wine itself. They were often so thick as to require solution in hot water, and filtration, before they were fit for drinking, as appears by the statements of Pliny and Aristotle." This passage shows that they were not fermented, otherwise they could not have been thick; because you cannot concentrate or thicken grape-juice, after having decomposed and destroyed the sugar by fermentation. The former quotation also proves, on scientific principles, that it is difficult to make sweet vegetable juices ferment after you have once thickened or concentrated their saccharine matter by boiling. And we see further, that, previous to drinking these wine stocks, or concentrated juices, they merely diluted them with water, and then filtered them. If they had wished them to ferment, they would not have filtered them, and thus have deprived them of the yeast, which is the active principle of fermentation, nor would they have boiled them down that they might prevent fermentation by concentrating the sugar and evaporating the water. They wanted water, they wanted yeast, and at the same time were too thick to ferment. Every chemist knows that these wines could not be fermented, and yet the ancients called them wines.

Zigo was a name applied to "defrutum, sapa, vinum novum decoctum," "defrutum, sapa, new wine sodden." This wine differed but little from Hepsema.

Passum, to which Polybius refers as the drink of the Roman females, was so called because it was made from the " uva passa," the dried grape or raisins. In manufacturing it, Columella says that some poured must, and others water, upon the dried grapes.

This drink would quench thirst, but, as Polybius asserts, would not intoxicate. It was this kind of liquor which the Jews used at the Passover, and which our Lord drank at the first Christian sacrament. This shall be presently shown. I have made this kind of wine from raisins, and, when boiled, have kept it sixteen months in a warm room without its fermenting.

The defrutum and sapa of the Romans answer, as Pliny asserts, to the Hepsema, or boiled wines of the Greeks. If this wine had fermented previous to boiling, not only would the alcohol have escaped during the process, but there would have remained no sugar to form a sirup. It is impossible to inspissate a fermented wine; and, if it had not fermented, boiling it down to the consistence of sirup most effectually prevented the formation of alcohol. If defrutum became inebriating, it must have been rendered so by the addition of stupifying drugs.

Protropum is said by Pliny to have been "mustum quod sponte profluit antequam uvæ calcentur," "the must which flows spontaneously from the grapes before they have

been trodden." This explanation exactly corresponds with Hesychius's description of λuxos, or sweet wine. It was not fermented, and yet was called "wine." This is also what Mr. Buckingham drank at Smyrna, as "the droppings of the winepress, or virgin wine.""

The drink called "mustum" was, according to Ainsworth, "new wine close shut up, and not suffered to work," or ferment. In England this was formerly called "stum.” In the London Encyclopædia "stum" is termed an "unfermented wine;" to prevent it from fermenting, the casks are matched, or have brimstone burnt in them. Sulphur is placed among the anti-ferments mentioned by Donovan. Dr. Ure, in the article already quoted, page 190, has philosophically accounted for the influence of sulphurous acid in preventing fermentation. The ancients were aware of this fact, and therefore put a considerable quantity of gypsum, or sulphate of lime, into their wines. The interior and exterior of their casks were, in many cases, covered with gypsum.

Columella gives receipts for making wormwood wine, hyssop wine, and others of the same character. These wines were bitter, soporific, and stupifying. "He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath made me drunk with wormwood," is the exclamation of Jeremiah. Wormwood, myrrh, gall, and hemlock are promiscuously used for each other in the Scripture. The character of these ingredients was a reason why our Lord refused the wine mixed with myrrh or gall which was offered him by the Roman soldiers. The prescription given by Columella for making wormwood wine, and others of the same character, shows that they could not be fermented or alcoholic, and yet they were intoxicating. In them drugs supplied the lack of spirits of wine.

But it is unnecessary to enlarge on this topic. I have adduced arguments and authorities which most incontestably prove that the wines of the ancients were very different from ours. I have shown, from the heat of the countries, the highly saccharine quality of the grapes, the boiling and evaporating of the juice, or the diluting of the must by the addition of five times its amount of water, vinegar, &c., as in Cato's family wine; the care taken to prevent the must from fermenting, by excluding the air and immersing them in water to lower their temperature, the frequent filtering of the juice or wine, and the placing of the vessels in fumaria and ovens; from the sirupy character of many of their wines, and the custom of diluting them with so large an amount of water; from the popularity of wines destitute of all strength; from the desire of the people to drink large quantities without being intoxicated; from the innumerable

