FINAL APPEAL TO THE CLERGY.
I again appeal to you, as Christian men, to lay aside prejudice and
preconceived ideas, if you are troubled with any that have come down to you
from darker ages, and to patiently examine the writings of Emanuel
Swedenborg.
If you desire and are prepared to read with open eyes and a willing heart,
you can but see that the fig-tree is putting forth its leaves, and that we
are living in the dawning light and warmth of a new summer. Look at the
radical changes which have taken place within the last one hundred and
thirty-five years, and are taking place to-day with increasing rapidity, in
every department of science, arts, mechanics, medicine, and even in the
religious sentiments of the people and in theology, and in civil and
ecclesiastical governments, and you may rest assured, that as certain as
the Word of the Lord is true, so sure it is that we are now seeing but the
beginning of the changes which are yet to be witnessed; for the sure word
of prophecy is, "Behold, I make all things new"--New Heavens and a New
Earth--old things are to pass away, and we can see that they are passing
away.
Swedenborg assures us that he was permitted by the Lord to witness the Last
Judgment in 1757, which, like all general judgments, took place in the
spiritual world. The Lord when on earth declared, "Now is the judgment of
this world, now is the prince of this world cast out." Swedenborg tells us
that between the Lord's first coming and His second coming vast societies
were organized in the world of spirits, which is intermediate between
heaven and hell, from among those who were not fully prepared for either
heaven or hell; and they were associated with those of like affections and
persuasions in this world. As the First Christian Church became gradually
perverted by false doctrines and evils of life, and as its members
increased in the spiritual world, their influence was more and more felt
among the religious societies in this world, interfering with the inflowing
of good and truth from the Lord and His Word into the minds of men, and
threatening their ability to see and obey the truth. The judgment consisted
in a new influx of Divine truth into such societies, the effects of which
were such that those who were really good were received into heaven, and
those who were evil joined their like in hell, glad to escape from the new
inflowing of heavenly light and life. In this way they were separated from
men on the earth and human freedom reestablished. The effects of that
judgment are to-day gradually being manifested here on earth.
Swedenborg tells us that he witnessed the downfall of Babylon the great in
the spiritual world. By Babylon is meant those who are in the love of
spiritual dominion over the souls of men. And also he witnessed the casting
down of the Dragon. By the Dragon is meant those who are in the doctrine of
salvation by faith and ceremonials alone.
As the above vast organizations in the spiritual world were then removed
from contact with men, I will let Swedenborg speak of some of the results
which followed that judgment in the spiritual world, and of those which are
following and which must follow in the Church on earth.
"After the Last Judgment (in 1757) a new heaven was formed from among
Christians, only from those, however, who acknowledged the Lord to be the
God of heaven and earth, and also repented in the world of their evil
works. From this heaven the New Church on earth, which is the New
Jerusalem, descends, and will continue to descend.... And the New Church
on earth makes one with the New Heaven." (Preface to A.R.)
"In this new Christian heaven are all those who, from the first formation
of the Christian Church, worshiped the Lord and lived according to His
commandments in the Word, and were therefore in charity and faith from the
Lord through the Word." (A.R. 876.)
Swedenborg tells us that "the slavery and captivity in which the man of the
Church was formerly" were removed by the Last Judgment; so that "he can
now, from restored liberty, more easily perceive interior truths if he has
a desire for them." (L.J. 74.) And again he tells us that, as a result of
the Last Judgment, the people of Christendom "would be in a more free state
of thinking on matters of faith, that is, on spiritual things which relate
to heaven, because spiritual liberty has been restored to them" (L.J. 73);
and that consequently "the state of the world and of the Church before the
Last Judgment," compared with what it was, or was to be after, "was as
evening and night compared with morning and day." (Contin. L. J.)
Now can we not all see that the very changes anticipated in the above
quotations are rapidly taking place in the Christian world all around us?
Men and women are beginning to cease to be willing to be led blindly by
clergymen and creeds, with their understandings under subjection to dogma.
Many of our clergy, we see, are not willing to be thus led. Swedenborg
tells us that in this New Dispensation men are to be led in freedom
according to reason, and that professing to believe doctrines which they
neither understand nor perceive to be true is of very little use to men.
As false doctrines are passing away, is it not of vast moment that true and
rational doctrines should take their place, that our houses and churches be
not left desolate? Somewhat extensively among the clergy, and far more
extensively among scientists and intelligent people, is the Divine origin
of the Sacred Scriptures being called in question. In the writings of
Swedenborg, as has already been stated, you will find this question clearly
and distinctly settled, for you are there shown that they are written
according to the law of correspondence between natural and spiritual
things, and therefore that they contain a connected spiritual sense which
causes them to differ from all merely human writings, and demonstrates
their Divine origin to all who are willing to examine and to see the truth.
The day is not far distant when, in the Christian Church, the Sacred
Scriptures will be reverenced as they have never been before; for the
coming of the Son of Man in the Clouds of Heaven, or in the literal sense
of the Word, is with power and great glory.
Even now in the dawning light old false doctrines are rapidly passing away.
Look! What congregation would be willing to sit quietly and hear the
doctrine of infant damnation proclaimed? Who is satisfied with the doctrine
of election and predestination as taught but a few years ago? That favorite
doctrine of my childhood's days, the vicarious atonement as taught then, is
trembling in the balance, for it is being found not to accord with the Word
of the Lord, nor does it appeal to human reason. The doctrine of a trinity
of Divine Persons will soon follow. How few even now believe in the
resurrection of the material body! Our church members are rapidly coming to
believe with St. Paul that there is a natural body and there is a spiritual
body, and that the spiritual body is raised at death, and that flesh and
blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. The doctrine of a literal hell of
fire and brimstone, as taught but a few years ago, is rarely taught to-day.
And now, Christian ministers, as these old doctrines are departing, what
have you to substitute for them? You know very well that when extreme views
are given up, there is great danger that opposite extreme views will be
substituted.
Troublesome questions are arising to-day before the clergy and in our
churches, which require to be handled with care by intelligent and wise
men, if the Lord and His Word are to be reverenced in our churches as they
should be, and men are to be led to live heavenly lives.
The question of probation after death is troubling many clergymen and
laymen at this day. They see that men and women often leave this world in a
very uncertain state of life, so far as they can judge, ill prepared for
either heaven or hell; what is to-become of them is the question. Are they
all to put away their false doctrines and evils of life and go to heaven,
as some believe; or are some of them to go through purgatory and finally,
after being purified, to enter heaven, and the rest go to hell, as others
believe? Or again, has a man the same chance of choosing and the same
ability to choose between truth and falsehood and good and evil, and of
shaping his life there, as he has here?
