A PUBLIC DEBATE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 10621, 13 October 1896, Page 3

A PUBLIC DEBATE.

IS PROHIBITION A SCRIPTURAL FALLACY? (By Oon Special Reporteh.) O..M:Ant., October 12. A public dsbale between Sit- J, D. Sievwright (of Oamaru) and the Rev. Mr Clarke (of Paluiarson) took place at the Wear street H-ll to-nighb. The Mayor (Mr H. Aitken) presided, and there was a very largo attendance, the hall being excessively crowded. Tbe subject deb.ted. wo?, "Prohibition: Is ib a Scriptural Fallacy ? " Mr Sievwright took tbe .affifinativo pirie, and Mr Cl_rke the negative. The former open.d the debate in a *pe.i-ch of half an hour's dui-abiou, and tbo latter was allowed the same time in which to reply. Then eachsp-ak._r in turn engaged the attention of the audience for 15 minutes, and finally e*eh was given seven minutes in which to couclude the deb.tte. The debate was conducted in a very good-bum.-ured manner by the two taking part in it. Tbe audience, bowever, accorded Mr Sievwright a more patient hearing than the other speaker, the chairmau having once or twice to bespeak a fair hearing ou his behalf.

Mr Sievwright, after an introduciionin which he referred to John Bright and bis Bible and the gift of free will to man, and of bit, determination to take the Bible ss his standpoint in opposing prohibition, proceeded to deal with the question " Prohibition: Is it a Scriptural Fallacy ?" He took prohibition to mean the aboiitiou of the manufacture, use, and sale of alcoholic liquors, including wine. If the srlcriptures, then, did support and sanction the manufacture, the use, and sale of wine whinu was alcoholic, then prohibition, to his mind, would have to be regarded as a fallacy according to Scripture. In the second placa, if the chosen people planted vineyards, made wine and traded in it ss well as used it, then tbab would surely be sufficient warrant for us doing the samo. Thirdly, if there were cases of drunkenness through over much wine, aud men were counselled and exhorted by Scripture to moderation and temperance but not to prohibition or total abstinence, unless of their own free will, then Scripture could n«t be said to prohibit the use of wine bo man. Fourthly, if further it could be ahowu that wine in use and abundance was a Divine blessing and its absence a curse, then thprohibition of one of God's gifts to men could not inset with Divine favour. Lastly, if the prohibition of alcoholic liquors in all forms was one of tbe exrdiual features of a false religion— Mohammedanism —therefore prohibition became antagonistic to the true religion &s contained iv the Old and New Testament-. Iv order to substantiate bis position Mr Sievwright first went ou to deal with those passages' of Scripture which sauction the manufacture and tbo u.»e of witie. He quoted Amos ix, 14 : " Tbey shall plant vineyards, and drink the winethereof." This established the industry, and tho people were to drink wine, and were marked off .-a settled people ia the country.. Then, as to the purchase, he quoted Deuteronomy xiv, 26: "Thou shalb bestow that mouey for whatsoever thysoul lusteth alter, for oxeu, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whntsoever fchy, soul d.sireth." There then was established the sale aud purchase of wine as a beverage. Then wine was a gift, and he went on to show that this gift was a blessing, for iv Joel ii, 18 shey would find these words : " Tben will tbe Lord be jealous for his laud, and pity bis people. Yea, the Lord will answer aud say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn, and wine, and oil, aud ye shall bt> satislied therewith ; and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen." The absence of wine then was not only a curse, but the people without it were to be a reproach among the heathen. He then went on to refer to JotUam'e parable of the trees, aud quoted the vine's exclamation: "Why should I leave my wine, which cheereth. God and man." He also alluded to th-t; passage in the tenth Psalm, where David nings of wine which gladdeneth tbe heart of man, and pointed out that the prohibitionists proposed to aboli«h from tbe laud these blef sings which man ought to receive with nil tbsn-fulucss from the hands of a beneficent Creator. It was true, ho proceeded to say, that the Bible denounced drunkenness, and the anathema of exclusion from the Kingdom was urged against the drunkard, and that surely ought to be sufficient to warn men against the sin of intoxication. But while the Bible did that, ib also pointed out that it was for man, who strove for tbe mastery, to ba temperate in all things, and (hey were exhorted to moderation and nob prohibition, for Paul said, "Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess." If Paul bad desired to issue a prohibition order against tho use of wine, then he could just as easily ha^e exclaimed, "Do not touch wine at all."

The Rev. Mr Clarke contended that Mr Sievwright had not addressed himself to the

I subject of the debate. '- The question was not as to the use of wine or strong drink, bub as to the prohibition of the trade iv strong drink. Mr Sievwright had tried to prove what he I might have saved himself the trouble of proving: that -omo; of tho wines used in tbe Old Testament and New Testament times, wero alcoholic. There was no person that ho (tho speaker) knew: oE who called himself a prohibitionist who denied tbe use of wine or denied that the wines mentionod in the Old Testament Scripture were intoxicating. Mr Sievwright had spoken about prohibition being the abolition of the use, manufacture, and sale of intoxicating liquor. Ho (Mr Clarke) would, however, give them a definition from headquarters. Tbe Prohibitionist of the 19th September said:—"Tho time has coma for the people of New Zealand to be convinced that the crying need of the country is not the prohibition of liquor-selling at a certain time to certain persons, but tbe absolute death of tho traffic—the entire prohibition of liquorselling nt any time and to any porson." Surely that was plain and clear enough. Prohibition sought to accomplish not by force, bub by moral suasion, the end of the liquor trade. In the use of wine-Mr Sievwright had said that prohibition was directed against man. Now he (Mr Clarke) deoied that in the- name of prohibition. It was not a question of man, but a question of the system. Prohibition did not mean injury to the individual, but ib meant death to the system. Mr Sievwright said at Roslyn if it came to be a question of prohibition in preference to tho present system, then he was the champion of the present system ; but the present.system meant legalised provision for, and temptation to, drunkenness. Mr Sievwright had been working in favour of the present sysl em being allowed to continue, and then he contended that we should be kept free men and free women. Now,' he (Mr Clarke) would like to ask ou tho very highest authority what was it that made men and women free? Was it the exi-ter.ee of the drink trada P Jesus Christ snid not that "the existence of the drink trade shall make you free," but "tbe truth shall make you free." In other words, "the spirit of the Son of Man shall make you free." Then he would ask, again, if the spirit ot the Son of Man was to make them free, how was it possible for the tiade, which Ir-d many men astray, (o preserve their Christian and Godly liberty ? Mr Clarke went on to point out that in the Old Testament there were somewhere about 20 words used for wine, and that they referred .o different kinds of wine. He also said that Mr Sievwright should have explained the meaning of the words used in the t.xts be had quoted, aud he bad not done that. Mr Clarke proceeded to refer specially to three words which were used in tho B.lilo when wine was mentioned, and iv speaking of one of these words he said it was never used »s son—thing that could do a man harm or intoxicate him.