The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-08-16

in the morning that they may follow
strong drink; that continue until the
night till wine iniame them And
the harp, and the vIol, the tabret and
pipe, and wine are in their feasts;
but they regard not the work Of the
Lord. neither consider the operation
OF His hands, Therefore, my people
have gone into captivity, because they
have no knowledge: and their honor
able men are famished. and their
multitude dried up in thirst There
fore hell hath enlarged herself, $nd
opened her mouth without measure;
and their glory, and their multitude.
and their pomp, and ne that reJolceth
shah descend into 1t.
Thus Jehovah speaks. and the sub
lime Haoakkuk answers him back.
Woe to him that giveth his neigh
Dor drink. that putteth the bottle 10
him and maketh him drunken also,
Centuries pass, and the Apostle
Paul warns the pleasure loving Co
rinthians that no drunkard shall in
herit the Kingdom OF heaven.
In the midst of these AWFUL tones,
causing the reverent heart 10 shud-
der. as If listening to tho rumbings
of eternity. strain your ear ana may
he You may hear the thin faint voice
or some mortar 6A y ilS jesus haHT
ana drank wine"
This is no new discovery The fact
was noted while He yet dwelt on the
earth, and, with shocking unfairness,
made much Of in an evil cause: The
Son of Man came eating and drinking,
and they say, behold a gluttonpus
man and winebiber." Alas for the
man who can derive, even In remotest
way, from the exQuisitely lovely nrst
miracle of our Lord -sanctfylns
common life and human joy beauti-
fying the marriage tie and the family
affections--an argument in support
Of colossal wrong.
Can we find prohibition in the 81
BILE? In principle, yes; in statutory
form. no. The Bible does not deal
with statutory law; 1t deals with the
moral law and the Individual con-
science. Paul laid down great prin-
ciple Of the Christian religion. when
he said: 1T is good neither TO eat
flesh. nor to drink wine, nor any
thing whereby thy brother stumb-
leth." He declared that II by eating
meat he caused his brother to STUN
BILE he would eat no meat as long
as he lved--he would be a total alb
stainer for his brothers sake. II IT
may he a good thing for an individua!
to be total abstalner for the good OF
another individual, 1t may be a good
thing for a community to totally ao-
stain for the good Of another commu-
nifty; and II it can be shown That
such abstinence would be IN the in-
terest Of the general good, 1t may
be enforced by positive statute, un-
less such law be vioiative of inherent
and inalienabIe right. That the IL
quor traffic has no Inherent right TO
exist has been repeatedly decided by
the highest courts of the land-~they
have gone further, and declared 1t
to be IAN evil in It's nature" IAN en-
envy to civilization and good govern
ment."
The only ground that one can claim
that the scriptures oppose prohibi-
ton, is that 4 infringes personal lib-
erty What is Personal Liberty"
1t sounds fine. and many are caught
by the grandiioquence of an empty
phrasa In the absolute sense, 1t
does not exist except in a condition
of abject savagery. Blackstone stat
ed the fundamental distinction in his
commentar es long before prohibition
was dreamed of.
The law which restraints man
from doing mischief to his fellow cit
liens though it diminishes his natural
increases the civil liberty of man
kind" The Supreme court of North
Carolina thus applies that distinction
to the liquoS traffic.
what would be a deprivation OF
the use OF property without due pro-
cess of law. or an infringement Of