AS noted in our June issue, the Rev. William Matheson, Chesley, Ontario, entered the following dissent, with reasons, against the Synod’s Resolution renewing its adherence to the position taken up by the Synod in 1920 to the Temperance (Scotland) Act:—
For ourselves and for all who may associate themselves with us herein, we solemnly enter our dissent from the finding of the Synod of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland of 1922, anent the resolution in the matter of the Scottish Temperance Act, as, in effect, re-iterating the same position as formerly, and for the following amongst many reasons, we do so:—
I. We cannot discover any grounds whatever in the Word of Scripture for such a measure, but contrariwise (e.g. Deuteronomy 14th chapter, verses 23-26: i. Timothy, 4th chapter, verses 1-3, and particularly our Lord’s first miracle at a marriage feast), and we must keep our conscience clear, holding the Word of Scripture as our only rule of faith and manners.
II. There are two antagonistic and diverging explanations of excess in the use of things. The one is that the root of excess is the use of the thing. The other is that the root of excess is the lust of man’s heart. The one dishonors the use of the thing. The other honors the use of the thing as an institution of God, but lays the entire responsibility upon man for his excess with all its consequences. This resolution means the acceptance of the Prohibition principle which lays the blame upon the use and not on lust which is the doctrine of the Word of Scripture. It is an attempt to assail the abuse of the thing by striking at the use of it and therefore contemns the line of justice or truth which divides for ever between the right and the wrong.
III. The Divine basis of law is justice, and civil government is ordained of God to protect the righteous to the utmost limit in the enjoyment of all benefits and bounties and to bring only the wrong-doer under penalty, and that only for his actual wrong-doing. The aim of this resolution is to protect society from evil by encroaching upon the liberty of the righteous as well as of the unrighteous in these enjoyments. It is therefore a denial of the absolute inviolability of justice and truth—the key to Christ’s death on Calvary.
IV. By dishonoring the use of intoxicating beverage, as if that had anything whatever to do with excess, this resolution casts a stigma upon the moral character of our Lord, who, by His conduct, His doctrine, and His ordinance, set the seal of His approval upon the use of intoxicating beverage. Upon all excess, which springs ever from lust alone in the heart of man, the woe of violated justice falls.
V. The principle of prohibition, accepted in this resolution, though only in one stage of its progressive application, is the same as that underlying Free Love and Communism. The misery springing from sin which is the product of lust, is laid at the door of the Divine Constitution of things, not at the door of man’s own heart (James, chapter i., verses 13-16). The principle, as applied to the use of intoxicating beverage, is the spear-point of Satan’s thrust aimed directly at the heart of our Lord, a thrust which aims to overthrow the moral foundations of Scripture and substitute for the Will of God, which is justice, as our guide, the will of humanity as expressed in the popular vote or, it may be, otherwise.
WILLIAM MATHESON.
Synod Committee’s Answers To Rev. Wm. Matheson’s Dissent, with Reasons.
AFTER perusal of the above dissent and reasons of the Rev. Wm. Matheson from the motion ament “no license,” passed by the Free Presbyterian Synod in 1920, we came to the conclusion that his arguments are the best on the side of the strong drink trade we had heard yet in Scotland, though we readily admit it was not for this end that he used them. But he has placed in the hands of the drink trade and those who sympathise with them, a weapon which they will not be slow to use.
Mr. Matheson has had no compunction in placing the motion passed by the Synod as being in direct line with the principles of Bolshevism, Communism, and Free Love. The Committee are amazed to see the inference drawn, without the least proof (being based only on imaginary assumption) by Mr. Matheson from his resolution, that it casts a stigma on the moral character of our Lord, and also that the qualified principle of prohibition accepted in the resolution is the spear-point of Satan’s thrust aimed and directed at the heart of our Lord. The Committee feel that these unwarrantable and unreasonable charges, made against the Synod’s unanimous finding (Mr. Matheson excepted) require of him irrefutable proof, or else unconditional withdrawal. The Committee did not realize the serious nature of the charges brought against the Synod’s finding in these statements, until they had time to examine his paper handed in.
