صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

pothesis that we are to do everything that Solomon did, it would naturally follow that we ought to worship as many idols as he did! It is worthy of remark, that the account of this bargain, recorded in the Book of Kings, omits to mention the wine as a part of the food for Hiram's household; may we not therefore conclude, that the wheat and the barley were for Hiram's household, and that the oil and the wine were intended for the market of Tyre? Ezekiel mentions the wine of Helbon or Damascus as one of the important articles of the trade of Tyre, and we have before shown that this wine was even brought from Tyre to England. But be that as it may, the fact that Solomon gave to Hiram 20,000 baths of the sweet wines, or acid wines of Palestine, can never suggest that we ought to drink liquors which are destroying the health and morals of the country.

Eccles. ix. 7. " Drink thy wine with a merry heart," is said to countenance the use of intoxicating liquors. But here the subject to be proved is assumed. Not a particle of evidence can be adduced to show that this wine was an inebriating liquor. If it was the "wine of Lebanon" it had been boiled, and unless it was drugged could not intoxicate; and we will not insult the Holy Spirit by insinuating that he commanded the people to drink liquors adulterated with poisons. If it was the "wine of Helbon," then it was sweet, and therefore was not strong. If it was sour wine, such as Cato made, and which was in use in the time of Boaz and of our Lord, then the acetous fermentation had taken place, and destroyed the spirit of the wine. Whichever of these drinks was recommended, we are sure that it bore no resemblance to modern port or sherry, or ale or porter, and therefore cannot sanction the use of such liquids. It should be observed that, in the verse above, we have the words, "Eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry (Hebrew, with a good) heart," showingt that the bread rather than the wine was the source of "joy." The word rendered "joy," also, is the term, which in Judges is translated "wine that cheereth the heart of God and man," and in Psalm civ., " wine that maketh glad the heart of man." I can hardly believe that the Holy Spirit, who well knows the character of intoxicating liquors, would ever recommend any individual to drink alcoholic


poisons with a good heart;" this would be to encourage the use of a beverage which has caused, and is still causing, an unparalleled amount of disease, misery, crime, and death. Besides, as they were to drink with "a good heart," it intimates that they were to have the " good heart" before they began to drink, and therefore did not get this good heart out of the wine bottle. The man who will tell us that modern port or sherry will produce a good heart, deserves not to be reasoned with.

I have heard the words, "Give strong drink unto him that is weary," &c. advanced as a reason for the daily use of our modern deleterious drinks; but unfortunately for this argument, the text quoted, recommends total abstinence to men in health, and proposes to confine the use of wine and sweet drink to those who are diseased. "It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor princes sweet drink. Give sweet drink to him who is ready to faint, perish, or die, and wine to him whose life is embittered by affliction; let him drink and forget his bitterness, and remember his affliction no more." Here the medicinal qualities of wine are referred to; and further, their use is prohibited to kings and princes, and it is plainly suggested that none ought to drink them but those who are diseased. A passage more favorable to total abstinence could not be produced. What if the inspired writer, instead of mentioning wine, had recommended rhubarb, and had said, " Give rhubarb to the diseased and afflicted:" would the wine-bibbers of our day have asserted that the text intimated that all persons in health ought to take daily potations of tincture of rhubarb? Yet this would have been just as reasonable as to conclude that, because wine and sweet drink are prohibited from all but the diseased, therefore it is the duty of every one to use them. It may be objected, that these wines were stupefactive, because they produced forgetfulness. Granted; still, as they were sweet," they were not alcoholic; and I have before shown from Homer that wines might be as "sweet as honey," and yet when“ tempered with drugs," possess amazing power to assuage grief or relieve pain.



The fact that our Lord by a miracle, produced wine at the marriage of Cana, in Gallilee is urged as an invincible argument

against total abstinence from alcoholic drinks. But this, like every other reason of the kind, is based upon the groundless assumption that the term "wine" always refers to the same kind of intoxicating drink, whereas history, science, and even modern usage show that such a conclusion is altogether false.

Among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, there were various descriptions of wines. There were the drugged, fermented, poisonwines, injurious to the bodies and stupefying to the minds of those who drank them; and there were also the sweet, delicious, nutrient, or delightfully acid wines, which would delight and please every palate, would nourish the frame, quench thirst, refresh and cool the weary, and injure no one: now, we ask the reader to judge, which of the two the benevolent Redeemer was most likely to produce? He knew he could poison and inebriate the guests with a pernicious drink, or he could delight their taste, and cheer their hearts with a wine delicious as nectar. He understood physiology, and regarded morals more than we do. He knew that alcohol, opium, henbane, and hellebore waged deadly war with the vitals of man, and at the same time stupefied his mind and corrupted his morals; did he, therefore, go to the trouble of polluting the wine he made with these pernicious ingredients, or did he give them what resembled the pure and wholesome blood of the grape ?"