Upon these questions the New Revelations made by the Lord through Emanuel
Swedenborg throw a flood of rational light. They show us that heaven is not
a place into which a man can be let as a matter of favor; but that, for a
man to enter heaven, heaven must be within him. Heaven consists in loving
supremely the Lord and the neighbor, or obedience to the Divine
Commandments. Hell consists in loving self, money, vain show, ruling over
others without regard to use, or sensual gratifications supremely. Before a
man can become a resident of hell, hell must be within him. Men enter the
other world in much the same state as they leave this world; death does not
change their essential characters. Good angels appointed by the Lord strive
to teach heavenly truths to all, and to lead all into heavenly affections
and societies who are willing to be led. But as the Lord respects the
freedom of all men in this world and compels no man to love Him, his
neighbor, or obedience to the Divine Commandments supremely, He compels no
man there. The Lord casts no one into hell, but when our material bodies
are put off and we appear among the inhabitants of the spiritual world, our
thoughts and intentions can be seen more clearly than in this world;
consequently the good and evil necessarily separate; and finally every one
sooner or later associates with his like, the good forming heavenly
societies and the evil, infernal societies.
It is evident that those who are guided in all they think and do by either
love of the Lord, the neighbor, or of obeying the Divine Commandments, need
no penal laws or punishments. It is equally evident that men who are
actuated by the supreme love of self, vain show, or sensual gratifications
must be restrained, in that world as in this, by penal laws and
punishments. But we are told that the Lord governs the hells as well as the
heavens through His angels, and does not permit vindictive or unjust
punishments. All punishments in that world are reformatory, or for the
purpose of restraining spirits from evil doing, and protecting others, as
all punishments should be in this world. The Lord's tender mercies are
around all His creatures in that world as well as in this, and He strives
to make all happy. Even the evil man is permitted to enjoy his delight so
long as he does not interfere with or harm others or himself.
Here in this state of probation good and evil men dwell together in the
same society, so that the evil have good instruction and good examples, and
every chance for repentance and reformation; but in hell they dwell among
their like, and it would seem that they are not so favorably circumstanced
for changing their life's love there as in this world. In the world of
spirits into which we enter at death, all who are not fully prepared by
their lives here for heaven or hell tarry until their characters are fully
developed, when each one goes to his own congenial society either in heaven
or hell, according to his ruling love.
Swedenborg, so far as he was permitted, describes what he saw in the
spiritual world; but he did not claim to be a prophet--the future, he
tells us, is known to the Lord alone, not even to the angels. Some of the
readers of his writings, from certain passages contained therein, have come
to think that the Lord in His loving kindness may yet so change the
inhabitants of hell that they may be received into heavenly societies, as
some have drawn from the letter of the Sacred Scriptures a similar
conclusion; while a majority of readers, in both cases, have come to a
different conclusion. But the future is known to the Lord alone, and He is
love itself, and in His hands we may safely leave the inhabitants of hell;
especially as our belief one way or the other will not change the final
destiny of a single individual one iota; therefore it is not a practical
question.
PREVAILING EVILS OF LIFE.
We are living in the midst of prevailing evils of life which should command
the special attention of every clergyman and every Christian. Even infants
and children are dying on all sides, and those that survive are being
contaminated often even in our churches by the example of clergymen and
prominent members.
But yesterday, as I was speaking to a very intelligent, well-known citizen
of New York, he expressed to me the opinion that gambling and a desire to
obtain money or valuables without returning a due equivalent, by purchasing
lottery or chance tickets and stock gambling, is a greater evil than
selling and drinking intoxicating drinks; and he most earnestly blamed many
of our clergy and churches for the prevalence of this great evil; for, as
is well known, it is at church fairs that the young and even children
frequently take their first lessons, enticed thereto by the hope that they
may be able to obtain an article of much value for a trifling sum. In this
the work of demoralization commences, and leads naturally to gambling for
money, betting on games, horse-racing, buying lottery tickets, and stock
gambling, stimulated by the hope of making fortunes by risking small
amounts, not stopping to think that what they gain, if successful, others
must lose who are probably no better able to lose than they are. How much
short of stealing is this? Look at the sad results which follow the
practice started in so many of our churches--the poverty, the thieving, the
failures, the breaches of trust, the disgrace and loss of character, and
the poor wretches in prison, and others who merit punishment. Christian
ministers, is not this a most fearful evil which you, if guilty of
encouraging it, should put away from your own lives and teach your people
to shun as a sin against God?
Again, it is the duty of husbands and wives to reproduce their species or
to multiply and replenish the earth, and this is the most important use of
life. Yet a vast multitude of women, by tight dressing to gratify vanity,
impair health and their ability to bear healthy, well-formed children, and
even their ability to nurse such as are born to them; and such deformed
women walk into and out of our churches as examples to young girls, without
one word of admonition. And some church members deliberately shirk the
responsibility of rearing families of children, either because it is not
fashionable to have large families, or because children would interfere
with their selfish or sensual enjoyment; and this is not the worst which
could be said of some.
Now, although it is equally the duty of all husbands and wives to multiply
and replenish the earth, yet church members who, either for the want of
ability or inclination, have no children, and bachelors and maidens who do
not marry, will stand idly by and see the husbands and wives, however poor
they may be, who are willing to do their duty, take the entire care of
their children until they reach adult age; they deliberately leave the
entire responsibility upon the parents of caring for and raising the money
required for the support of the children, who are to be the men and women
of the next generation. Is this right? It is true that public schools have
been established, for all feel that it will not be safe for the children,
who are to rule our country a few years hence to grow up in ignorance.
Men and women will roll in their thousands and hundreds of thousands and
even millions, and see the toiling, struggling, hard-working brothers and
sisters, sometimes even in the same church organization, striving to do
faithfully their part in the care of the children who are to people and
replenish the earth, without feeling that they have any responsibility or
duty to perform in the way of giving a helping hand in this most important
work of life. Now I ask you, brethren of the Christian Church, are such
things in accordance with the grand and noble precepts of Christianity, in
which we profess to believe--thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself? Of
course, husbands and wives who are able are but too glad to take care of
their own children; but there are multitudes who need help. If wealthy
husbands and wives are not willing or able to have children, or if
bachelors and maidens are not willing to marry and have children, have they
no duty to perform toward aiding, even financially, and by their own hands
if such help is needed, those who do this most important work, and thus add
to the number of intelligent and Christian inhabitants of our country? for
the want of whom our country is being flooded by multitudes of the most
ignorant of other nations, who have comparatively no knowledge of our free
institutions and of religious freedom.
It is true that our poorhouses are established at the expense of the
public, to which parents who are without means or employment or adequate
wages to support their children can go with their children to avoid
starvation; but what parents desire to take their children to such
institutions? And we have also charitable institutions to which children
can be sent to prevent their starving and going naked; but what father or
mother likes to part with their children? It is not charity that such need,
but the kind, helping hands of Christian brothers and sisters. All things
are to be made new. As the light and especially the heat or love of the New
Jerusalem descend into the minds of men, hard-hearted selfishness will
disappear, and true Christians will love and strive to help one another and
all men as they may need.
