Page 6 Advertisements Column 2

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10742, 13 November 1928, Page 6

SPECIAL ADVERTISEMENTS. MR- H. W. MILNER P.O. BOX 16, GISBORNE. TYEtAR SIR, —I was not aware until this morning that you are a paid organiser of the New Zealand Alliance. This was a surprise, to me; the news placed you in an entirely new light. It is now quite obvious that your statements are made with a very interested motive, that of holding down your position. If I should be the innocent cause of any friction or embarrassment between yourself and your employers I am exceedingly sorry; I was of the honest opinion, up till now, that you like myself, ware quit© -uninterested in a financial sense. But now we have drawn swords; I am afraid the little controversy must continue. Tile publication this morning of your criticism of niy statements to the effect that wines and liquors were of the Providence of God, does not, leave me a great deal of tune in which to make reply. I had expected such, however, and my _ anticipations regarding your tactics were not unfounded. ... , . You commence your article this morning" by questioning my remarks as to whether the Prohibitionists were working out the Divine principle and precept. I certainly do question the moral and religious activities or the Prohibitionists; and I say with all emphasis they are decidedly antagonistic and offensive to the Divine plan, as expounded in the Christian teaching. I am.not, however, going farther into that matter at thg present mo-j ment. I already have '.prepared ,aj series - of articles yuealing; therewith.! The intention of/thqs<3. articles, howjp ever, is coneerjjred principle® of Christianity as against those c| Prohibition; Jsvith the object or driver ino- home a,/lesson and not to air extra fote. I have, therefb#, purposely withheld their publication until after! the election. Them wl|prvthe battle is over, and lost and ws-n, my views fiay be read with,the q#?>t reflection tfuit is not possible in these pre-referenflum days. « I notice, Iblr. although I Save already given J#ief reasons for mb# .Ktaternekb Prohibition . is lithGhriatian, yon have made no at-einpt,y-€o dispute the truth of ivhat btfve jkuo written thereon. You lenow :oo Sir, as I have once before point’d out to vou, that I did not say the Drink Traffic could chum Divine feanf, don and Blessing. Because you knostv rour case is weak, you continue #o> Dus lead people astray ; Dot those vlio have read what I have written, vill see that you are wrong. That vliich I wrote to Commissioner ihowed plainly that the Bible iWovetF vines and liquors were of the I royfcl;nce of God, and as the Bible advised nen to partake moderately otethean, ve were perfectly justified followng its. advice. We have more direct scriptural authority to justify our jartaking of liquor m moderation :han you have for vour fanatica , iieory of prohibition. You att-enip J o pervert my statements—but thosef vho read anfctfok wU see that lave no BIBLICAI|. lUtliority to conilmt my contentions J With your <&|gjjpnent regarding the erfefng at ■ess perverwng Sts powers I am not ncerned. of the iily papers, I ail finite sme, are pable of caring Referring to that we ire advised>y ures , to ink moderately. ea could be supported by a little debt of hand fn words.-’ hut you ► no farther. You do not attempt substantiate your insinuation that have been juggling with the Scripres. You content yourself and your ipporters and attempt to deceive oni utual readers with a baseless-.llinu-,do which in fact you cannot sup,rt !" In that which I hay© |mtte-n ere has been no “sleight of hand words”; and I ask JW point, it anything I have stated that ntrary to Biblical and have previously a-sked; vou to do is, and your silence hate been yqpr iswer. Well 1 know tliat had I p©rrted the sense and tiiifch of G<# s ard, with the wealth? or Brblpal hoiarship that is agfnst me,fny te would have been sorry- on® in>ed. I wo-uld have m.etaphor@ally ■en torn to pieces and fthrown tp the ms 1 A fortnight liasjgonc b#since iat first Biblical article of the iuor question appeared It Ms gone om end to end of yet >t one misstatement ,xt has been pointed out to me. YoU say, Mr. Milner: ‘ the whole Mr. Kyne’s assertion that alcoholic averages received Divine Blessing as dependant upon his right to ibstit-ute and make the term alcolio- : beverage interchangeable in an mscriminate andi irresponsicte ith wine in the Bible.” Mr. Ryj r, has not been indiscrimniat responsible. In scores of PjjjP^ s , ln e Bible there is evidence#! the ;ct that wine wais al(sHolic anci toxicating—AND I." 1 ' °iV ! ott? I PROVE THAT/THE SCRIP[JRES ARE WRMG—if they are rong ! .1 am .aMBd, Sir, no matter >w much yonfCyy to overcome the utihs contained in the W oid or God. at many people will still preier to ilieve what is contained therein, in -efarenco to the word of Mr. It. w - With your learned sophistication, r. Milner, you go on to prove _to mr own satisfaction that the-wine ferred to' so frequently an the ble is “sweet wine, and, therere of the ujifermented and nontoxicating variety. Well Sir, if you V that “sweet wine” is riot mtoxiting, you will have to prove again at the word of H. W. Milner is of ■eater moment than the Word or >d; for there is BibUcal testimony the effect that “sweet wine is toxicating. lam sorry, my friend it the Scriptures themselves -deny e truth of your assertion m regard “sweet wine.” In Isaiah L do, . thus we read: “But thus s aith a Lord, even the captives of the ightv shall be taken away, and the ev of the terrible.sliall be delivered: r I will contend with'him that conndeth with thee and I will save thy ildren. And I will feed them that .press thee with their own flesh and ey shall he DRUNKEN WITH TETR OWN BLOOD AS WITH .VEET WINE, and all llesli shall low that I the Lord am thy Saviour id thy Redeemer, the mighty One Jacob.” , ryThe words contained therein ten*, ve little support, I am afraid, to .ur plausible contention that sweet ne” was non-intoxicating. ItoLE WILL STILL PREFER TO BE[EVE THE BIBLE ! You go on Sir to speak of the wino fered up in the ceremonies nnder o old law. Again you attempt to ove they were unfermented: As r. Kyne could see by reading the itin Vulgate, the authorised version the Catholic Church at Lev. 2.11, iere we read, “Every. oblation that mad© to the Lord shall he made thout anything that- is fermented, aither shall anything fermented or honey..tie burned into the saci -I fice the Lord.” Well, Mr. Milner, this is the first dicabion I have had that Salvationfcs, and all the other nQn-conformist nominations that go to make up l 6 backbone of the Prohibition movement, were willing to accept the aching the Catholic Bible m prerence to their own. But it is someling lam glad to know. NeyertheSS I will quote for the enlightenent of the Protestants who are ;a'inst mp, what their own Bible ’vs in the text equivalent to that- ‘ Lev ' 2-11 in the Latin Vulgate. iu s says the Bible which my Sateaoa and Protestant Prohibition iendis accept- as the vf ovd of . God : Sf o -MEAT' OFFERING which y©