Evening journal., 1917-10-22
ISSUE TO TATTERS

argument rests upon fundamental truth
which does not depend upon circum-
stances for its support or external tes-
timony of any kind. Fundamental truth !
always contains internal proof, Justi-
fication and vindication of ITSELF
A Menace to the Church.
Prohibition is not only powerless as a l
remedy for intemperance, it is also
menace to the church-sto true religion.
The federal census reports show that in
wet New York 40 per cent. of the people |
belong to church. In wet Rhode Island |
81 per cent. of the people belong to
church. In prohibition Maine less than
30 per cent. of the people are church /
members, and in dry Kansas less than
20 per cent. are affiliated with any
church.
In the northern group of states, to
which Kansas and Maine belong, the
average percentage of church membership
is A. The reason for this condition in
prohibition states is apparent to all who
think. Men naturally resent the eff
forts Of ministers to interfere with their
private affairs. They refuse to go to
church TO hear prohibition harangue in
stead Of gospel sermon. They decline
to support minister who appeals to
the law of force instead of the power of
love. They know that every preacher
who calls upon the police to save men
discredits the religion of Jesus Christ.
The spirit of intolerance manifested
by advocates of prohibition drives people
away from the church. Frequently the
members are told by the pastor to vote
dry or resign their membership. Unable
to convince men by reason that prohibi-
ton is right the drys frequently resort
to the social or business thumb screw 10
compel others to accept their views. Peo-
pie who honestly differ with them are
denounced as children of hell.
1t is such actions as these that drive
men away from the Church away from
God and Christ, and accounts for the
fact that in prohibition Maine and Kan
sas people have less use for the church
than in any other states in the Union.
Christians should oppose prohibition
not because they are particularly inter
ested in the perpetuity of the liquor
business, but because prohibition wher-
ever tried has not only failed to help,
but has invariably injured the cause of
true religion.
Un-Christian In Character.
Prohibition is not only a menace TO
- HR ANAAEARAf DuN ~ - tOnlldI1 10 lnC
divine order. 1 can prove this charge
without opening the Bible. Freedom of
choice is the divine order. God could
not accept the worship Of legal automa-
tons. Before your songs and PRAYERS
can be anything but hollow mockery
they must come through free lips, from
willing hearts. God could write q. mes.
sage tonight across the sky in letters
of fire, and the whole human race would
fall on its knees. That would put all
the ministers out of business in a iiffy.
1t is not Gods way. He might kill the
devil, but He doesn't.
Theologians have been telling us for
nearly two thousand years that God
made man able to stand, though free to
fall" Did they tell us the truth? If
not how can we believe them now? We
/, know that they told the truth, because
the doctrine OF person liberty is in har-
mony with the divine order.
, In the ninth chapter of Ecclesiates,
seventh verse, we learn that as a re-
ward for their devotion and loyalty, God
gave His people the right to drink. II
says;
Go thy way, eat thy bread with ioy.
and drink thy wine with a merry heart,
for God now accepteth thy works"
Instead of abolishing personal liberty
: God here grants His people the right
to drink as a reward for righteousness.
In Isaiah, chapter 62, verse eight. AL
mighty God solemnly pledges Himself to
, protect His people in their right to drink
! the wine for which they labor. This
.. verse reads:
, "The Lord hath sworn by His right
! hand, and by the arm of His strength,
= surely / will no more give thy corn to
, be meat for thy enemies; and the sons
{ of the stranger shall not drink thy wine
. for which thou hast labored."
1 We see by this passage that after all
s this conflict is a fight between Prohi
D bitionists and God. The Prohibitionists
r swear by Hobson and Bill Sunday that
4 the use of intoxicating liquors shall be
t abolished. God has sworn "by His right
n hand and by the arm of His strength
Y that no man nor set of men will deprive
1 His people of personal liberty on the
{ drink question.
l shall now proceed TO show by the
example of Christ that prohibition is un-
e Christian in character
In the seventh chapter of Luke. thirty.
: third and thirty-fourth verses. Jesus con.
trasts His habits with the habits of
Jonn the baptlst. lie says:
> John the Baptist came neither eat
9 ing bread nor drinking wine, and We saw
he hath a devil. The Son of Man e
come eating and drinking and We saw be-
: hold a gluttonous man, a wine bibber.
- a friend of publicans and sinners"
Dry orators may deny that Jesus
! meant to say that He drank what Jobn
= did not drink. But unless this language
. means that John was a teetotaler and
= that Jesus was temperate drinker of
: Intoxicating wine it means absolutely
nothing. So much for the example set
: by the ideal moral character of all ares.
Every man who holds that il is NOR
ally wrong to use wine dscredits Christ
4 1t never can be Christian to prohibit a
thing that Jesus did. But Jesus not only
drank wine, but made it for others TO
: drink.
= In the second chapter of st. John we
: have the story of Christs first miracle
! The host at the wedding feast of Cana
. provided wine for his guests, but the
L supply gave out before the feast ended.
j. There arose a demand for more wine.
c The sainted Mother of Christ called His
. attention to this demand.
There has never been on this earth n
o more appropriate opportunity for max
o ing a prohibition speech. Confronted bv
this demand, had prohibition been n
e Christian principle Jesus would have
k condemned the host for providing tbe
Ia IN he. A. u