THE efforts of evil to bolster up a bad case are proverbial. With the aim to deceive, evil sometimes even goes so far as to don the habiliments of good. In search of argument it does not hesitate to invade the sacred precincts of the Holy Scriptures, and the supporters of evil's contentions glibly quote Biblical passages. The attempt of the drink trade to make its cause respectable by citing passages from the Bible in its support is an illustration of this tendency; and not only is this done in violation of good usage, because of the impropriety of wresting passages from their context, whereby the meaning is quite perverted; but a still greater offense, in utter violation of the spirit of the Scriptures, is the implication that the spiritual progress of mankind is to be promoted by so great an evil as indulgence of the drink habit.
The proponents of the unrestricted or legalized sale of liquor, failing to see a deep spiritual significance in the instance so frequently quoted, when Christ Jesus at the wedding of Cana turned the water into wine, cite the incident as indicating the Master's approval of the use of intoxicants. But such as these will perhaps find great difficulty in explaining why Jesus refused the cup of wine before the crucifixion, once having tasted it. None can deny, however, that Christ Jesus, greatest exponent of true idealism, taught and practiced abstinence from whatever tends to create false appetites, even abstinence from indulgence of those desires which are commonly termed natural, but which often are abnormal. Surely the gaining of knowledge of God, the understanding of man's relation to God, and of His government of His perfect universe, is in no degree promoted by pandering to the fleshly appetites.
Christian Scientists are in no doubt about their course in this crusade to lessen men's belief in the necessities of materiality. Mrs. Eddy's words, beginning on page 288 of "Miscellaneous Writings," are definite and conclusive in making clear that the cause of temperance is supported by Christian Science. She says, "Temperance and truth are allies, and their cause prospers in proportion to the spirit of Love that nerves the struggle." And after making plain that people may differ as to the best means of promoting temperance in the use of intoxicants, she significantly adds: "Whatever intoxicates a man, stultifies and causes him to degenerate physically and morally. Strong drink is unquestionably an evil, and evil cannot be used temperately: its slightest use is abuse; hence the only temperance is total abstinence." In view of these words of our Leader there can be no doubt as to the position of every Christian Scientist upon this momentous question. There is no middle road. Her words are neither equivocal nor involved. "The only temperance is total abstinence." No statement could be stronger.
But while all Christian Scientists are agreed as to their own position on this question in order to conform with the teachings of Christian Science, all may not be equally in agreement as to the means of bringing to mankind in general that degree of temperance which is abstinence. To be sure, the leaven of truth at work in consciousness will ultimately bring about all needed reforms. All wrong will be righted. That reform may be hastened by removing temptation is commonly held; and the enactment of the will of the people into statutory law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicants in some countries has been the result.
The right of government to deprive one of the privilege of using intoxicants has been seriously challenged and personal liberty has been invoked in the defense of this position. In such arguments, it seems, two main features of the question are overlooked: the one, the commonly accepted right of government to restrict individuals from acts subversive of the general welfare—a right exercised, for example, in the inhibition of the manufacture and sale of injurious drugs; the other, the obligations of mankind, one to another, for the strong and capable to assist the weaker and less efficient brother to a better state, to happier and holier living. The question raised by Cain comes echoing down the ages, losing nothing in its insistence. I am "my brother's keeper," by virtue of his membership and mine in the great brotherhood of humanity, which symbolizes the true brotherhood, wherein all God's children are members, each expressive of the Love which is divine. Out of one's strength, product of his higher understanding, does there not arise the obligation to help a weaker brother to resist the appetite which, indulged, would destroy his manhood?
Paul was very clear about his obligations when he wrote, "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend;" or as a later translation gives it, "I will never eat meat again rather than make my brother fall." Paul saw his duty by his own example to strengthen, not weaken, the position of his brother regarding his use of meat. Is not the situation wholly analogous to the present-day problem of intoxicants? If the blessings of total abstinence may be hastened in their coming by an enactment of law in an orderly manner in promotion of the general welfare, delay in this action has no sanction either in the precepts of the Bible or the teachings of our Leader.
Of the extent and character of the blessings of temperance there is not the slightest doubt. Mrs. Eddy, speaking in her characteristic way of the results of temperance, says in "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" (p. 404), "The temperance reform, felt all over our land, results from metaphysical healing, which cuts down every tree that brings not forth good fruit." Christian Scientists are enlisted to promote the destruction of evil at every stage, and their good works in this direction are numberless. In no direction are they more manifest than in promoting the cause of temperance, even to the point of abstinence.