And now, in conclusion, I appeal to you, Christian ministers, one and all,
to diligently read the Revelations made by the Lord at His second coming
through His chosen servant, Emanuel Swedenborg, for they will give you new
light and, if you are willing, new life. The light is spreading from the
East even unto the West, and the day is not far distant when a clergyman,
to be acceptable to an intelligent Christian congregation, must be familiar
with the grand and rational doctrines and precepts revealed by the Lord for
the benefit of the men of our day and the Church of the future.
It must be evident to you even now that many of the clergy and intelligent
laymen are steadily drifting in one of two directions; either to a distinct
recognition of the Supreme Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, of the
holiness and Divinity of the Sacred Scriptures and of the life of charity
or of obedience to the Divine Commandments as the only way of salvation; or
to an ignoring the existence of a personal God, and of course of all
revelation from God. There is no middle ground. Choose ye this day whom ye
will serve.
Below you will find a notice of a work on the Science of Correspondences,
the science in accordance with which all material things were created and
the Sacred Scriptures were written. Send for it. It will give you new
light.
[Advertisement Page]
ADDENDUM.
A REVIEW OF AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "CHRIST AND THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION"
IN "THE CHRISTIAN UNION."
In the _Christian Union_ for July 11, 1891, will be found an article
written by a clergyman which should not be allowed to go unnoticed. The
reverend gentleman assumes in that article that "the life and teaching of
Jesus Christ constitute a Divine standard for all His followers." And so do
I most unequivocally; but I also claim that we should not be blinded by
either strong confirmations or sensual appetites in favor of false views
and evil habits, so that, having eyes, we see not the truth and
consequently cannot lead a life in accordance with the truth. The writer
truly says: "Christ is not to be blindly, but intelligently, followed." In
other words, I would say the light afforded by science, by well-known facts
and ancient history, must be allowed to shine upon such an important
question as the one under consideration. Then again, the testimony of
distinguished scholars who have devoted years to a careful consideration of
the wine question in the light of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, of
ancient history and science, should not be ignored, and statements made
which have repeatedly been shown to have no foundation in truth, but which
are contradicted by facts which at this day should be known by every man
who attempts to write upon such an important question.
In the consideration of this question the above writer appears to utterly
confound good and truth with the evil and false, which, it is manifest,
should never be done. His whole argument is based upon assumptions which we
shall find, the more carefully we examine them, have no foundation in
truth. He assumes that fermented wine is a good and useful article to be
used as a beverage, and, after admitting that he thinks the law of
Christian love requires a general abstinence at the present day, he says:--
"But I trust that this necessity belongs simply to the present epoch, and I
am not without hope that we shall yet come to a time--though not in my
day--when a pure wine can be used by society with no more seriously evil
results than now are produced by the use of tea and coffee."
By pure wine he means fermented wine. He apparently thinks that tea and
coffee are harmless drinks. Of this more hereafter. Again he says:--
"Any permanent temperance reform, however great emphasis it may lay on a
Christian duty of total abstinence, must draw sharply and maintain stoutly
the distinction between total abstinence and temperance, between
drunkenness and drinking. It must recognize drunkenness to be everywhere
and always a sin, drinking to be made so only by the circumstances;
temperance to be always and everywhere a duty, total abstinence to be only
a means now to be employed for promoting temperance."
Now let us examine this assumption in the light of science, facts, and
history.
First. It is known that all the drunkenness in the world up to the sixth
century--and history and even the Bible shows us that there was plenty of
it, and this the above writer admits--was caused by drinking fermented wine
and other fermented drinks, for the art of distillation was unknown. And
almost all of the drunkenness in our country at this day results either
directly from men and boys drinking wine, beer, or other fermented drinks,
or from the appetite thus formed leading them on to the use of distilled
liquors; for it is rarely that they commence by using such liquors. There
has never been an age in the world's history when the drinking of fermented
wine did not lead large numbers of those who drank it to drunkenness, and
it is safe to say that in no age of the world has there ever been more
drunkenness among those who drink at all than there is at this day.
As to temperance: That old philosopher, Aristotle, tells us that temperance
consists in the moderate use of things good and useful, and total
abstinence from things injurious.
Second. Fermented wine is either one of the good gifts of God, to be used
as a drink to build up and supply the wants of the human body, and may be
used freely as we may use milk, the unfermented juice of grapes, and water,
or it is not. Let us examine this question carefully for a few moments. We
all know that there are animal, vegetable, and mineral substances which act
as poisons when taken into the stomach, and that to thus use them is to
violate the laws of health and life and to seriously endanger health,
reason, and life; and not a few are destroyed by their use. The Divine
commandment in regard to all such we know is, "Thou shall not" use them if
they kill or endanger life when used. We know that there are other
substances which are useful and necessary to nourish and build up the body
and give it strength and health. How are we to distinguish these two
classes of substances? By their effects on the body we may distinguish
between good and useful substances and poisons. There is a natural appetite
for wholesome food, which is satisfied by the usual quantity, and the
middle-aged and old do not require any more nor even as much as the young
man. But for poisons, unless they are made sweet by other substances, there
is no natural appetite, but it has to be cultivated by using the poison;
but when the appetite is once developed no other substance in nature will
satisfy the appetite for it, and the appetite demands that the quantity
taken shall be steadily increased to relieve the craving and diseased
symptoms which the poison has caused; and if the natural inclination to
increase the quantity or frequency is followed, unrestrained by caution or
conscience, the individual comes at last to be able to take a quantity with
impunity which would kill more than one person not addicted to its use. We
all know that this is notably true in regard to fermented wine and other
alcoholic drinks, opium and tobacco.
Again, all poisons, when taken into the stomach in a sufficient quantity
and length of time, cause specific diseases characteristic of the poison
taken. Healthy food does not do this. You see a man reeling in the streets,
or drunk on the sidewalk, or with rum-blossoms on his face; you know that
he has been drinking fermented wine or some fluid containing its chief
ingredient--alcohol. Now, unfermented wine and other healthy drinks never
cause such specific diseases or symptoms, however freely used.
Here then, in the characteristics given above, is a broad gulf, as broad
and deep as that between Heaven and Hell, between nourishing, life-giving
substances and the poisons named above. Of the one we are to use
temperately, but from the latter we are to totally abstain. "Thou shalt
not" is clearly written.
In all ages fermented wine has been regarded as a poison. In the Bible it
is likened to the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps. Solomon
tells us not to look upon it, for at last it biteth like a serpent and
stingeth like an adder. Clement of Alexandria, who lived at the close of
the second century, says: "From its use arise excessive desires and
licentious conduct. The circulation is accelerated, and the body inflames
the soul."--_Divine Law as to Wines._
We know by observation that fermented wine is a fluid which fills man when
he drinks of it as freely as he may of healthy needed drinks with all
manner of uncleanness of both body and soul. How can a clergyman talk of
using such a fluid temperately? Can we steal temperately, bear false
witness temperately, commit adultery temperately, or murder temperately? Is
it right to deliberately do any of these acts temperately? If it is, then
it is right to deliberately drink fermented wine temperately, which we know
endangers health, freedom, reason and life, and leads men to commit crimes
even the most filthy. One glass leads naturally to another, and that to
many; just as stealing pennies leads to stealing dollars, and hundreds and
thousands of dollars. A perverted appetite or passion can never be fully
satisfied, but it leads to sorrow. All such evils must be shunned totally
as sins against God.
