BISHOP HADFIELD ON TOTAL ABSTINENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 426, 8 November 1876, Page 3

BISHOP HADFIELD ON TOTAL ABSTINENCE.

Ar'the recent meeting of the Wellington Diocesan "Synod, the Bev. B. W. Harvey btougfit forward a motion affirming the desirability of establishing a Church of fengland Temperance Society in the diocese' of Wellington. Bishop Hadfield appeared to think that its adoption would fliyblVe the admission that the members Of the Church of England were as a body Addicted to drunkenness, a proposition absolutely refused to entertain. The Bishop's general argument may be stated as follows .

“ He recognised that drunkenness was a sin. He considered a drunkard a beast and scorned a man who so degraded liim, self below the level of humanity ; but a man who drank wine in moderat'on when he required it, was simply doing what his Creator intended he should do. He should never agree to the Church of England as a corporate body sanctioning the inauguration dt any system or organisation to deal specially with one sin. He did not agrde with such societies as that which it was proposed to establish, for he considered it utterly repugnant tothe principles and ideas of the Church of England, that a man should be put under a law when he could not be influenced by principle. He considered the duty of the Church and it had many duties devolving upon it — the duty of every clergyman and every member of the Church, was to try to promote real sincere religion by every possible means in hispower, but not to resort to such schemes, as this, which he could only regard as empirical, and resembling the efforts of an ignorant physician, who, instead of attempting to restore the whole system of a patient, resorted to a plaster here and a salve there to cure what were really only the symptoms of a general disorder. Drunkenness was not the only vice the Church had to contend with, nor was it a more prominent vice than other vices in the colonies There were other vices which were as pernicious in their effects as drunkenness, and to deal specially with drunkenness was to ignore their existence . . Why riot -form an association to put down extravagance in dress, and that night after night attendance at the theatre, and other jtevils, which to his mind were quite as pernicious as excessive drinking ? Theatre going was just as bad as going to the pub-lic-houses, for money was in that way •.spent which could not be afforded, and I which people had no right to spend, to Ojte impoverishment of their butchers and haters,”