PROHIBITION.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 73, 23 September 1896, Page 2

PROHIBITION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—T am glad that " X.Y.Z." has sent those references, as they are entirely in favor of my contention, and against Prohibition. In fact, they prove that not only wine, but strong drink, was freely used by the people of God under the legal dispensation, und that there was no command forbidding their use. On the contrary, ho long as they were taken in moderation } the use of them was perfectly allowable. The first reference has regard to priestly service, at which time both wines and strong drink were strictly forbidden. The interdiction appears to be owing to the idolatrous act of the two sons of Aaron, who offered strange fire at the altar. I will quote the text—" And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, do not drink wine nor strong drink, tbou nor thy sons, when ye go into the Tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die." This clearly proves that the High Priest himself, as well as his sons, who were also priests, did use intoxicants when not doing service at the altar, as there would have been no necessity to have commaeded them on this special occasion to abstain. Thus, my friend's reference, instead of helping him and Prohibition, proves that tne movemen is in direct conflict with Scripture and is, of course, sinfal, as they condemn what God allows. The second case has reference to Sampson, who, being reserved for a special service, was commanded to abstain from wine, or strong drink, also to eat nothing deemed unclean. This tells against Prohibition, for tne same reason stated above. The exceptional restriction in Sampson's case to abstain in toto from birth to death proves that under ordinary circumstances intoxicants were nsed by Divine consent, as all things contrary to Jehohovah's mind were always strictly forbidden. It also proves that total Prohibition is not that safeguard from sin claimed for it by its zealous advocates, inasmucb a» this life-long abstainer grievously sinned and, as a consequence, iied a captive. Prohibitionists ponder this. In short, not one of his Scripture references favor abstinence, much less Prohibition. On the contrary, they all allow a moderate use of alcoholic drinks, while drunkenness is forbidden. Moderation is what is taught. "Be ye temperate in all things," an injunction Prohibitionists are always violating. They are extremists of a violent type who, not content with proclaiming tbe imaginary virtues of their idol in season, would force others to embrace their views under severe pains and penalties. Therefore, these people may be jnstly termed immoderates. In conclusion, let me recommend my ever zealous Christian Liquor Pro* hibitionist friends to closely study the Scriptures in relation to this question, and they will find that tbe movement is Anti-Christian, as everything must be which says " No " to what God has said •' Yes" In fact, it is a sign of Apostasy, or that falling away from tbe faith predicted in the Scriptures. Prohibition is a sort of modern Baal. Israel or old set aside the worship of God for that idol, and my friends have virtually Set aside Christ for their idol—Prohibition, whose virtues and power to overcome sin they preach and teach on Sundays and week days. Christian men and£women, remember that it is Christ - not Messrs Cocker and Isitt- you have to follow. They may be earnest, Ido not wish to impute motives, but this I say they are quite unable spiritually to discern their right hands from their left, or they would not be Prohibitionists. It is impossible to be sach and loyal to the Lord Jesus. I am, etc., J. B. Roots.