It would be difficult to find elsewhere in the English language, in so few
lines, as many statements so absolutely untrue, dogmatically proclaimed, as
in the following from the article in the _Christian Union_:--
"This notion of two wines, one fermented, the other unfermented, must be
dismissed as a pure invention, unsupported by any facts, unsanctioned by
any scholarship. There was but one wine known to the ancients--fermented
grape-juice. This was the wine Christ made, drank, blessed. There was no
other used in His time or known to His day."
First, as to scholarship. Does the writer of the above believe that he is
superior as to scholarship to the following distinguished scholars, all of
whom believe in "this notion of two wines, one fermented and the other
unfermented," several of whom, after a most patient and careful examination
of the question, have written one or more volumes upon the subject, and one
of them has been twice to the Bible lands for the purpose of carefully
investigating the question there and verifying his statements? viz., Moses
Stuart, Eliphalet Nott, Alonzo Potter, George Bush, Albert Barns, William
M. Jacobus, Taylor Lewis, Geo. W. Sampson, Leon C. Field, F. R. Lees,
Norman Kerr, Canon Farrar, Canon Wilberforce, Dawson Burns, Wm. Ritchie,
George Duffield, C. H. Fowler, Wm. Patton, Adam Clarke, J. M. Van Buren, S.
M. Isaacs, Wm. M. Thayer, John J. Owen; Charles Hartwell, and many other
writers I could name, who, after a most critical examination of the
question, have written earnestly in favor of the "notion of two wines, one
fermented and the other unfermented." In view of the opinion of such men as
these, can the above writer say truthfully that the "notion of two wines"
is "unsanctioned by any scholarship"? Have we any more distinguished
scholars than those I have named? Are not scholars who have for years made
a special study of a question like this, in all of its aspects, much more
competent to judge correctly than those who have not? It is certain that
the writer in the _Christian Union_ has never examined both sides of
this question with the slightest care; for if he had done so, as an honest
Christian man, as I trust he is, he could never have made many of the
statements he has made. He says that the "notion of two wines" is
unsupported by any facts, and that "there was but one kind of wine known to
the ancients--fermented grape-juice." Has he never read the Bible--even the
New Testament? I shall first bring the testimony of the Lord Himself
against him. He says:--
"Neither do men put new wine (_oinon neon_) into old bottles; else the
bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish; but they
put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." Matt, ix, 17.
Here we have the fresh, unfermented juice of the grape called wine--"new
wine." It could not be put into old bottles and be preserved, for old
bottles, especially skin bottles, are sure to contain leaven cells, which
would inevitably cause fermentation and burst the bottles, whether they
were of skins, glass, or earthenware. We know that fermented wine can be
preserved in old bottles, and that it is so preserved without bursting the
bottles. Here, then, the fresh, unfermented juice of grapes is called wine
by the Lord. Should not our clergy heed His testimony?
There is no difficulty in preserving the juice of grapes, or new wine,
unfermented by various methods described by ancient writers. Thus
Columella, who lived during the Apostolic days, tells us to fill bottles
with fresh grape-juice and seal or cork them carefully and sink them in a
well of cold water and fermentation will not ensue. I have tried it
successfully; any one can do the same. Next, fill a new or clean bottle
with new wine just pressed from the grapes up to its neck, then pour about
half an inch of sweet oil on the surface of the wine and cork it carefully,
leaving a little space between the cork and oil, and stand the bottle in a
cellar, and it will keep. I have three bottles thus preserved free from
fermentation for over three years; the cork must not be removed and the
bottle must not be shaken. Again, heat the juice to 185 [degrees] Fahr.,
or to the boiling-point if you please, bottle, cork, and seal it, and it
will never ferment.
Now we will turn hastily to the Old Testament. In Isaiah xvi, 10, we read:
"The treaders shall tread out no wine (_yayin_) in their presses."
Here we have the juice of grapes, as it is trodden from grapes, called
wine.
In Jeremiah xl, 10, 12, we read: "But gather ye wine (_yayin_) and
summer fruits and oils," and we read that they "gathered wine and summer
fruits very much." Here we have the juice of grapes called wine, as it is
gathered in with other fruits.
Chapter xlviii, 33: "And I have caused wine (_yayin_) to fail from the
wine-presses."
Dr. Adam Clarke says: "The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words which are
rendered 'wine' mean simply the expressed juice of the grape."
This juice, like our cider, may be fermented or unfermented, and it is
still called by the same name. Here, then, in both the New and Old
Testaments, we have the unfermented juice of grapes distinctly recognized
as wine, and called wine; and all admit that the fermented juice of grapes
is called wine, consequently there are two wines. And distinguished
scholars say:--
"In all the passages where the good wine is named (in the Bible), there is
no lisp of warning, no intimation of danger, no hint of disapprobation, but
always of decided approval. How bold and strongly marked is the contrast!
"The _one_ the cause of intoxication, of violence, and of woes; "The
_other_ the occasion of comfort and of peace. "The _one_ the
cause of irreligion and of self-destruction; "The _other_ the devout
offering of piety on the altar of God. "The _one_ the symbol of the
divine wrath; "The _other_ the symbol of spiritual blessings. "The
_one_ the emblem of eternal damnation; "The _other_ the emblem of
eternal salvation."--_Bible Wines_.
"The _one_ the cause of intoxication, of violence, and of woes;
"The _other_ the occasion of comfort and of peace.
"The _one_ the cause of irreligion and of self-destruction;
"The _other_ the devout offering of piety on the altar of God.
"The _one_ the symbol of the divine wrath;
"The _other_ the symbol of spiritual blessings.
"The _one_ the emblem of eternal damnation;
"The _other_ the emblem of eternal salvation."--_Bible Wines_.
"The distinction in _quality_ between the good and the bad wine is as
clear as that between good and bad men, or good and bad wives, or good and
bad spirits; for one is the constant subject of warning, designated poison
literally, analogically, and figuratively; while the other is commended as
refreshing and innocent, which no alcoholic wine is."--_Lees'
Appendix_, p. 232.
_Tirosh_ is another Hebrew word that is often used in the Old
Testament for grapes and the juice of grapes, like our word must, but it is
rarely if ever applied to the juice after fermentation has commenced. We
read: "They shall gather together corn and new wine (_tirosh_), they
shall eat together and praise Jehovah, and _they who are gathered
together shall drink it in the courts of my holiness_."--Isaiah lxii, 9.
And again, in regard to _tirosh_, we read: "That thou mayest gather in
thy corn, thy wine (_tirosh_), and thine oil." (Deut. xi, 14.) "Thus
saith the Lord, as the new wine (_tirosh_) is found in the cluster,
and _one_ saith destroy it not, for a blessing is in it." (Isaiah lxv,
8.) "And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God in the place He shall
choose, the tithe of thy corn and wine (_tirosh_)." (Deut. xiv, 22.)
