Prohibition Debate.

Hastings Standard, Issue 145, 14 October 1896, Page 2

Prohibition Debate.

There was an exceedingly sparse attendance at the Princess Theatre last evening for the debate between Mr F. Sutton, of Napier, and the lvev. Dr. Hosking on the subject of Prohibition. The phases of the case under discussion were :—(1) "Is Prohibition in accordance with Biblical teaching ? " ('2) " Does the Bible prohibit the ordinary use of intoxicants." Mr "\Y. Beilby occupied the chair and in a brief speech asked a patient hearing for both gentlemen. Dr. Hosking opening the debate, laid down that, there were 240 texts in the Scriptures dealing with the subject of wine. Of these 240, in 38 passages the word wine is rendered by " Theros." which with one exception refers to a solid, not a liquid, the solid referred to being classed amongst the blessings of God. Those 38 passages might therefore be dismissed as having no bearing on the subject, as the question in dispute was a liquid. In 141 different texts the word " Yayin " was translated into English as wine, and meant liquor in fermented and unferwentcd states. Classifying these. 141 passages under different heads, 71 condemned the use of wine emphatically as a poison; 33 texts refer to the liquid as wine merely, without indicating its character and on this account must be considered neutral and having no bearing on the matter in hand. Thirteen texts speak of wine in connection with religious observances, but as the ceremonies consisted in the pouring out of wine it was quite plain the wine was not intended to be drunk. The remaining twenty-four allusions to the word wine permitted its use, but there was a vast difference between the pure juice of the grape produced in those days and the grossly adulterated stuff which modern distillers foist upon the pubic. In the manufacture of wine lamb's blood, sulphuric acid, juniper oil, tar. charcoal, turpentine, sugar of lead, Ac., were used in more or less quantities. It was argued that Pi'Cj- /*» hibitionists should deal with the useoorf r * liquor and not its abuse, but one might as well lay down a programme to control the convulsions of an earthquake as to think of controlling a traffic which is responsible for 90 per cent, of our paupers, 90 per cent, of our criminals, and 5(1 pc-r cent, of our lunacy. The miracle of changing the water into wine at the marriage feast of Caauan was adduced as an argument that the Bible upheld the use of wine. The Saviour making good wine from pure water is no contention that the Scriptures authorise the traffic and drinking of the poison that is turned out by the modern distilling process, which was not invented until 1100 years after the completion of the Bible; and it was utterly unfair tg compare the jaocleru

concoction with tli*' 1 v, hi- . The scriptures did nut say the vvi... which Paul advised Timothy to take was intoxicating. All created tiling* WW H.-'-flli. even p-u—; - ; and if intoxicants wese required m.diehially they should. 1 ik«other poison-. he "controlled by the medical faculty. was contended that drinking stout hud the eheet of making flesh. This was sVs.—the alcohol ino . iVm d with the prop r working . f the <Sk:i stive organs, ami briny unable to fultil rh. functions the waste inn iter in-teud ol being thrown off remained in tile system and the victim became bloated, which should not he mistaken for healthy stoutness. The rev. gentleman quoted Doctors CMwirk. Percy. Ueaiiniont. Gordon. and ouiCt eminent medical uuthotities in support of liis statement that the use of alcohol was disastrous mentally and physically to human beings. Whatever might be* the other diff'e;(.nee- between the Christian churches they all unite in waging a deadly war against the liquor traffic. Dr Benson, Canon Wilbei force. Cardinal Mauuin:;. and Arch-Bishop llvan of Philadelphia all spoke in une<pm ocal terms condemning drink and drink-sellers. The Bible. winch alvv;(v> speaks inimistakeabl y on questions of morality, calls strong drink poison, thus undoubtedly condemning it ; and to argue in the face of this that the Bible favors intoxicants is illogical and the position is untenable. Men women and children were daily being ruined body and soul, and as fast as the churches pulled them out of the slouch the publicans threw them back again. The Bible supported all good things, but drink was accursed, and no honest man could raise his voice to heaven 1 ;i.-k the blessing of God upon a traffic which was responsible for so much misery and degradation in the himuin race. Mr Sutton stated he rose under ditiieulties. Dr hardly touched up.rn the subject they had come together to discuss. He was not there to discuss the ingredients which went to the manufacture of spirits. The question at issue was the attitude of the Bible towards Prohibition and the use of intoxicants. A good deal of time was wasted on subjects foreign to the debate, and lie compared I)r Hoskmg's tactics to those of a cuttle fish, which, when it found itself in a tiu'i't place. emitted an inky secretion to blacken the surrounding water, and escaped in the darkness of his own creation. The Saviour was not a Prohibitionist, as instanced in the miracle of <'a man and the last supper with this disciples. The devil himself might have been a Prohibitionist —at least the Bible was silent on this point. He was at a disadvantage in talking Scripture with a cleru'v man. but he would not quibble about tin- deficaeies of »• Yayin " and "■ Theros." lie found tinplain word wine "in his Bible, and he found over l-'O texts recommending its use. In preaching Prohibition the churches are not preaching the Scripture-, which, though thev ad wated temperance, do not condemn intemperance. lie quoted the drunkenness of David. Ab-ol.nn. B<>> = . Lot, and Noah, which was n. t m any 1 reprimanded, as instances in -npp-ort of his contention. In one Biblical pt~ ■jc :l.i u~e of strong drink was nctualh cummmdi d. when Jeremiah was ordered to make the enemies of the people drunk. In three or four instano nlv v »s drunkenness condemned. "I he churches should teach the Bible as thev tin 1 it and not mutilate it to suit their own fancies and fads, thus misleading their flocks. The Apostle Pa';! halted at a tavern and no doubt had a glass of wine there, and what was more natural ? Timothy was in poor health when Paul advised him to take win..- •• for his stomach's sake," and for the stomach unfermented wine would be u-eh-s,. He quoted extracts from the speeches of Dr. Benson and-Bishop Julius of Christchureh shewing where they supported temperate drinking, and admitted that the Bible •• reeks with wine."* Alcohol was a blessing, and when he was a boy lie was ordered to take stimulents to save his life. Christ mixed with his people and drunk their wine, and it was absurd to say he did not know wh i' tu w■ s about. The Rev. Mr Isitt del vir • 1 lecture some ago in which he p tvi->i 1 t > churches not to take money from the liquor-supplymg class, but it woul 1 1» a bid day for the clergymen and the churches when those people buttoned up their breeches' pockets. The late Mr Titfen, who owned extensive vineyards at Taradale. spent nearly j£lo.ooo in various charities. There were evils which could not Ik- mentioned on a platform which caused more misery than drink. He denied that drink created crime. If a man had evil propensities drink inflamed them, but there were many druukards who were otherwise harmless. Dr Hosking said the Bible upheld everything that was good and useful. Well, he argued that intoxicants were good and useful, and. as Dr Hosking never touched drink, he could hardly know whether they were or not. In conclusion the speaker appealed to the people to weigh the subject well before they voted for Prohibition at the general elections. He had been accused of being In the pay of the publicans, but he assured them he gained nothing by these debates. As it was the eve of the general election he felt it to be his duty to warn them against supporting this fussy legislation, which was already hurrying the country to rain. Mr Beilby regretted to see such a scanty attendance, but he trusted that the following night the people would come in large numbers. A vote of thanks to the chair concluded the debate.