Page images
PDF
EPUB

120

MR. HAUGHTON AND MR. GUINNESS.

dwellings for the working classes. Working men themselves well know they can never have neat or comfortable houses so long as their wages go to the publican. While the public-house exists at every street-corner, and along every road-side, model-dwellings will have little chance of succeeding. Even places of Divine Worship, with all their hallowing influences, seem powerless to compete with the ginpalaces opposite.

It is well known that magistrates refuse all licenses to houses in respectable squares and terraces, or adjoining gentlemen's demesnes; thus prohibiting the traffic in these localities. Why send it next door to the poorer man? Ought not the interests and wishes of the humbler classes to be considered just as well as of the dwellers in the squares and terraces? This is what the Permissive Bill proposes-that the inhabitants of any district shall vote on the question, and that the magistrates shall have no power to grant licenses where two-thirds of the ratepayers vote against having such houses in their locality.

If you think this power ought to be placed in the hands of the ratepayers (we are of opinion that it should be), then see to it, that the candidates for your votes promise to vote in Parliament for this Permissive Bill. A number of electors are determined to make this a leading question at the next election. A few so determined may be able to turn the poll in any contested county or borough. It is of importance, therefore, to candidates also, to consider this question, and come to a clear decision upon it. Their seats may depend upon what side they are prepared to take. In conclusion, it appears to be the imperative duty of all electors to endeavor to return to Parliament, members who will themselves be free from the stain of the drink traffic, whose profits and income are not derived from, nor their wealth attained by, promoting the drunkenness and ruin of their fellow-countrymen, and who will go into the same lobby with Wilfred Lawson in support of the Permissive Prohibitory Liquor Bill. Having now laid this plain statement before you-the Electors of Irelandwe invite those who are favorable to our views, to withhold their votes from all candidates who refuse to support Mr. Lawson's motion for the Permissive Bill referred to; and to give their suffrages only to parties who pledge themselves to support that healing measure in the House of Commons.

Issued by the Dublin Branch of the United Kingdom Alliance for Suppression of the Liquor Traffic. Office-12, Eustace Street, June, 1865.

Form of Question to be put to Candidates: Would you, if returned to Parliament, vote for a Permissive Act, giving a majority of two-thirds of the ratepayers power to prohibit the public sale of intoxicating liquors within their parish or district ?"

Mr. Edward O'Neill, member for County Antrim, who voted with Mr. Lawson last year, has been returned again without opposition, and his colleague, Admiral Seymour, has been written to by the League on the Permissive Bill question, and it is expected his reply will be favorable. The movement in Ireland has gained considerable strength in the return for Drogheda, Mr. Benjamin Whitworth, of Manchester, who is officially connected with the United King. dom Alliance, and who subscribes to its funds the munificent sum of £600 per annum. The grand blow which our cause has received by the defeat, for the present, of our champion, Mr. Lawson, by a small majority, at Carlisle, is a subject of universal regret. But the numerous and important acquisitions elsewhere, especially the return, at the top of the poll, of Mr. Bazley, Manchester, who seconded

Mr. Lawson's motion, are on the other hand full of encouragement. We shall be able to speak more definitely of our strength in the ensuing Parliament in

our next.

Mr. Haughton and Mr. Guinness.

THE candidates for the "sweet voices" of the electors of the Irish metropolis have been issuing circulars inviting the support of those to whom these circulars have been sent. Benjamin Lee Guinness, or his agent, sent one of these to our friend, James Haughton, Esq., J.P. The result was the following very important correspondence, which appears in last Saturday's Dublin Evening Post. Mr. Haughton, in reply to the invitation to vote for Mr. Guinness, addressed that gentleman thus :

"35, Eccles street, Dublin, 23rd June, 1865. Sir, I am favored with your circular letter of 12th inst., informing me that you intend to become a candidate for the representation of Dublin, at the ensuing election for members of Parliament, and requesting me to favor you with my support on that

occasion.

This application from you releases me, in my reply, from the imputation of what might otherwise appear an unwarrantable allusion to some of your private affairs, which seem to me to render you an unfit depository of that trust you seek at the hands of your fellow-citizens.

Your duties as a legislator would place you in such antagonism with your occupation as a trader, that I can conceive of no two circumstances in life more opposite in their nature, and therefore less suited to be placed in connection with each other. Your business as a brewer, and your duties as a senator, could no more be made to harmonise together than fire and gunpowder. In your higher occupation, as a member of the legislature, you would be called on to use every means in your power to counteract your lower occupation as a brewer. The one would demand every effort of your mind and your body to improve the condition and increase the happiness of your countrymen; the other calls on you day by day, and continually, to employ all your faculties in keeping them poor, and miserable, and demoralised; for they must be so, just in proportion to the extent of the business operations in which you are engaged. The crime of our country has always been in proportion to the alcoholic drink used by the people; the poverty of our country has its source and its continuance from the same bitter fountain; the insanity which afflicts so many is also, to a certain extent, its fearful product. But for strong drinks our gaols would be nearly empty, our poorhouses would be almost tenantless, and our lunatic asylums would not number much over one-half their present inmates. If these be facts-and no man of intelligence doubts that they are, for they are attested on the most indisputable authority-is it not true that the occupation of a brewer is wholly incompatible with that of a states. man ?

You may, perhaps, consider that my opinions on this question have their origin in an over-wrought zeal, or in a somewhat disordered imagination, and that, therefore, they are not entitled to your serious consideration, and should have no weight either in influencing you to relinquish a business productive of such sad results, and offering no compensating good for all the misery it is the fruitful parent of, or in inducing you to retire from a career of honorable am

MR. HAUGHTON AND MR. GUINNESS.

bition, which so incompatible a trade must render wholly barren of usefulness either to yourself or your country. But you may, perhaps, see more truth, and power, and value in the opinions of a gentleman who is also a brewer, and who, in a moment when his nobler nature got the better of his selfish interests, gave utterance to burning words of condemnation of the liquor traffic, and such as no "fanatical teetotaller" could excel in power or in force of logic against that traffic.

Charles Buxton, of London, is the gentleman I refer to, and quote from an essay of his, published in the North British Review, February, 1855:

Nay, add together all the miseries generated in our times by war, famine, and pestilence,-the three great scourges of mankind-and they do not exceed those that spring from this one calamity-our national drunkenness.

It would not be too much to say, that there are at this moment half a million of homes in the United Kingdom where home happiness is never felt, owing to this cause alone.

The struggle of the school, and the library, and the Church, all united against the beerhouse and the gin palace, is but one development of the war between heaven and hell.

Looking, then, at the manifold and frightful evils which spring from drunkenness, we think we are justified in saying that it is the most dreadful of all the ills that affect the British isles.

The imagination shrinks from following the evil to all its results; but no one can have visited the poor in great cities without being profoundly conscious of the desolation caused by female drunkenness. Why not punish the man who supplies the means of such ruin?

At present the beer-shops are the very hot-beds of vice and crime.

While proposing various legislative restrictions on the sale of intoxicating liquors, we must not pass over the idea that is making way of late in some quarters, that the simplest way of dealing with the subject would be to pass a Maine law' forbidding the sale of them altogether. Undoubtedly it would be a happy thing for our country if such a law were sought for by the people themselves, and enforced with their full concurrence. Experience has shown that a Maine law sustained by public opinion is by no means so absurd a piece of legislation as it looks at first sight.

The chief objection to such a law is that it would be greatly evaded. But the use of it would be, not so much to deprive drunkards of their liquor as to remove temptation from those who have not yet fallen."

These are, indeed, burning words, penned by a brewer in condemnation of his own trade. I would not willingly utter a word that might wound or offend you, but believing, as I do, that the traffic in intoxicating liquors must be entirely abandoned before any other means for improvement of our country and its inhabitants can be attended with any good results, I should be wanting in the performance of my duty if I failed to avail myself of the opportunity you have afforded me of thus expressing to you some of the reasons which cause me to believe you are unfitted to be a member of parliament.

The accompanying address, to the electors and nonelectors of Ireland will show you that the liquor traffic will be made a test question by many influential parties in the coming struggle, for the United Kingdom Alliance for the Suppression of the Liquor Traffic has numerous branches all over Great Britain and Ireland. I remain, Sir, respectfully yours, JAMES HAUGHTON.

Benjamin Lee Guinness, Esq.

In reply to this very plain and pointed communication, the head beerseller of all Ireland sent the following, which displays an amount of gentlemanly bearing, intelligent appreciation of great public questions, and a desire to thoroughly understand all the topics of the day, such as could only be found amongst the beersellers everywhere. Indeed, I only question myself if our head beerseller is not rather a little behind his humbler brethren in England who memorialised the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Here, however, is Mr. Guinness's letter:

121

"Stephen's-green, 24th June, 1865.

SIR-I have a long letter signed by you, and having read the first page, put the letter and its inclosure aside, and did not read another line. Such has been my habit for many years with anything written by you, or reported as spoken by you. I return herewith the letter alluded to, and as I have no respect for, and take no interest whatever in, your vagaries, I beg to decline any further communication from youYours, &c. B. L. GUINNESS.

Mr. James Haughton.”

To this the Evening Post simply adds the following note of Mr. Haughton's, by way of comment :

"N.B. Mr. Guinness did not read my 'vagaries.' It is a pity he did not read the 'vagaries' of his brother brewer. It might have proved a useful lesson to him for the remainder of his life. JAMES HAUGHTON." Your readers will observe a few points in this correspondence worthy of particular notice.

First-Mr. Guinness has yet, evidently, some conscience left which the traffic has not altogether destroyed. When he read Mr. Haughton's letter down,

will presume, to the words, "Your duties as a legis. lator would place you in such antagonism with your occupation as a trader," his conscience stirred within him, and a debate took place, which ended in the following :-"Don't read Haughton's letter through. From past experience you know that he will expose the traffic as the cause of crime and the fruitful source of misery." "What am I to do, then ?"

Why, close up that letter of his, and return it to him. You know if you read further in it you will be sure to meet with something wholly unanswerable. The traffic can't be defended, and the better way for any one engaged in it to do is never to read a word against it." This prevailed. Conscience was overcome, and the letter was duly returned.

Second-Mr. Guinness did not know when he said, "Your vagaries," that the letter of Mr. Haughton really contained little of his writings, but was chiefly composed of the writings of Mr. Charles Buxton, the brewer; and now, when it is published, Mr. Guinness only displays his own ignorance, and, as usual, it all exposes the want of the shallow-minded and ill-read. A man should never condemn a production which he has not read. What will Mr. Buxton, "Brother Buxton," in the bonds of the "traffic," say to Mr. Guinness styling his writings "vagaries ?"

Thirdly-Is not the man who refuses to read upon and consider a public question affecting the social and moral habits of the whole community very ill fitted to be a legislator?

Fourthly-Note the petty narrow-mindedness displayed in the mode in which Mr. Guinness concludes his letter and addresses it. Mr. Haughton concludes with "respectfully yours," and addresses it to "Benjamin Lee Guinness, Esq." Mr. Guinness, on the other hand, ends with " yours, &c.," and addresses to "Mr. Jas. Haughton." Was this designedly done, to be, if possible, wounding to Mr. Haughton? If so, I know that it could not produce this result, but the ill animus would not be the less.

Fifthly-Would Mr. Benjamin Lee Guinness read the whole of Mr. Buxton's essay, if presented to him without Mr. Haughton's "vagaries ?"

Sixthly-If Mr. Haughton's views on liquor and the liquor traffic be "vagaries," what are the strong teetotal views and practices of the Rev. W. C. Plunkett, Treasurer of St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin, chaplain to the Bishop of Ireland, and husband of Mr. Benjamin Lee Guinness's daughter, of whose father's brewing he would not taste, and the drinking of which he publicly condemns and lectures and preaches against ?

122

DR. MURPHY AND THE BIBLE WINE QUESTION.

Seventhly-Will Mr. B. L. Guinness refuse, as a legislator (if returned to Parliament), to read upon any subject, or receive enlightenment on any question which does not please him, or which might touch his conscience or his pocket?

Eighthly-If Mr. Head Beerseller Guinness "declines any further communication" from Mr. Haughton, why did the head beerseller invite the correspondence by addressing his circular to one of our oldest electors requesting his vote? Mr. Guinness began the correspondence, but having met more than his match," he desires to slink out of the conflict which he himself challenged. I never knew a fellow who was a great braggadocia when full of porter, and who could then " 'fight any two men of his own weight," who did not always slink into a corner when fairly, and bravely, and manfully met. I suppose the same applies to portersellers. I will offer no comment on the bad English of Mr. Guinness's letter. This will be self-evident to the reader. -Dublin Cor. of the Alliance News.

Dr. Murphy and the Bible Wine
Question.

By JOHN PYPER.

JOHN STUART MILL says, "It is only by virtue of the opposition which it has surmounted, that any Truth can stand in the human mind." According to this, Total Abstinence Truth is obviously designed to become stable and permanent. It has been strenuously opposed by the learned and the pious, as well as by the ignorant and the wicked. Not strange the latter, but passing strange the former, when one thinks of the nature and extent of the social and moral evils which total abstinence is designed and perfectly adapted to prevent and cure. As certainly as there is a conflict progressing upon earth between truth and error, between good and evil, between light and darkness, between heaven and hell, so certainly is total abstinence from the use of intoxicating beverages upon the right side, and the practice of drinking them either in moderation or excess upon the wrong side. Total abstinence is right, and the use of intoxicants as beverages is wrong, if any truth has ever been discovered and confirmed in Experience or the Providence of God, and in Nature or the Works of God. The temperance literature of the day contains a mass of evidence confirmatory of this established truth that can never be refuted.

Every toxicologist now admits that alcohol is a poison, and, as such, it is invariably injurious to man in a healthy state. In the language of Professor Miller, M.D., "Alcohol is a poison; in chemistry and physi ology this is its proper place. It kills in large doses, and half kills in smaller ones. It produces insanity, delirium, fits. It poisons the blood and wastes the man. The brain suffers most injury, both in structure and function; but there is no vital organ in the body in which there is not induced sooner or later more or less disorder and disease." Liquids containing this poison are properly styled intoxicating, that is, poisonous (Greek, towikon; Latin, toxicum, poison). Chemists and physiologists have by the most careful and minute experiments demonstrated the effects of alcohol on plants, cold-blooded animals, and warm-blooded animals to be uniformly injurious, the difference between moderation and excess in its administration being only one of degree, not of nature.

The immediate sensible effects of alcohol upon the human system, in common with all poisons of its class, may be thus stated:-1. A small dose produces an illicit pleasurable sensation, hence drinkers

say they feel the better of it. 2. A larger one causes giddiness, or a tendency to stagger. No wholesome substance would do this. 3. A still larger quantity effects paralyzation, complete prostration [dead drunk state]. 4. And, finally, the imbibition of a quantity by no means large, results in death, as if caused by a shock of the nervous system. Dr. Michel Levy says, "The influence of alcohol upon the nervous system, and particularly upon the brain, is manifested by a progressive but constant series of symptoms, which, in different degrees of intensity, are reproduced in all individuals. These constitute a true poisoning [intoxication], and this morbid state is exhibited under three phases-1, SUREXCITATION, 2, PERTURBATION, 3, ABOLITION of the cerebro-spinal functions." On this testimony Dr. Lees remarks, "Pleasure secured by such methods may be more or less philosophical, or brutish, according to the degree of action; but surely, in a moral and Christian point of view, the sur-excitation is not less really illicit because it is more refined and more seductive."

The habitual use of intoxicants has a progressive tendency, varying in its intensity in different constitutions, to produce a diseased, abnormal, everincreasing appetite for larger quantities-an appetite which grows by what it feeds upon," till at last, like the horseleech's daughters, it cries "give, give," and is never quite satisfied. This is the true philosophy of drunkenness and its cause, for nobody ever intends or wishes to be a drunkard at first. It is therefore unnatural, unphilosophical, wrong, and consequently sinful to encourage or countenance by precept or example a popular custom so necessarily prolific of human misery for time and eternity as the drinking custom has proved itself to be.

Surely, in the face of all this, to attempt unneces sarily to make it appear that such a custom has the sanction and patronage of the Word of God and the Saviour of men, is dangerous, daring, and presumptuous in the highest degree. Nay, more, I cannot help believing such teaching to be wicked and blasphemous, because it is either an ignorant or a wilful perversion of that Holy Book which never sanctions evil or its cause.

God has, in justice, tempered with much mercy and long-suffering, permitted the Church in these lands for centuries past to suffer most signally and grievously for the dishonor which in this matter she has done to His most Holy Word. What member of the Church has escaped, in all its forms, the chastisement of the drink-scourge? Not one. Many enquiring men at home were, for a time, being driven to infidelity, because of the false teaching of the church on this subject, and as our missionary records attest, the name of Christ has been blasphemed among the heathen from the same cause. Men, therefore, like Stuart, Nott, Lees, Miller, and Ritchie, who have sought and found a perfect harmony between Natural Science, Sociology, and Scripture on this subject, as Chalmers and others formerly did between Astronomy, Geology, and Scripture, are amongst the greatest reformers of the age, and will assuredly receive the gratitude of the church in future times, whether this generation accords them their due or not. They have done their work of harmonizing so faithfully and well, that no Sabbathschool teacher who reads one of their books can fail to perceive that they are right, and but for the prejudices, appetites, and selfishness of the drinkers and vendors of intoxicants, their views, from their nature and utility, would be promulgated and received with a rapidity hitherto unexam; ed in the progress of truth. And until the church gets free of the weight of misrepresenting the teaching of the Bible on this important subject, she can never in the full sense rise to her proper altitude and appear as she ought to do,

DR. MURPHY AND THE BIBLE WINE QUESTION.

in the view of a dark, sinful, world "fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners."

The foregoing remarks are intended specially to apply to an article in the Evangelical Witness of June, given below, from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Murphy, an eminent Belfast professor, for whom, as a scholar, a Christian, and a friend, I entertain the highest respect and esteem. I would, therefore, as a matter of feeling, desire, if I could, to speak in softer tones; but honesty and loyalty to what I most firmly believe to be truth of vast practical importance constrain me to speak as I do. I am quite sure if Dr. Murphy had exercised his usual prudence and cantion, he would not, in the present state of society, have allowed such an article to appear publicly in his name. Not to begin any lower, there is not a publican, wineseller, drunkard, or person on the road to drunkenness, who saw it, but was delighted with it, while many of the most earnest Christians who read it were grieved at its appearance, especially those who knew its falsity, having read sounder doctrine on the subject from scholars equally eminent, who had given the subject a fuller investigation.

I had intended to write a lengthened critique of Dr. Murphy's paper, but having got possession of two replies from abler pens than mine, this is now superfluous. One of these addressed to the Editor of the Witness, by Dr. Lees, but which was refused insertion, appears in another page; the other, from the Scottish League Journal, will appear in our next issue. In common with many other readers of the Evangelical Witness, I very much regret that the respected Editor refuses to allow any rejoinder to Dr. Murphy's article to appear in that excellent periodical, as, for obvious reasons, it cannot be so useful else. where. The Editor's apology is that, to avoid protracted controversies, he has for some time as a rule refused to admit rejoinders to any of his contributors. As that rule was not made for us, we have not much reason to complain, although I think it was somewhat unfortunate when the rule existed, that a onesided article on a subject so much controverted should have been permitted to appear at all; and when it did appear, I do not think the columns of the Witness could have been better occupied than in contributing towards the settlement of a question of such moment. I feel satisfied, however, that our friend, the Editor, who is himself a total abstainer, will, with his usual courtesy and fairness, admit an independent article on the subject if requested, and probably something of that kind on our side may appear before the end of the year.

This is not a question that should be pusil lanimously shelved. The temperance cause is growing into favor and power in the Church every day; and if Dr. Murphy's teaching in the paper under review be correct, then nearly all the teaching of the temperance society is erroneous, and should be openly and fearlessly denounced as heretical and dangerous. And this temperance heresy will be found to be supported by evidence so strong and conclusive, that Dr. Murphy will not dispose of it with the same ease and success that he demolished the haughty cavils of Bishop Colenzo. But if, on the other hand, Dr. Murphy's doctrine on this subject should be wrong (and I am sure he has Christian humility enough to admit that by possibility it may be), if, as all total abstainers who have fully examined the subject believe, the Bible, as well as science and experience, condemns the use of intoxicating drink even in moderation, oh! surely there is drink-produced misery enough forcing itself upon our attention from almost every quarter to convince us that the Church should give no uncertain sound in the

123

proclamation of a doctrine so vitally important in its application to the present state of society.

I sometimes meet even total abstainers, intelligent on other subjects, who consider our view on the Bible Wine Question untenable, and who seem strangely reluctant to examine the subject at all. Yet these very persons will often tell you in the next breath, in the language of Dr. Guthrie, that their "heads are clearer and their health better" in the practice of total abstinence than formerly when using wine, though in strict moderation. They thus irreverently, although unconsciously till it is pointed out to them, set their own experience in direct antagonism to what they believe to be Scripture truth. If I ask such a person, "Did you read Professor Stuart's Letters on the Bible Wine Question ?" I invariably receive the answer, "No." "Did you read Professor Nott's Lectures on Biblical Temperance ?" "No." "Or the second volume of Dr. Lees's Works ?" "No." "Or Professor Miller's Nephalism?" "No." And so on with all the rest. They have the conviction they know all about wine, although they have read nothing on the subject, and have never seen either vineyard or vintage in their lives. They rest complacently satisfied to allow all Bible sanctions of the "fruit of the vine" in any state, to be irreverently applied to the liquor sold in the neighboring whiskey shop or wine store under the name of wine, though it should be compounded, as it generally is, of logwood water, brandy, elderberry juice, alum, sugar of lead, and other substances, with perhaps a little admixture of the juice of the grape, and probably none. It would just be as logically correct to apply Bible sanctions to the use of corn to the products of the distillery. It is this total ignorance of the subject which will give Dr. Murphy's plausible classification of texts and loose illogical inferences therefrom a general acceptance which they could not for a moment receive from any one who had read intelligently any one of the books I have named. I am quite sure that Dr. Murphy himself has seen very little of these works. If he had read them, he is too clever and candid to have ignored or despised the elaborate, clear, and conclusive arguments by which the learned authors establish that the Bible is literally and strictly a Total Abstinence Book, often condemning-never commending-wine in an intoxicating state, and frequently commending- never condemning-it in an unintoxicating state. Several articles elucidating this doctrine, some of them extracted from the works referred to, have lately appeared in our columns, and can be reverted to by the reader.

Dr. Murphy's explanation of tirosh as a liquor, instead of grapes, in the solid form, is obviously a mistake, as demonstrated by Dr. Lees and the Editor of the Scottish League Journal. His definitions of the other Hebrew and Greek terms are quite harmonious with the total abstinence doctrine, but several of his inferences, from the use made of these terms in certain texts, are absurd non-sequiturs. As this will be clearly shown in the subsequent replies, I need not occupy space with their exposition here.

I would earnestly entreat all lovers of Bible truth to read, at least, the sixpenny book published by the Scottish Temperance League, entitled, "Scripture Testimony against Intoxicating Wine," by the Rev. Wm. Ritchie. It may be had at our office or through any bookseller. It is quite sufficient to convince any intelligent reader of the dangerous nature of Dr. Murphy's error, which, alas, has long and extensively prevailed, and has done more to retard the progress of Christ's kingdom upon earth than almost any other error that could be named. If the reader can follow up the perusal of Mr. Ritchie's valuable little book, by reading any of the larger works mentioned

124

DR. MURPHY AND THE BIBLE WINE QUESTION.

above, he will feel still more astonished that any one in Dr. Murphy's position could write so blindly as he has done.

Dr. Murphy deservedly enjoys the gratitude of the Christian community for the zeal and ability which he displayed in the refutation of Bishop Colenzo's attack on the Pentateuch; and if he will give but half the time and attention to the perusal of the Biblical temperance books I have mentioned, I feel assured he will, as a lover of truth, rejoice in the discovery of another, and to him a new internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible. I think in all fairness he is bound to make that investigation now, which he ought to have done before he wrote on the subject at all. If he does he will find that while modern chemistry and physiology completely overturn the false interpretation of Scripture which he has in this case adopted, they perfectly harmonize with the Bible itself, as true science must always do.

I confess, for my part, that I love my Bible all the more that it gives no sanction whatever to a practice which I have all my life observed to be a public source of ruin, lamentation, and woe. To use Dr. Murphy's own words in a truer sense, "This is what was to be reasonably expected in a book of heavenly wisdom." At the close of a lucid and cogent lecture upon this subject, delivered about three years ago by Dr. Lees, in Linen Hall Street Presbyterian Church, Belfast, the Rev. Dr. Morgan, one of the wisest and best of living men, gave utterance to a sentiment which I earnestly commend to the thoughtful, "dispassionate" attention of Dr. Murphy and all Christian readers. He said, "The lecture just delivered has deepened in my mind the conviction I have long entertained, namely, that a holy and righteous God cannot have sanctioned in His Word the use of an agent whose tendency is to ruin His creatures." If intoxicating drink has no such tendency, tell me what has.

DR. MURPHY'S PAPER.

There are eight words translated wine in the Old Testament. The first of these terms, 'asis (juice of fruit in general), denotes radically that which is trodden out, and, therefore, the juice which flows out from treading the fruit. It is applied to the liquor expressed from the fruit of the pomegranate as well as the vine. (Song viii. 2.) Sobe (sweet drink) is cognate with a verb signifying to suck or swill, and denotes any pleasant or exhilarating beverage especially the boiled or inspissated juice of the grape. Tirosh (must) contains the root rash (to crush, bruise), and, therefore, denotes primarily the juice of the grape, which is given forth when it is in any way crushed or bruised. In one case it is put by a poetic figure for this juice while yet in the cluster of grapes -(Isaiah Ixv. 8). But properly it is a liquor (Isaiah lxii. 8), and, like oil, is described as being in the vat or coop after flowing from the press-(Prov. iii. 10, Joel ii. 24). It is the raw produce of the vine when its grapes have undergone the simple process of treading. Hence it is often coupled with corn, another material from the threshing floor, out of which human food is prepared by art. Yayin (wine) comes from vin, a lapsed root, which appears to have meant to bow, bind, squeeze, and refers either to the climbing propensity of the plant or to the use of pressure in the extraction of the wine. It is used to denote all stages of the juice of the grape, but particularly wine in its maturity, after it has gone through the ordinary process of art as well as nature. It is thus distinguished from tirosh, and accordingly associated with bread, the manufactured product of corn, in the well-known phrase, bread and wine, except in one case, where it is conjoined with corn(Sam. ii. 12). Shemer is pure, or red, or fermented wine. In the latter case it is the only term that ex

pressly refers to fermentation as a process in the formation of wine. Shemarim (lees, or wine on the lees), denotes wine that has been long kept, and is applied to the lees, or dregs which are deposited by it. Wine kept on the lees is said to retain its bo ly and color, and, therefore, when refined, is of superior quality. Mimsak (mixed wine), as well as the cognate words mesek and mezeg, is used to denote mixed wine, either diluted with water or deriving additional strength or flavor from the infusion of spices or such drugs as myrrh, mandragora, nux vomica, and the opiates. Shekar (strong drink), from shaker to cloy or satisfy with drinking, probably denotes originally a sweet syrup or saccharine beverage. The name is preserved in the Greek sachar, and in our word sugar. It was obtained chiefly from the date in the form of a thick luscious syrup, which is sometimes called date honey. The juice of the palm tree itself is also procured by making an incision in the top of the tree, from which flows, during the night, a sweet liquor that is very pleasant to the taste. This is the fresh palm wine. When it has gone through a pro. cess of fermentation it becomes the intoxicating shekar, the three forms of which correspond to the sobe, tirosh, and yayin derived from the vine. