WILL YOU VOTE ON HIS SIDE?

White Ribbon, Volume 21, Issue 248, 18 February 1916, Page 10

WILL YOU VOTE ON HIS SIDE?

(By “Marguerite.”)

“Why hesitate? Ye are full-bearded men or full-grown women, W ith God-implanted will, and courage, if Ye dare but show it. Never yet was will * Hut found some way or means to work it out, Nor e’er did Fortune frown on him w ho dared. Shall we, in presence of this grievous wrong, In this supremest moment of all time, Stand trembling, cowering, when with one bold stroke These groaning millions might be ever free? And that one stroke so just, so greatly good, So level with the happiness of man, That all the angels will applaud the deed.” —E. K. Taylor. If Jesus were here in the body today, how would lie vote? Would Jesus vote for or against the liquor traffic? Surely it is not irreverent to ask ourselves that question. When we answer it, may we find that many of us who profess to walk “in His steps” are hypocrites. Here is one who says, “1 will \ote for the drink traffic. The country cannot to lose the revenue derived from it. 1 know that dreadful things happen every day, directly or indirectly caused by drink ; that many cb'Mien are injured through it; but tne State needs the revenue.” Is this argument Christ-like? If only one little child were injured through the drink traffic, it would be enough. There would be no thought of revenue. And the supporters of the drink traffic injure not only one little child, but thousands. Here is a man who says, “Why should I, ? moderate drinker, be asked to abstain just because another man is weak enough to drink to excess?” Would Jesus have said this— He, whose every thought, whose whole life was for others? There are leaders of men to-day w ho profess to be leading others to walk “in His steps.” One says, “Jesus said when He broke the bread and took the wine, ‘This do in remembrance of Me.’ You, my followers, must not let this prohibition of

spirituous liquor come to pass, for although the advocates of prohibition say that we may keep the wine for the communion table, yet, if it is unlawful for others to take it, it will be unlawful for us, and if we take it, then our sojourn in Purgatory will be lengthened. If we disobey the higher law, and do not take it, our souls will perish. We know that through the drink traffic many thousands live a life of hell upon earth, and, according to our creed, many of them are doomed. But we must think of ourselves, and save our own souls.” Would Jesus do this? Me whose life upon earth was a demonstration of unselfishness and self-sacrifice. Mow it must pain the Saviour to see the meanings men put to Mis words. If we are to take the literal meaning of the bread and wine, would Me have us follow a form, a cere* mony, rather than the example of a life’s ♦caching, when the two, under altered circumstances, contradict each other? Would He not far rather have take the figurative meaning, and do every action, even the smallest and most trivial, in remembrance of Him — do it as Me would have done it? In “The Bottle Imp,” Stevenson makes one of his characters say, “Is it not a terrible thing to save oneself by the eternal ruin of another?” It is not possible, but if it were, it would certainly be a terrible thing. Those who insist that the taking of fermented wine at the communion table is necessary to salvation seem to think that it Is possible to save oneself by the ruin of another. W hen we are asked to cast our vote, let us put self aside and vote as Jesu'' would vote. For the sake of Mis little ones, let us vote for a (leaner, brighter, better world.