We leave the advocates of strong drink to reflect whether or not they are honoring the blessed Redeemer, when they assert that he produced for his friends a poisonous beverage: and especially as he did so in a perfectly arbitrary manner; because he could as easily have called into existence a harmless and delicious drink, and have pleased the guests without injuring their health or endangering their morals. In looking at this text, most persons are beguiled by the terms "good wine." Our vitiated and drunken taste has corrupted our mother tongue; and with us a liquor is pronounced "good" in proportion to its strength; that is, in proportion as it is spirituous, poisonous, and bad, it is called "good!" But words were not so abused in the time of our Lord; instead of strong or intoxicating wines then being esteemed "good,” Pliny, and Plutarch, and Horace, &c. &c., intimate that "poculo vini innocentis," or innocent wine, was the

best. Wines deprived of all strength, or of all power to become spirituous, were considered the most valuable. The "utilissimum vinum," the most useful wine, was that which had no strength; and the "saluberrimum vinum," most wholesome wine, was that which had not been adulterated "by the addition of anything to the must or juice." Because we call "evil good," by calling alcohol "good," we ought not to insult antiquity by affirming that the people at the marriage of Cana were equally absurd; or to aver that our Lord made a wine suited to the drunken taste of 1838, rather than to the good taste of the year A. D. 31.

The custom of bringing on an inferior wine as the feast proceeds, " procedente mensa," is particularly mentioned by Pliny, lib. 14, cap. 13; but the same naturalist tells us that a "good wine" was one which was destitute of spirit, and therefore shows that, by a worse wine, he does not mean a weaker wine, but rather a stronger wine, or one that was disagreeable to the taste.

In a work published in 1742, the Rev. W. Law, in some animadversions on Dr. Trap, has satisfactorily proved that at the marriage of Cana, the whole of the water in the vessels was not changed into wine, but only that which was drawn into the cup and presented to the governor of the feast. Indeed the vessels were filled brimful of water, and must have appeared full of water to the company; and the water was changed into wine as it was drawn into the cup; and in this appeared the greatness of the miracle, that, from pots filled with water, at the command of the Son of God, wine could be drawn. Here then we have not a number of vessels filled with wine, but only a few cups, or perhaps not more than one cup, and therefore nothing to encourage the custom of drinking large quantities of even innocent wine, which, in that day, was one very popular species of drunkenness. Drunkards, in that day, were those who drenched themselves with liquor, and generally with a liquor that would not intoxicate. From an examination of this text, then, we find that there is nothing in it to encourage the use of much wine, or of any kind of alcoholic drink whatever. For we may rest assured that he who came to cure all manner of sickness and disease, to save men's lives, and to improve their morals, and for both these purposes wrought

many a miracle, did not, in the first display of his miraculous powers, change the water in these vessels into something worse than itself, and produce an alcoholic poison which injured the bodies of the guests with whom he was associated, and whom, most kindly, he sought to gratify and please.

was out.

Those who insist that the wine made by our Lord for the marriage of Cana was an intoxicating drink, appear to be reckless of everything but their own taste for modern wines. The narrative intimates that they had been drinking, and had drunk all that was in the house. The expressions, “voreρnoavтos olvov,' "" mean "wine They had consumed all that was provided for the wedding. The remarks of " the ruler of the feast" suggest that they had "well drunk," or already taken some quantity; otherwise the words, "thou hast kept the good wine until now," can have no meaning. But the term, μɛ0vw, whence μɛovo0wσr, have well drunk, is derived, is the word which in other places is rendered "drunk." According, therefore, to our opponents, the guests had well drunk, or, as the word literally signifies, were already "drunk” with a liquor as strong as modern port; and after they were thus intoxicated, our Lord, by a miracle, produced a large quantity of very strong wine that they might keep on drinking after they were already drunk. This interpretation is fully involved in the ideas of modern tipplers, and, one would think, is sufficiently awful to make every serious man suspect that he has mistaken the character of the wine in question. On the other hand, the principles laid down in this essay make everything plain, and completely exonerate our Lord from the charge of encouraging drunkenness. We have shown that in those days, the most popular wines were those destitute of any strength. This is the assertion of Pliny, who was contemporary with our Lord. We have also proved that the word rendered "drunk," did not, at that period, mean to intoxicate, but only to drink freely, or to be filled with liquor; consequently a man could then be "drunk," without being intoxicated. At the marriage of Cana the people had already been drinking an innocent wine, and when this was out, our Lord produced some more of the same description, and thus gratified the guests without endangering their health or their morals, and, at the same time, showed forth his own glory. The wine he made

« السابقةمتابعة »