WINE AND WOWSERS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16848, 26 September 1922, Page 6

WINE AND WOWSERS.

TO TRX EDITOR. “ Give wine unco those that be__of heavy hearts ” —Proverbs xxxi, 6 (A.V.) Sir.—Such is the wisdom of Solomon, for whom your correspondent-, “ Grape Juice,” affects much admir- ■. at ion. With the characteristic “ logic” of a prohibitionist, be accuses me of quoting Holy Scripture to bolster up my case, while at the same time he quotes texts in attempting to bolster up no case at all! Concerning the ‘ challenge 5 ' to support the statement j that the church lias degenerated so far j as to become a medium for political propaganda, he may kindly note the following:—The Christchurch Presbytery recently moved that the second Sunday in September be set aside for preaching prohibition sermons (instead of the Gospel). The organ—a shrill and discordant one—of the Presbyterian Church, “ The Outlook,” has been stuffed with prohibition propaganda—a procedure which even one of the Presbyterian ministers rightly deemed to be not in keeping with the real object of the publication. If this is not using the church as a medium for political what is it? Who, also, compose some of the leading lights of the P.FA.? Your correspondent “ Challenge ” is merely a piece of effrontery. I regret that I have still to recommend “13. Frank” to an elementary treatise "on evolution. Evolutionists tell us that our ancestors lived in the sea. Your correspondent says they are wrong 1 Who then is correct ? The following quotation from J. A- Thomson’s “Evolution” will carry more weight with your readers than the negations of “B. Frank.” Air Thomson, who is Regius Professor of Natural History, Aberdeen University, says:— “ Our own body is a veritable museum of relics. There are antique structures which are present only in'’the embryo, not normally coming to anything in the adult, as in the case with all the visceral clefts (or gill-clefts) except the first, which survives as the Eustachrin tube. Thus the gill-arches whose primary significance (in the lower vertebrates) was to support gills, persist in our own body, almost unrecognisably transformed in the skeleton support of the tongue and in the framework of the larynx.” Alan is substantially the same as he was 2000 years ago, although he lias slightly progressed, comparatively speaking, in learning and in science. “B. Frank’s” statement that the “ evolution of mankind has entirely changed ” since Christ’s time is nonsense. “Grape Juice” professes to know what percentage of alcohol Christ’s wine did not possess ! Ho quotes from Professor Iveil (sound? like German !), who says: “The juice thus preserved was either drunk fresh or left to ferment.” Naturally, “Grape Juice” draws a false or biassed conclusion from the professor’s statement. “ Pro Bono Publico ” also says that I do not “ seem to be aware of the fact that there was no * old port,’ etc., for more than a thousand years after the time of Jesus Christ-” Such names as “ old port,” etc., certainly did not exist in Biblical times, but all of your correspondents appear oblivious to the fact that the fermented juice of the grape and other fruits, grain, etc., contains alcohol (C2 Ho OH). i will produce evidence to favour that the wins or ancient times was mostly fermented or alcoholic, and will require your wine “ authorities ’" to prove anything to the contrary. Mater was not the craze in Bible tiineSj and aii responsible authorities are agreed that the wine comrnoniy consumed was decidedly fermented. Let us begin with the New Testament, wherein the word oinos is the term for wine, and occurs thirty-four times. The standard lexicon of the Greek language (Liddell and Scott’s) thus defines thq word: “The fermented juice of the grape.” Umos, according to these high authorities, was capable or producing intoxication, ana is the word used for the wine Christ made from water, which wine was considered at the feast to be the best, i.e., an old brand. The inference is obvious 1 Professor A. Macalister, F.R-S., etc., says that the juioe “ when fermented was transferred for storage to large ox skins.” Note reference to oinos in Matt, ix., 17. The Rev W. L. Sevan, M.A., states: “Inasmuch as there are | frequent allusions to intoxication m the Bible, it is clear that fermented J liquors were in common use. It (the ! juice) was more generally bottled off after fermentation.” That vast repos: tors’ of Biblical learning (Hastings’s “Dictionary of the Bible”) also informs us that “ an attempt has been made to obtain textual support for total abstinence by differentiating intoxicating from unfermented wine in the Biblical terminology ; but it is only a special pleading without adequate foundation.” Such facto, however, are ignored by the cold water advocates. In the Old Testament the following include some of the Hebrew terms for wine and intoxicating liquors: Yayjn, occurs 143_ times, and is parallel to the Greek word oinos; shekar, 23 times, denotes “strong, intoxicating liquor”; asis, “sweet, intoxicating wine” (Isaiah xlix., 26, etc.) ; sobe and aada the former “ strong drink ” and the latter

“ drunkard.” Women even became drunk in ancient times ! A picture of an inebriated female is portrayed on an

Egyptian tomb, and is reproduced in Wiikmson’s “ Ancient Egyptians.” The Egyptians also offered vessels of beer by thousands to their gods (vide the “ Harris Papyrus,” etc.). To sum up, anyone who attempts to make out that the wine of oid was mostly or entirely un fermented is merely exhibiting lack, of knowledge of ancient history and customs. Christ did not favour the abuse of liquor (I never beard of anyone who did), nor advocated its abolition. Our Lord was well aware of the existence of drunkenness (Luke xxi-, 34), but did not adopt the dictatorial attitude of our self-appointed Pharisees, who pose as Christian “leaders.” St Paul, whoso influence for Christianity has been profound, advised Timothy to take a • little wine for his stomach’s sake.” What effect would water have in Timothy’s case? Noah, David, Solomon, and other pious gentlemen drank wine, and those who do likewise err in good company. “Grape Juice’s” argument in reference to Christ driving the money changers out. of the temple is a brilliant example of his “Christian ” conception of Christ. Christ, the Divine Master, acted “ one having authority.” Christ had authority to use force, but he never at any time commanded His followers to use it. Consequently, your correspondent’s application of Christ “coercion” to support prohibition, of liquor is misapplied. “ Grape Juice” also says that Christ would show a “ righteously indignant attitude towards the liquor traffic were He at present blessing tho world with His bodily presence”! It is to be feared that ‘ Grape Juice ” knows too much! What Christ would have done in this connection is impossible to determine. Suffice it to sa.v that Christ’s injunctions are totally the reverse of forceful measures. “ B Frank ” may also note that if hotels are closed through Gospel preaching they are so done in accordance with Christ’s principles and not by the force of legislation, which is wholly incapable of transforming man spiritually. Legislation wiil not take ns to heaven. When the church contaminates the idea] teachings of Jesus Christ by the introduction of politics, it is a bad look-out for the spiritual welfare of the people. Many religious “leaders,"’ and .particularly prohibition preachers, have placed second that which Christ said: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no ro a n cometh unto the Father, but by Me.”—l am, etc., OLD PORT. P-S.—l have to apologise*, sir, for extending my letter, but it is not veryeasy to reply briefly to three correspondents on this subject.—O.P.