Evening journal., 1917-10-22

was intoxicating 1t is necessary 10 leaiu
what kind of wine the guests wanted
Unless he perpetrated fraud Jesus sup
piled the kind they wanted and not some
substitute.
In the ninth verse we read:
'rWhen the ruler Of the feast tast-
ed the water that was made wine,
and knew not whence it was (but
the servants Chat drew the water
knew, the governor Of the feast
called the bridegroom"
From this we learn that the ruler Of
the feast was not aware that a miracle
had been performed He thought the
supply had been secured from regular
dealer around the corner. His testimony
was therefore free from prejudice OF
bias. Now, why did he call the bride'
groom? Something out of the ordinary
had happened.
In verse 10 we are told that he said
TO the bridegroom;
every man at the beginning doth
set forth good wine; and when men
have well drunk, then that which is
worse; but thou has kept the good
wine until now"
Now we know what kind Of wine tn,
guests had at the beginning 1t wal
good wine. This good wine gave out, and
of course they wanted more of the SAINT
kind. The good wine was the old in
toxieating wine.
This is shown in the next sentence
uttered by the ruler of the feast. Aftei
stating that it was customary to sci
forth good wine at the beginning Of the
feast he said;
"When men have we'll drunk, then
that which is worse, but tnou has
| kept the good wine until now"
/ From this we learn that the good wine
always set forth at the beginning OF
feasts would make men drunk. Other
wise it would not be necessary, in order
to prevent a debauch, to switch to the
wine (which is worse" or weak. Be-
sides the expression "have well drunk"
in the original reads becomes thorough
" intoxicated" In the German Bible
il is translated drunk through and
through" If the good wine set before
guests at the beginning of feasts would
intoxicate when drank to excess, 50
would the wine Jesus made, for the ruler
of the feast said:
Chou has kept the good wine
until now"
challenge any dry orator on earth
to show that the good wine was not old
wine-the intoxicating kind. / defy him
to prove that the guests wanted grape
juice.
This is the plain, simple meaning Of
the text. / have made no effort to twist
distOrt or wrest any term from its mani.
fest import. As Jesus used wine and
made it for others to drink, prohibition
can never be Christian in character.
Il ~ L l.kn.tahaI 4ha
wedding feast. / do not claim that the
guests got drunk on the good wine. The
ruler OF the feast suggested the posi-.
bility, but does not aver that such hap.
pened on this occasion. give you the
record as it is.
l deny that Jesus supplied a demand
for intoxicating liquor to make men
drunk. ] deny that when we vote to
supply the demand for intoxicating
liquors that we vote to make men drunk.
ards. There is vast difference between
drinking and getting drunk-the same
difference as there is between eating and
becoming glutton; between buying a
gun and committing murder.
In Deuteronomy, l4th chapter, 26th
verse, God says
'And thou shalt bestow that
money for whatsoever thy soul
lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep,
or for wine, or for strong drink"
It will be seen in this instance that
God became specific. He knew the con-
troversy that would arise, the strife this
issue would engender. Hence in taking
His position in favor of personal liberty
on the drink question God made His
meaning perfectly clear If God permits
us to spend our money for strong drink,
who has the right to forbidl
If God would permit His people to
spend their money for strong drink and
then damn them for doing it, lie would
be a monster.
I deny that God is a monster, and in
His defence brand prohibition as
political, legal, religious and moral
monstrosity. Prohibitionists have as
sumed a position on the drink question
that indicts God as a monster and Christ
as criminal / stand ready to defend
, Christ and God against their indictment
, and for this they denomce me as
blasphemer.. l would rather discredit
! the opinion of every prohibitionist on
this earth than TO brand God as a
monster and Christ as criminal-tho
one for permitting His people to spend
= their money for strong drink, the other
for performing a miracle to supply the
demand for intoxicating liquor.
You cannot find within the lids Of the
Bible a single passage rightly inter-
! preted that supports the principle of
prohibition. If you could find passage
showing that 1t was wrong to spend
your money for strong drink-morally
wrong to use unprecedented to supply
the demand, you would absolutely de.
stroy the respect of mankind for God, for
the Bible and for Christ.
The Christian bible is emphatically
unalterably and eternally opposed to
. prohibition as a principle But / have
here another Bible, held to be sacred
by hundreds of millions of people. On
page 1919 of this book we read:
30 true believers, surely wine is
Z an abomination of the works of
} Satan"
This is tho AIohammedan Bible-the
Koran. Mahomet was a prohibitionist.
. Prohibition is cardinal doctrine of the
Alohammedan religion. Notwithstand-
ing this fact, the Turks are the most
. criminal, poyerty-ridden nation on this
earth.
The quotation from the Koran sounds
like a prohibition speech. Dry orators
win find it impossible TO divorce their
: argument from this Mohammedan text.
This MohRmmedan Gospel runs through
all prohibition sermons whether preach
ed by Mohammedan priests OF Christian
ministpra II Il the sum and euhefanca