisen, not in
wrath but In reason and righteousness deter
mined to curtaii II through Legislative enact
ments. through voluntary association through
moral suasion and through the police power
We take leave therefore. 10 doubt the accur-
acy Of the reports contained in the organs OF
the lauor traffic TO the effect that many preach
ers Of the best type are opposed to prohibition
because they believe Il is contrary 70 the Eio'e
They may oppose II other grounds, but not
even the professor OF theology thai . aud
reigns over the Courier Journal can teuVince
any man not engaged in the liquor trainc thae
the Bible prohibits prohihition-LoaisVlile, Ken