That the abuse of strong drink has been responsible for an enormous amount of misery and degradation in the lives and homes of drunkards in this country Mr. Matheson must and does readily admit. The difference between his ideas and the resolution of the Synod lies in the way of dealing with this terrible scourge. He holds that the principle of justice set forth in God’s Word is against restricting the free use of it as a beverage to any man, and that the abuse of it arises from the lusts of men’s hearts. The Committee fully concur with the fact that the lusts of men’s hearts are the root of all evil. The way in which he proposes to deal with these lusts is to give those who have become perfect slaves to them, unrestricted liberty for fear that the sober man should be interfered with in the use of it as a beverage. He would not reduce one of the public-houses on our streets to save the man who has become a slave to the lust of strong drink from bringing himself and his wife and children, after enduring indescribable misery, to an early grave. His only remedy is to penalize the man. He holds that the principles of justice and truth demands that there should be no interference with this trade be the consequence what they may.
According to Mr. Matheson’s reasoning, all government control should be done away with, and unrestricted liberty given, which would lead to free distillation, and this as known in former days, would bring widespread moral degradation which no Christian or patriot would like to see renewed.
On Mr. Matheson’s own principle, that the root of the evil is not in the use, but in the abuse, the Committee would point out that the true meaning of the Temperance (Scotland) Act is, that it honours the use (however imperfectly) by making provision for removing the abuse.
The Synod’s resolution means that public-houses on our streets should be closed. The resolution does not condemn the Scriptural use of strong drink, neither does it hint that a sober and restricted use is dishonourable. The Act gave three alternatives: (1) No change; (2) Limitation; (3) No License. Under “no license,” strong drink is still obtainable with food in hotels and restaurants, also at clubs, or by purchasing two gallons. This is the principle of prohibition to which the Synod’s resolution refers; the Synod did not commit itself to absolute prohibition, neither do we believe it will do so.
Does Mr. Matheson not go too far in his assertion that the Word of God allows the free use of strong drink as beverage, but as a principle of justice, condemns any form of prohibition? There are certain creatures of God which are lawful and useful, but from their very nature must have a limited or restricted use, and herein we recognise a law founded in the nature of the thing itself. For instance, cocaine, which compels by its very nature restrictions, not merely in the abuse, but also in the use. Strong drink comes under the same law.
In Leviticus x. 9, the Lord commands:—”Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die.” We believe this restriction binds men’s consciences still.
We see again in Jeremiah xxxv. 6:—”We shall drink no wine; for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us saying, ‘ye shall drink no wine, neither ye nor your sons for ever.'” Did the Lord charge Jonadab for prohibiting his posterity from drinking wine, with acting in direct opposition to justice and truth? No; but on the contrary we find at the 18th verse:—”Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father. . . . Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me for ever.” This commandment which they obeyed was prohibition in the truest sense of the term and shows that the Word of God does not support the idea that any interference with the use of strong drink is such a congeries of crimes as Mr. Matheson assumes, and that his charges are foundationless so far as the Word of God is concerned. Further, the Lord commands not merely the obedience in this case, but the prohibition. The argument as to the miracle performed by our Lord at Cana of Galilee when he turned water into wine leads us to remark that if we were more spiritually minded, we could see a miracle in every bunch of grapes although exerted by ordinary means. We admit that this miracle was performed to provide the beverage required, but we recognise in it something very much higher, as Scripture reveals:—”And manifested forth His glory.” It adds nothing to the proof we possess, that the Lord has provided wine from the beginning for the use of man, neither does it help Mr. Matheson as proof that there should be no restriction placed on its abuse.
The Committee would warn with all seriousness their fellow-men of the most dangerous and soul-destroying false doctrine that if a man, who had been drinking to excess ceases entirely to do so, he is thereby saved, for: “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” Also let men beware of falling into the dangerous conclusion that it is a disgrace for a man to partake of strong drink, as a beverage, i.e., in sobriety.
While recognising to the fullest extent the law of Christian liberty regarding things indifferent, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that Scripture sets before us certain principles which restrict and regulate that law. From among these may be mentioned the principle of self-denial as set forth in 1 Corinthians viii., 12-13:—”But when ye so sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” Romans xiv., 21:—”It is neither good to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended, or is made weak.”
The Committee would point out that (1) God prohibited wine as in Lev. x., 9; (2) Man prohibited wine as in Jer. xxxv., 6, of which God approved; (3) Brotherly love inculcates it, Rom. xiv., 21.