CHAPTER XIII.

PROHIBITION AND NATURAL LAW.

A strictly systematic and logical arrangement of this book would have placed this chapter at the opening, instead of the conclusion of the argument. Rather by accident than otherwise it falls into line as one of the last chapters of the book. It is usually supposed and asserted and that too, by persons of a high order of intelligence, that all human laws have their foundation in the Bible, and this idea has become so generally prevalent, especially among the christian people of the country, that it is with some degree of hesitation that I proceed with an argument that has long since led me to a different conclusion. And in saying this I desire it understood that I do not mean to detract in the least from the authority of that book, nor the importance of the truths it contains. I would rather reverse the popular notion and say that the rules of human conduct which are contained in that book are derived from a law that antedates not only the Bible but all authentic profane history. It goes far beyond Moses, far beyond Abraham, far beyond the flood. The Mosaic code was written, I believe, about fifteen hundred years before Christ, the principles upon which that law was founded, were laid down at the creation of the material universe. Nothing, either animate or inanimate, nothing belonging to either of the three kingdoms of organized existence has ever been created and placed in this universe without the simultaneous enactment of a law by competent authority, the authority of

its creator by which its existence and the peculiar work it is to perform in the unerring economy of nature, are to be governed.

The simplest and the sublimest of created entities have their appropriate laws; the stars which sang together in the morning of the creation, "The fountains of the great deep," as well as the tiniest, tenderest blade of grass which waves and flits in the breeze, each and all have inexorable laws for the government of their existence and their movement however grand, however simple they may seem to the human understanding.

The world could possibly exist in some condition without the Bible; mankind might perhaps be able to maintain his existence upon earth without the aid of the wonderful revelations which it contains, but it is impossible for this finite mind to conceive for a moment that the material universe could be kept together without natural laws, the will of God indelibly written upon the tables of his own handiwork. How it is, and what it is, when it originated, and how it operates, we do not, we can perhaps never know. But we are able to realize the existence of this law, this code of natural laws, and through the bare knowledge of their operation, which is unexplained and unexplainable, so far as the human mind is concerned, we are able to succeed in providing for some of our wants and necessities, and in the preservation of our lives. By this knowledge, which we do not know how to appreciate as we should, we are able to plant our crops in due season, and to calculate with reasonable certainty upon the harvest. It is the purpose of revelation through whatever instrumentality it may come; it was the purpose of Moses and the prophets, and of all of the inspired writers of the New Testament to make known to man such of these laws which are themselves eternal and unchangeable as may not be easily discerned from the operations of nature itself.

Such should be the object of all written law, whether hu

man or divine. Such is the invariable object, purpose, and effect of every divine law; not always the object and results of human legislation and its authoritative construction.

But to discourse further upon natural law generally could add nothing to the purpose for which this chapter is being written. The above will serve as a major premise of the argument before me. I could not hope to reach the conclusion in view without saying thus much in a general way upon the subject of natural law. No elaborate argument is necessary to establish the proposition that man is subject to this law of all nature. Many of the requirements of this perfect law of his being he has already learned, others he has not learned after centuries of patient and persevering study and application; and still others, it seems, that he has studiously endeavored to keep himself from learning in the very presence of the infliction of their direful and disastrous penalties. The law of his nature which demands that he shall be temperate in all things, he refuses to understand and if accidentally found out, he persistently refuses to obey it. He does not have to search the Bible or human statutes and decisions to find out that he ought to be temperate in all things; the law of his own personal being is constantly reminding him of his willful or unintentional violations of this law.

And before going further with the argument I desire to examine into the true import of this word "temperance" as used by St. Paul and other inspired writers of the old and New Testament scriptures. I also desire to speak of the probphrase "temperate in all things."

It is sometimes supposed that the words "all things" embrace all sorts of things that can be enjoyed without reference to their moral character or tendency. That is to say, that a man is thereby authorized to do any "thing" the mind can conceive of, provided he does it in moderation. That view of the import of those words would soon lead us to as

sume that a man may not only get temperately drunk, but to engage in stealing, arson, burglary, profanity, and every conceivable violation of the laws of society or common decency, provided he does them in moderation. In other words he may with impunity do a little moderate or temperate stealing, swearing or housebreaking. The absurdity is too plain to require further notice. The passage must mean that a man must be temperate in all good things-the bad things he must let entirely alone if he desires to do right in the sight of God, and in the estimation of his fellow-man.

But going back to the argument, I have to say that there is one thing we all know without the aid of biblical inspiration, and that is that if we eat too much, even of such food as is specially adapted to our physical necessities, we suffer the penalty. We are thereby informed in a manner not to be mistaken that we have violated a law of our being, which is benignly intended as a warning not to do so again. If we are wise and if we have proper self-control, we will certainly heed these timely warnings and in the future govern ourselves accordingly; otherwise we will go on heedlessly eating to excess until struck down by the penalty of outraged natural law. When found to be incorrigible our Master cuts us down as the barren fig-tree.

In such instances we violate two natural laws, one of whose penalties is invariably visited upon our physical constitution; the other may operate upon our conscience. The results of the latter may, however, under ordinary circumstances never be perceivably felt and realized by the transgressor, but it may be dissipated throughout. God does not create any thing in vain. He causes the earth to produce a sufficiency of food, and if we could only come to a true understanding of the world's necessities, my impression from the idea I have of the divine economy, is, that there is not any too much,

although it may be quite unequally distributed.* Suppose now that every man who has an abundance of such things should be a gormandizer and a glutton? Suppose he should at every meal eat two or three times as much as is necessary for his health and his subsistence; would there not in all probability be a scarcity of provisions and some people be forced to go hungry? Now, if there is no such natural law in addition to the one which operates on the individual himself, then he may eat to his own physical destruction and no one has any right to complain. Not even would the God who made him and provided him and the world with the means of subsistence have any cause to interpose a further objection than is manifested through the medium of a sick stomach. If one man can do this without violating this supposed law of his nature, then every other man who is able to afford it can do the same thing, and at least half of the world would have to go on half rations and some, no doubt, die of starvation.

But to proceed to the discussion of the relation between the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors and the rights, privileges, and immunities of our natural law. I have already assumed or admitted that alcohol, in at least some of its forms, may be beneficial in the various arts which are useful, and that it is sometimes necessary as a medicine, just as other dangerously poisonous compounds are essential in the treatment of bodily diseases. It may possibly be good for the headache, backache, snake-bites, bad colds, influenza, and consumption for aught that I know, and if so, it would probably be the duty of a competent physician to administer it in small quantities, (never by the quart or gallon) in some

*This view is suggestive without reference to the Malthusian Theory of the relation between population and subsistence which Henry George assails in his "Progress and Poverty."