Here we see that _tirosh_ was to be eaten.
The word _tirosh_ occurs thirty-eight times in the Hebrew Bible.
It is translated into Greek, in the Septuagint, by [seventy] distinguished
Hebrew scholars, about three centuries before the Christian era, as
follows: "The LXX renders _tirosh_ in every case but two by
_oinos_ (the Greek word for wine), the generic name for _yayin_."
Now, are we for a moment to suppose that the above seventy distinguished
ancient scholars did not understand as well what was included under the
name of wine in their day, as does the writer in the _Christian Union_
to-day, when they classed the unfermented juice of grapes with wine, and
called it wine? How can the above writer say that "there was but one kind
of wine known to the ancients--fermented grape juice"? Unfermented wine not
known to the ancients, indeed! How utterly contrary to the truth, and to
well-known facts, is such a statement. Just look a moment, gentle reader--
"Aristotle ('Meteorologica,' iv, 9) says of the sweet wine of his day
([Greek Text]), that it did not intoxicate ([Greek Text]). And Athenaeus
('Banquet,' ii, 24) makes a similar statement."--_Oinos_.
"Josephus, the Jewish historian, paraphrasing the dream of Pharaoh's
butler, who dreamed that he took clusters of grapes and pressed them into
Pharaoh's cup, and gave the cup to Pharaoh, repeatedly calls this
grape-juice _wine_. Bishop Lowth, 1778, in his 'Commentary' (Isaiah v,
2) says: 'The fresh juice pressed from the grape' was by Herodotus styled
_oinos ampelinos_, that is, wine of the vine."--_Wine of the
Word_.
The celebrated Opimian wine, which Pliny [born A. D. 23] tells us (xiv, 4)
had in his day, two centuries after it was made, the consistency of honey,
was unquestionably an inspissated article. Such was the Taeniotic wine of
Egypt, which Athenaeus, in his "Banquet" (i, 25), tells us had such a
degree of richness that "it is dissolved little by little when it is mixed
with water, just as the Attic honey is dissolved by the same process."
"There is abundance of evidence," says the Rev. Dr. Patton, "that the
ancients mixed their wines with water; not because they were so strong with
alcohol as to require dilution, but because, being rich syrups, they needed
water to prepare them for drinking. The quantity of water was regulated by
the richness of the wine and the time of year."
"Aristotle (born about B. C. 384) testifies that the _wines of
Arcadia_ were so thick that they dried up in goat-skins, and that it was
the practice to scrape them off and dissolve the scrapings in water."
(Meteorology, iv, 10.)--"Temperance Bible Commentary."
We know very well that these ancient wines, which were called wine in those
days, which did not intoxicate, and others that were as thick as honey,
were not fermented wines; for fermented wines do intoxicate, and wines as
thick as honey cannot be made from fermented wine, for the albuminous and
other substances which make condensed wines thick are cast down or out, or
destroyed by fermentation. I have four samples of such condensed wines, or
grape-juice, which are as thick as honey. One I obtained at Buda-Pesth,
Hungary; one in Cairo, Egypt; one in Damascus, Asia; and the fourth was
condensed and sent to me by a gentleman then residing in California. I have
had these samples now over six years.
Why should the writer in the _Christian Union_ quote from another
writer, and thus try to make it appear that the ancient condensed wines
were nothing but "grape jellies"? Does he not know that they are very
different preparations, and prepared by different methods? Condensed wines
are prepared by crushing and pressing the juice from the pulp, skins, and
seeds, and then boiling or otherwise evaporating the water until the juice
is as thick as honey, so that it can be easily preserved from fermentation?
whereas grape jellies are made by boiling the grapes until they are well
cooked, then rubbing or squeezing all the pulp and skins practicable
through a colander, sieve, or coarsely-woven strainer; and then sugar is
added to sweeten and aid in forming a jelly. Condensed wines will dissolve
in water as we are told the ancient thick wines did, but grape jellies will
do so only very imperfectly, for they are composed largely of the pulp of
the grape.
The writer in the _Christian Union_ tells us, in a passage already
quoted, speaking of fermented wine:--
"This was the wine Christ made, drank, blessed."
And again he says:--
"He (Christ) commenced His public ministry by making, by a miracle, wine in
considerable quantity, and this apparently only to add to the joyous
festivities of a wedding. He apparently used wine customarily, if not
habitually. When He was about to die, He chose wine as the symbol of His
blood, shed for many for the remission of sins, asked His Father's blessing
on a cup containing wine, passed it to His disciples with the direction,
'Drink ye all of it.'"
Now, intelligent Christian reader, what are we to think of the above
statements? Let us look at these statements in the light of reason, common
sense, science, and revelation. Is it probable, is it possible, that at
that wedding feast, after the guests had drank freely of an intoxicating
wine, that our blessed Lord, guided by love and wisdom, would create a
large quantity more of an intoxicating wine for them to drink? It is not
possible; and the assumption is flatly contradicted by the Governor of the
feast, who pronounced the wine created as the "best wine." Place to the
lips of a child of parents who do not use intoxicating drinks, or to a man
or woman who never drinks such drinks, two glasses, one containing a
well-fermented wine, and the other containing the sweet, delicious juice of
good ripe grapes, and there is not the slightest doubt as to which would be
chosen and pronounced "best" every time--try it.
Then again, is it possible that, on that occasion, a kind of wine was made
of which the Lord has never created a single drop in the fruit of the vine?
Fermented wine is a product of leaven or ferment and of man's ingenuity;
and its chief and essential constituent, alcohol, for which men drink it,
is an effete product, and holds a similar relation to the leaven that urine
does to the animal body. As Pasteur says, "ferment eats, as it were," or
consumes the nourishing and useful ingredients in the juice of the grapes,
decomposes them, and casts out excretions, as man does when he eats grapes.
Consequently, fermented wine is an utterly unclean fluid, and it fills man,
when he drinks it, with all manner of uncleanness, mentally and physically,
from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, as we well know. It is
preeminently a leavened substance, for it is never purified by heat, as is
leavened bread. We have an abundance of testimony, which the reverend
writer of the article ignores, that the Orthodox Jews have regarded, in all
ages, and do to-day as a rule regard, fermented wine as coming under the
restrictions placed upon leavened things.
The celebrated Jewish Rabbi, S. M. Isaacs, said in 1869: "The Jews do not
use in their feasts for sacred purposes fermented drinks of any kind. The
marriage feast is a sacrament with us."
In a recent work (1879) written by a Jewish Rabbi, the Rev. E. M. Myers,
entitled "The Jews, their Customs and Ceremonies, with a full account of
all their Religious Observances from the Cradle to the Grave," we read that
among the strictly orthodox Jews, "During the entire festival (of the
Passover) no leavened food nor fermented liquors are permitted to be used,
in accordance with Scriptural injunctions." (Ex. xii, 15, 19, 20; Deut.
xvii, 3, 4.) This, we think, settles the question so far as the Orthodox
Jews are concerned; and their customs, without much question, represent
those prevailing at the time of our Lord's advent.