po

varieties of their wines, and the fact that falernian was the only wine that would burn; from the weakness of wines produced from the natural juice of the grape, and the nonexistence of pure alcohol to increase their tency; from the testimony of Aristotle, Polybius, Cato, Varro, Pliny, Columella, Horace, Plutarch, &c.-in a word, from science, philosophy, and history, I have demonstrated that a large proportion of the wines of old were not produced by vinous fermentation; and those which were inebriating borrowed, in the majority of cases, their intoxicating power from drugs rather than from alcohol. I have also shown that the term "wine" was applied to any drink expressed from the fruit of the vine, whether that wine was fermented or not. These facts, then, show

the utter ignorance of science and history which those persons display who argue that the term "wine" always denotes a liquor similar to the highly brandied and poisonous port, sherry, &c., of modern times. The popular wine of the ancients and that of the moderns are, in their characters, "wide as the poles asunder;" for the one was frequently deprived of all its strength, while the other is charged with alcohol to make it as strong as possible; the former was often diluted with 88 per cent. water to make it innocuous to the nerves, head, and mind, and the latter is mixed with 22 or 26 per cent. ardent spirit to render it stimulating and intoxicating; whatever, therefore, may be said, even on the authority of Revelation, in praise of the former, can have no application whatever to the latter. To say that, because a wine destitute of poison is commended, therefore one charged with 26 per cent. of poison is also recommended, is as absurd as to reason that, because bread is wholesome, therefore we ought also to mix it with arsenic.

Having premised these things respecting the wines of the ancients, we are now prepared to look at the history of these liquors.

It is a query with some, whether or not wines were in use before the flood, and on this point we have but little data on which to proceed; but I am rather inclined to think that Noah and his sons were acquainted with the cultivation of the vine previous to the deluge. On this point, however, little can be said with absolute certainty.

Noah is the first example of drunkenness recorded in scripture; and one would have supposed that the example of so holy a man, who had escaped the pollutions of the old world, disgraced by drink, and wallowing, senseless and naked, in his tent, would have been a sufficient warning to every pious man never to touch the intoxicating bowl; but, strange to say, the wine that degraded Noah is pleaded as an example and a reason why all good people should swallow the various

kinds of intoxicating trash invented by modern caprice and cupidity. Doubtless these very pious and sanctimonious logicians, who borrow their reason from the wine-bottle, or somewhere else, rather than from Locke or Wheatly, will soon argue that the fall of David and Peter is a reason why we should curse, swear, deny our Lord, and commit adultery, provided we do it with a little moderation. Noah was drunk; therefore we ought to drink wine with moderation! Peter denied Christ with oaths and curses; therefore we ought to curse and swear with moderation!! Most persons, we imagine, who give the subject any thought, will admit that in both cases total abstinence would be far preferable.

The wine which Noah drank was highly inebriating; but we know, from the heat of the climate, the sweetness of the grapes in warm countries, and the weakness of wines produced from the unmixed juice of the grape, that the wine of that period and vicinity could not, it its natural state, have been very strong; and, even if a very large quantity of liquor had been drunk, still it would not have produced the inebriety described. But who will suppose that this patriarch continued long at his cups, or drenched himself with liquor? The difficulty here is easily solved, by considering the curse that lighted upon Ham. It is likely that Noah's sons cultivated the vine for their father; and Ham, most probably, prepared the liquor in question, and drugged it well for the purpose of causing this exposure of his pious parent. The weakness of sweet fermented grape-juice in its unmixed state; the piety of Noah, which would not allow him to drink to excess; the silence of Scripture respecting the guilt of Noah in this transaction; the knowledge which Ham had of his father's degradation; and the heavy curse that lighted on him and his posterity, intimate that the sin of the father was involuntary, and that the son was the chief agent in the transaction, and that drugged rather than alcoholic wine was prepared by his iniquitous son, who probably had learnt to do so from antediluvian sensualists. Of the drugging of wine, I have adduced plenty of proofs already.

The wine which Lot drank was probably of the same description. We have already shown that the myrrh which Jacob sent into Egypt was the gum called ledum, or ladanum, by the Arabs, and was therefore exceedingly stupifying; and we know that the bad women of London carry laudanum about with them, and add it to the liquors drunk by their victims, for the purpose of duping them the more easily; and there is not a doubt but the daughters of Lot administered to their father a drink both stimulating and stupefactive. Their having

lived in Sodom may have made them well acquainted with such impious arts: and, unless the wine had been drugged, we know that Lot would not have drunk enough of the common fermented juice of the grape to have robbed him so completely of all sense of decency, morality, and religion. Indeed it is certain that the fermented wines of that climate, if such really existed, could not have produced the effects attributed to the draught given to the patriarch; but, admit that the liquor was mixed with opium, or something of the kind, and the whole matter is plain, and the perfect ignorance of Lot, respecting what he had done, easily accounted for: while it is also seen that the patriarch sinned involuntarily; and this furnishes a reason why the scriptures have not censured him, as they did David, for his sin. Besides, would the righteous Lot, unless completely stupified by some drug far more potent than alcohol, have gone a second time to the bed of incest?

66

We find that, in the time of Joseph, Pharaoh's drink was the pure juice of the grape squeezed by the butler into the king's cup, and drunk immediately. A writer against total abstinence has said that Pharaoh drank this wine in consequence of his fondness for home production," but that "wine was imported into Egypt from Greece and Phenicia." To establish the latter position, Herodotus, lib. iii. 6, is quoted. But the passage referred to does not at all aid the cause it is advanced to promote. For, 1. Herodotus says that "Twice a year agaμor, an earthen vessel of wine, was conveyed into Egypt from Greece, and also from Phenicia." The expressions prove that the quantity was very small. 2. Herodotus mentions this traffic as taking place in the time of Cambyses; and therefore the writer concludes that whole cargoes of wine were imported 1200 years before, in the days of Pharaoh !! This is asserted with as much positivity as could have been the case had the pleader possessed the tables of imports into Egypt in the time of Joseph. The argument is as valid as the following. England, in 1836, imported tea to the value of 4,332,5357.; therefore England, twelve hundred years ago, imported tea to the same amount!! Who does not see the cogency of such reasoning? 3. If at that time wine was imported, though it is a query whether Greece had then any wine to import, still we must inquire, What wine? And, till this question is answered, the argument is worth nothing. If it came from Palestine or Greece, the wine was a thick boiled sirup, and destitute of a particle of alcohol, and bore not the least similitude to modern port or sherry. The same Herodotus says that the Egyptian priests were allowed to drink " οινοσ aμedior," "wine from the vine," which

| Bishop Lowth says means a wine similar to that drunk by Pharaoh, and was unfermented; for it was "only the fresh juice pressed from the grape, and was called ovo☛ aμλvor." Herod. iii. 6; Lowth on Isaiah, chap. v. The Egyptians had vines, "for God smote their vines," &c. But Sandys asserts, "Throughout this country there are no wines ;" and Hasselquist tells us, "The vine is cultivated in Egypt for the sake of eating the grapes: not for wine." Herodotus states that Egyptians "used a wine made of barley." The Pannonians, Illyricans, and Germans, seem, in later times, to have used the same sort of drink. dern travellers tell us "that an insipid drink, made from barley, is still in use in Egypt." Pococke's description of this liquor is as follows: "The most vulgar people make a sort of beer of barley, without being malted; and they put something in it to make it intoxicate. It is thick and sour, and will not keep longer than three or four days."

Mo

We have reason to believe that the ancient Chaldees did not use intoxicating drinks. Abraham came from Chaldea; and yet we do not find that wine was used in his family. When he sent Hagar away, he put a bottle of water upon her shoulder, which he would hardly have done if wine had been the common beverage. Abraham's servant, also, asked of Rebekah nothing better than water; nor did she offer anything more potent. When the Chaldeans obtained power and wealth, and the Babylonian empire was extended, drunkenness prevailed; and Cyrus took the city in consequence of the king, the army, and the people being drenched in liquor. The teetotalism of their forefathers would have saved them from Cyrus.

The Assyrians, during the age of their conquests, were not wine-bibbers; for their monarch promised to the Israelites that they should eat the fruit of the vine, and drink water from their own cisterns." These people became fond of drink in after times, sunk into sensuality and effeminacy, and Nineveh fell to rise no more.

The Medes, according to Xenophon, were addicted to drinking; but the Persians, until the reign of Cambyses, appear to have been abstinent: and Cyrus, the water-drinker, with an army of waterdrinkers, took Babylon at a time when its inhabitants were immersed in liquor. After Cyrus, his son became a drunkard: the nation degenerated, and eventually fell.

As early as the time of Homer, wine was in use among the Greeks; but that it was not the common beverage of the people we learn from the following passage in the Iliad, lib. vi. 258. It is there called "μsLindea ovov, wine sweet as honey:" and Hector's mother, finding him fatigued, advises

very dear. In the course of time, however, malt liquors, in the various forms of beer, porter, ale, Burton, &c., began to be used more generally. The court, and the monasteries, and the baronies, seemed to vie with each other in obtaining and administering every description of intoxicating drinks; and the corruption of the people, together with an incalculable amount of disease and death, have been the dreadful result, the history of which, in every age, has been written in lines of blood. The discovery of alcohol, in the ninth century, and its being eventually brought into general use, seemed to promise to the god of wine the entire immolation of the whole human family. Before distillation brought out the desolating fiend in all his mightiness to destroy, the insiduous spirit, concealed in the fermented juice of the grape, in solutions of malt, in decoctions of hellebore, opium, or other deleterious drugs, had carried on the work of crime and death for centuries; but now, arrived at maturity, and no longer diluted, or associated with anything that could nourish the human frame, or that could not be converted into its own venom, the demon, in all the fury of the dragon of the Apocalypse, fell upon us without mercy. Millions have perished already by its poison, and never was the country more active than at present in hastening its own corruption and ruin. Should total abstinence fail to accomplish the great object proposed, and should the desolating plague still continue among us, then in the downfall of Babylon, Nineveh, and Rome, we may read the doom of our own country.

I shall not conclude this chapter without observing that many ancient pagan writers attribute to the use of wine, follies, diseases, and crimes, similar to those which flow from drinking in our own day. Horace speaks of those poets who borrowed their inspirations from drinking, but intimates that the effusions which came from the wine-cask were not destined for immortality. One of the most immoral poems of modern times was written by a great genius under the excitement of gin-and-water. Horace makes himself merry at the expense of those heroes and orators who obtained all their valour, wisdom, and eloquence from the drunkard's bowl, and suggests that "coward and fool" were, after all, their proper appellations. Aristotle tells us that, head-aches, pleurisy, fevers, dropsies, fluxes, &c., were, in his time, the concomitants of wine drinking. Pliny enumerates the same diseases, and a host of others, that followed the use of wine in his day; and adds that, by the use of strong drinks, the mind as well as the body was injured; "sapientiam vino obumbrari-Wisdom is darkened by wine."

He

also says, "Vitio damus homini, quod soli animalium, non sitientes, bibimus,"-" We

allow that it is one of the vices of mankind, that we alone of all the animals drink when we are not thirsty." Certainly the ox and the ass, stupid as they are, have not as yet been silly enough to follow our example. The following testimony of Philo, who was contemporary with the apostles, is very important and impressive. He says that "God prohibited the priest who approached his altar from drinking wine for four reasons"-1. Because wine produced " οκνοση sluggishness of body." 2. “Anon, forgetfulness." 3. " Apgoovn, rashness or infatuation." 4. "Tavor, drowsiness or sleep." He adds, "Wine unnerves the vigour of the body, makes the limbs inactive, produces sluggishness, and by its force compels us to be overwhelmed with sleep: that it relaxes or unbridles the energy, Tovou, tones or intentions of the mind, and is the cause of forgetfulness, rashness, or folly. On the other hand, the limbs of those who totally abstain are nimble and active, their senses more acute, clear, and discriminating; their minds more sharp-sighted and perspicuous, either to review the past or contemplate and provide for the future: therefore it is universally agreed that the use of wine, as an article of diet or sustenance, is most injurious to all persons; that it fetters the mind, blunts the senses, burdens the body, and, indeed, leaves not a faculty of the soul or body free and untouched, but becomes an impediment and fetter to every power we possess. And, as it is of the utmost importance that we should engage in divine ordinances with energy and freedom, and as a sin against God is much more heinous than a sin against man, the injury which wine inflicts on us when we enter on sacred duties is proportionably great; consequently it was most properly ordained that Total Abstinence should be observed by the priests who ministered at the altar of Jehovah, that they might be able to distinguish between things sacred and profane, things pure and impure, things lawful and unlawful." Philo-Jud., lib. ii. De Monarchia. Doubtless the wine here referred to was mixed with various opiates.

The reader will observe that, in the latter clause of this quotation, Lev. x. 10, is alluded to, and contains the very reason which God assigned why Aaron and his sons should drink neither "wine nor strong drink." The whole passage also shows that bodily weakness, mental imbecility, irresolution, folly, rashness, sluggishness, and irreverence of God and divine things, were in those days the effects of drinking these drugged wines. If Pliny, Aristotle, or Philo, had visited our modern madhouses, hospitals, and dissecting-rooms; had they attended Mr. Buckingham's Committee on Drunkenness, or been acquainted with modern analyses of intoxicating liquors, or