The editor of the London _Methodist Times_ lately witnessed the
celebration of the Jewish Passover in that city, and at the close of the
services said to the Rabbi: "May I ask with what _kind_ of wine you
have celebrated the Passover this evening?" The answer promptly given
was:--
"With a non-intoxicating wine. Jews never use fermented wine in their
synagogue services, and must not use it on the Passover, either for
synagogue or home purposes. Fermented liquor of any kind comes under the
category of 'leaven,' which is proscribed in so many well-known places in
the Old Testament. * * * I have recently read the passage in Matthew in
which the Paschal Supper is described. There can be no doubt whatever that
the wine used upon that occasion was unfermented. Jesus, as an observant
Jew, would not only not have drunk fermented wine on the Passover, but
would not have celebrated the Passover in any house from which everything
fermented had not been removed. I may mention that the wine I use in the
service at the synagogue is an infusion of raisins. You will allow me,
perhaps, to express my surprise that Christians, who profess to be
followers of Jesus of Nazareth, can take what He could not possibly have
taken as a Jew--intoxicating wine--at so sacred a service as the Sacrament
of the Lord's Supper."
[Transcriber's Note: the asterisks in the preceding paragraph
are thus in the book.]
It is utterly impossible that Jesus Christ could have used fermented wine
as a symbol of His blood, for in its essential constituents, which are
alcohol, vinegar, etc., it bears not the slightest resemblance to blood;
whereas unfermented wine, in its essential constituents, which are albumen,
sugar, etc., bears the greatest resemblance to blood. This simple fact
ought to satisfy every intelligent man.
Then again, our Lord, when He took the cup and blessed and said, "Drink ye
all of it," knowing that fermented wine was included under the name of
wine, and as if foreseeing that His followers might mistake and use
intoxicating wine, carefully avoided the use of the word wine at all, and
called it the "fruit of the vine," which unfermented wine is and fermented
wine is not. It does seem that these facts should satisfy every
intelligent, Christian man. Can there be, my Christian brethren, a greater
profanation of a holy ordinance than the use of the drunkard's cup as a
communion wine, instead of the fruit of the vine? By the use of fermented
wine as a communion wine many a man who was struggling to reform his life
has been led back to drunkenness and death. I have known of some sad
instances.
It might be well for some of our clergy to hear and heed the warning voice
of the Sacred Scriptures:--
"'It is not for kings to drink wine, nor princes strong drink, lest they
drink and forget the law and pervert the judgment of the afflicted.' Here
is abstinence enjoined, and the reason for it plainly given. Again (Lev. x,
8-11), _it is required of the priests_: 'And the Lord spake unto Aaron,
saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee,
when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall
be a statute for ever throughout your generations: That ye may put a
difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that
ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath
spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.'"
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived
thereby is not wise."--Prov. xx, i.
No one questions that the wine referred to above as unholy and a mocker and
unclean, is fermented wine, and no one supposes for a moment that it is
unfermented wine. "But they also have erred through wine, and through
strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred
through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the
way through strong drink, they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. For
all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place
clean." (Isa. xxviii, 7,8.)
How correctly and literally do the above words represent the effects of
drinking fermented wine and strong drinks, seen today as of old. O
gentlemen of the clergy! beware! beware! "Woe to him that giveth his
neighbor drink; that putteth thy bottle to him." (Hab. ii, 5,15.) You have
young and inexperienced men and women and even boys under your charge. May
the Lord protect them!
CANON WILBERFORCE ON SACRAMENTAL WINES.
Canon Wilberforce is reported by the London _Temperance Record_ as
saying at a recent meeting in England: "He believed if people desired to go
back literally and absolutely to the days of the institution of the
Sacrament, it would be a most difficult thing, if not impossible, to prove
that the particular cup which their Master took in His hand in that solemn
crisis of His life when He instituted the Holy Eucharist was fermented at
all. There was abundant testimony to prove it was not. Some went back to
primitive authorities. He should like to read one or two which might have
weight with them. Take for example the testimony of St. Cyprian, who wrote
in A. D. 230:--
"'When the Lord gives the name of His body to bread, composed of the union
of many particles, He indicates that our people, whose sins He bore, are
united. And when He calls wine squeezed out from bunches of grapes His
blood, He intimates that our flocks are similarly joined by the varied
admixture of a united multitude."
"This distinctly implied, for all he knew, squeezing bunches of grapes. But
there was more important testimony from one man who was considered by a
certain party in the Church of great value--St. Thomas Aquinas, a great
father of the 13th century. He said:--
"'The juice of ripe grapes, on the other hand, has already the form of
wine; for its sweet taste evidences a mellowing change, which is its
completion by natural heat (as it is said in the "Meteorologica," iv, 3,
not far from the beginning), and for that reason this Sacrament can be
fulfilled by the juice of grapes.'"
While in Egypt in 1884 I visited the American missionaries, and asked them
what kind of wine they used as a communion wine in their churches. They
told me that almost all of their members were from among the Copts, who are
the descendants from the early Christians of Egypt, who have been
comparatively isolated and separated from the Christian world for many
centuries, and when they told them that the Western Christians used
fermented wine, or "shop wine," as they called it, they were horrified at
the idea, and would not partake of it; so they steeped or soaked raisins in
water, and then pressed the juice from them and used that, as has been done
by the Orthodox Jews when they could not obtain pure unfermented wine. I
visited the Grand Patriarch of the Coptic Church, and through an
interpreter he told me that he did the same, and that it was suitable for
use the moment that it was pressed from the raisins. The day is not far
distant when the members of the Western Christian churches will be as much
horrified at the idea of using fermented wine as a sacramental wine as are
the unperverted Christians of Egypt, and this will occur when our clergy
and laity cease to be controlled by either strong confirmations or
preconceived ideas or by sensual appetites, and can study the Sacred
Scriptures and ancient history, and science and well-established facts, in
the light of reason and common sense, instead of assuming everything which
accords with their desires, and ignoring everything which conflicts
therewith.
Again, the writer of the article I am reviewing says:--
"Drunkenness is always and everywhere a sin; whether drinking is a sin
depends upon circumstances; and whether the circumstances are such as to
make drinking sinful, each individual must decide for himself, and answer
for his decision, not to a priesthood, a society, or a newspaper press, but
to his own conscience and his God."
While drunk the drunkard is insane, and when not drunk he is an abject
slave. His appetite controls him, soul and body; he will sacrifice his
property, his reputation, and the comfort of wife and children to gratify
it. If, gentle reader, you have witnessed the struggles which some have
witnessed of men striving earnestly to break loose from that habit, you
would not be so ready to pronounce drunkenness always a sin; you would
hardly dare thus to judge the poor victim. God alone can realize what he
suffers. I ask the intelligent reader, in the light of reason and common
sense and of the Word of God, which is the greater sinner, the man who,
after he has witnessed all the wretchedness, sorrows, drunkenness, and
deaths which we see around us, deliberately takes his first glass of the
fluid which has caused this misery, or continues to drink after he has once
commenced, while he has the ability in freedom to restrain his appetite, or
the man who, by thus drinking, has lost his freedom and reason, and then
drinks to drunkenness? If either is a sinner, can there be any doubt as to
which is the greatest sinner? A far greater number, die from steady
drinking than from drunkenness; they die from an inability to withstand the
ordinary causes of disease, or to resist diseased action when attacked, and
vast multitudes die from diseases caused by so-called temperate drinking,
short of drunkenness. The statistics of insurance companies show that the
average duration of adult human lives is shortened from seventeen to
twenty-four per cent. Is it no sin to enter upon or to continue such a
life? Is such deliberate self-murder no sin? And again, no man living who
commences and continues drinking can have any assurance that he will not
become a drunkard. I well remember when a young man, perhaps eighteen years
old, standing on my native New England hills, working upon the highway with
a young man three or four years older than myself. I said to him that I
thought it was well to make up our minds never to drink intoxicating drinks
during health, and to join a temperance society; he differed from me, and
he said that when he was tired, or went out in the cold and wet and got
chilled, he thought that a little "cider brandy" did him good. "But," he
exclaimed with great energy, "the man who cannot restrain his appetite is a
fool! If you ever hear of my getting drunk, tell me, and I will quit
drinking." I intimated to him that it then might be too late. Alas! alas
for that young man! he became a drunkard; he spent the farm left by his
father; his wife died; his children were scattered among friends; and years
after, when I returned to my native town, I was told that he was a pauper
at the poorhouse.
We are told by the reverend gentleman in the _Christian Union_ that
nature produces alcohol in the juices, as though its production was by a
natural and orderly process. The process of fermentation is just as natural
as the putrefaction of meat, when not prevented by care, and from an
altogether similar cause; and as orderly as the eating of grain by rats if
no care is taken to prevent it; and it is a no more natural or orderly
process. The writer tells us that:--
"Whether the community can properly, without infringing on the liberty of
the individual, prohibit all manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors, is
a political question, on which the life and teachings of Christ throw no
light."
A strange statement, indeed! Is it not right to prohibit theft, highway
robbery, and other evil acts? Do Christ's teachings throw no light upon
such questions? "Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." In our country
the government is by the people and for the people, and voters are
responsible for the laws made or unmade; and they should be governed by
Christ's precepts and not by political cliques. We do not hesitate to enact
laws to prohibit druggists and others from selling other well-known poisons
to people without the prescription of a physician, for fear they may
possibly be used by the purchasers to harm either themselves or others; and
I presume the reverend writer does not seriously question the justice and
propriety of such laws; yet, strange to say, we license men, and thus give
the sanction of the law, to sell fermented wine, beer, and other
intoxicating drinks, and allow them to sell tobacco, all deadly poisons,
when they know the purchasers will use them to harm themselves and others,
and often destroy their lives. Yes, we thus license men to sell when we
know that these poisons are sold to men and women who are controlled by an
unnatural appetite instead of by reason; when it is known that they have
harmed and killed more of the human family than all other poisons put
together, and that many of the purchasers, to say the least, will certainly
use them to destroy health, reason, and their own lives, and to render
their own families and all intimately associated with them unspeakably
wretched and unhappy. And yet, exclaims the above writer, whether the
community can prohibit such sales of alcoholic liquors or not, without
infringing on the liberty of the individual, "is a political question, on
which the life and teachings of Christ throw no light." And the inference
is that Christians, preachers, and our religious press have nothing to do
with this question. "O consistency! thou art a jewel." Let stealing become
as universal as the selling of intoxicants, and wives and children thereby
be deprived of their means of support as extensively as they are by the
selling of intoxicants, would the reverend gentleman stand aloof, and
represent that the life and teachings of Christ throw no light upon the
question of prohibiting such a violation of the Divine commandments? Shall
Christians stand aloof from enacting laws to prohibit stealing for fear of
infringing on the liberty of individual thieves? Can crimes be prevented
without interfering with the "personal liberty" of criminals to commit
crimes?
What is stealing when compared to the selling of intoxicating drinks and
tobacco as they are sold in our streets, and all over our own and other
lands? Kind Christian parents, which in your estimation would be the
greatest crime, and which would you prefer, that a thief should steal from
your boy or son, before he is twenty-one years of age, or after you cease
to be responsible for him, his money, or that a man should sell cigarettes,
beer, fermented wine, or other intoxicants unbeknown to you, and take his
money, giving these poisons instead, and thus leading him on step by step,
until an unnatural appetite is formed, and he becomes a slave to the use of
a poison often before he has reached the age when his rational faculties
are fully developed; and when by the use of these poisons the full
development of his body is prevented, and his prospects for enjoying good
health thereafter and of living to the allotted age of man are most
materially lessened. In both instances his money is taken, and we know, by
the poverty-stricken men and women and young men we see visiting our
saloons, that some of the saloonists, as well as the thief, will take his
last penny. Which is the greatest crime, to steal a man's money who is
under bondage to a perverted appetite, and consequently comparatively
irresponsible for his acts, or to sell him the above named poisons, which
so seriously prevent development and endanger his health, reason, and life,
and which bring such wretchedness and sorrow to so many homes? In both
instances the man's money is gone, his wife and children are deprived of
the benefit which might result from its legitimate use; but in the one case
the man returns to his family a sober, loving husband and father--in the
other, perchance, drunk, or on the direct road that leads to drunkenness.
In reply to his intimation that the Bible permits Christians to use
fermented wine, but the Koran does not allow Mohammedans to use it, I would
simply intimate to the reverend gentleman that the Lord, in His good
Providence, has permitted, through the Koran, the Mohammedans to be
protected from the drinking of fermented wine and other intoxicating
drinks, as He has attempted to protect Christians directly by the numerous
warnings in His Word; but the difference lies right here--the former have
heeded the warnings, while the latter have not, and hence the fearful
drunkenness prevalent in Christian countries. And we see the people of
Christian countries sending their whiskey into heathen or Gentile lands
with their missionaries. Alas! alas! Which is better--to be a good heathen
or a drunken Christian?
A gentleman whom I desired to see resides at Constantinople. He is an
Englishman, and when my wife and myself were there in 1885 he had resided
there twenty-two years, and had run the largest flouring mill in Turkey. We
visited his mill, which was about two miles up the Golden Horn, and he
spent an evening with us at the hotel where we were stopping. During our
conversation I said to him: "I would like to know about the Mohammedan
Turks: what kind of men are they? In our country you can hardly call a man
by a worse name than to call him a Turk." He replied that the Government
officials and those who come much in contact with foreigners are apt to be
corrupt enough. "But," he exclaimed with great emphasis, "the laboring
Turk! the laboring Turk has a great future before him!! If I want a man to
row me down the Golden Horn when the weather is rough, or to watch my mills
when I am away and asleep, who I know will do his duty faithfully, I always
choose a Turk instead of a Christian." He admitted that the fact that they
never drink fermented wine or other intoxicating drinks was one of the
causes of their greater reliability.
"Hon. Chauncey M. Depew will scarcely be accused of fanaticism on the
question of liquor drinking. His opinion as a man of wide observation and
knowledge of human nature is valuable even to those who would discount his
opinions on the political methods of dealing with the evil. Here is Mr.
Depew's experience as stated in a speech before a company of railroad
men:--
"'Twenty-five years ago I knew every man, woman, and child in Peekskill.
And it has been a study with me to mark boys who started in every grade of
life with myself, to see what has become of them. I was up last fall and
began to count them over, and it was an instructive exhibit. Some of them
became clerks, merchants, manufacturers, lawyers, doctors. _It is
remarkable that every one of those that drank is dead;_ not one living
of my age. Barring a few who were taken off by sickness, _every one who
proved a wreck and wrecked his family did it from rum and no other
cause_. Of those who were church-going people, who were steady,
industrious, and hard-working men, who were frugal and thrifty, every
single one of them, without an exception, owns the house in which he lives
and has something laid by, the interest on which, with his house, would
carry him through many a rainy day. When a man becomes debased with
gambling, rum, or drink, he does not care; all his finer feelings are
crowded out. The poor women at home are the ones who suffer--suffer in
their tenderest emotions; suffer in their affections for those whom they
love better than life.'"--_The Voice_.
I think almost every man who is 75 years old, if he will look back and
review carefully his youthful acquaintances, can bear almost if not equally
as strong testimony as to the effects of intoxicating drinks on human life.
It is certain that but a small proportion of the drinkers who died
prematurely were drunkards; they were simply what is called temperate
drinkers.
I fully agree with the reverend writer in the _Christian Union_ that
we should not judge others to be bad or evil men because they do not speak
and act just as we think they should, for we cannot see the motives from
which their words and acts spring--they are known to the Lord alone; but
should we not judge whether a man's words and acts are true and useful and
in accordance with the Divine Commandments, or whether they are false and
evil and in violation of the commandments? For instance, when we clearly
see that the arguments in favor of fermented wine are all based upon
assumptions which the most careful investigations by scholars as competent
as any in the world show have no foundation in truth, and when we find from
historical records that in all ages its use has caused an immense amount of
suffering, wretchedness, drunkenness, and an untold number of premature
deaths; and we see the same results following its use all around us at this
day; and when science teaches us that its use is entirely unnecessary
during health, and a direct violation of the laws of health and life; and
when in the Sacred Scriptures fermented wine is likened, as to its effects
on man, to the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps, and Solomon
tells us that at last "it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an
adder;"--is it not clearly our duty to show to our fellow-men, and
especially to the young, that to commence drinking fermented wine or beer,
or to continue to drink so long as we have the power to resist the
inclination to drink, is a violation of the commands, Thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God supremely, and not the gratification of a
perverted appetite; and should we not as clearly as possible point out the
truth, and call men to repentance and to the shunning of such evils as sins
against God? How else is the world to be reformed and elevated, and the
life of the New Jerusalem to descend from God out of heaven, and find an
abiding place among men?
The boy, the young man, and those of all ages, in whom the regenerate life
has either not commenced or has barely commenced, cannot be expected to
live and act up to the Pauline maxim--"if meat cause my brother to offend,"
etc. Satisfy such that fermented wine is not the "cup of devils," but that
it derives its life from the Lord through heaven instead of through hell,
and that it is a good and useful drink, and that it is to be hoped the time
will come when it can be safely drank, can they want any greater license
for commencing and for continuing the life which leads to drunkenness? No
one ever intends to become a drunkard or to destroy his life by drinking.
He only drinks enough to satisfy his perverted appetite and to make him
feel good; that is all.
Now, dear Christian reader, what can be more unfortunate for the Christian
Church than for clergymen standing high in the Church, as do several who
have written in favor of fermented wine, to write when they possess
_only_ such an extremely superficial knowledge of the wine question,
in its Biblical, historical, scientific, and medical aspects, as is
manifested in the article under review, and several others which have been
printed and circulated within a few years? And how unfortunate that such
articles should ever be published in religious periodicals that enter the
homes where dwell children, and the young and innocent as well as drinkers!
I thank the Lord that no religious paper bearing such seductive messages
ever entered my father's house as I approached manhood.
The greatest obstacle which the grand temperance reformation has to
encounter to-day is the stand publicly taken by so many of our clergy and
religious periodicals in favor of fermented wine as a good and useful
drink, and the use of intoxicating wine as a communion wine in so many of
our churches. But the True Light has come into the world, and it will shine
more and more until the perfect day.
As to tea and coffee, while they can hardly be compared with intoxicating
drinks, tobacco, and opium, as to their injurious effects on man when he
uses them, yet they are very far from being harmless; for, like the other
poisons named, their use begets an unnatural appetite which healthy fluids
will not satisfy, and they cause symptoms and diseases characteristic of
the fluid taken. Tea causes sleeplessness, palpitation of the heart, and
other symptoms, while coffee causes the "coffee headache," often destroys
the morning appetite; if given to children, interferes with their
development, interferes with digestion, and causes a variety of nervous
symptoms about the chest and stomach. Parents make a great mistake and do
their children great injustice when they allow them to taste of tea or
coffee before they are twenty-one years of age, or until they have passed
out from their control. If the young can be kept from becoming enslaved by
such habits, and consequently remain in freedom, until their rational
faculties are fully developed, in the increasing light of this new day, it
will not be difficult for them to see that all such substances should be
avoided. They do not add to one's enjoyment, for they, like intoxicants,
tobacco, and all stimulating condiments, destroy or seriously impair the
natural delicacy of taste with which the Lord has endowed us, when we eat
or drink wholesome and needed articles of food. I am seventy-six years of
age, yet I never had a better appetite, and food never tasted better than
it does to-day; and I attribute this to my having so generally avoided
improper articles of food and drink. After a most patient and careful
examination of both sides of the wine question in the light of Divine
Revelation, ancient history and of science, for many years, and after
having witnessed the fearful demoralization, the wretchedness and sorrow,
the diseases and deaths which result from drinking fermented wine and other
intoxicants, nothing so surprises me, and discourages me, in regard to the
immediate future of the American people, as the pertinacity and persistency
with which so many of the clergy of our country, without any careful
examination of both sides of this question, are striving to justify the use
of fermented wine as a beverage and even as a Communion wine. Instead of
assuming and ignoring everything, let the advocates of fermented wine
answer the following inquiry by the Rev. Dr. Eliphalet Nott, President of
Union College: "Can the same thing, in the same state, be good and bad; a
symbol of wrath and a symbol of mercy; a thing to be sought after and a
thing to be avoided? Certainly not. And is the Bible, then, inconsistent
with itself? No, certainly."
End of Project Gutenberg's Personal Experience of a Physician, by John Ellis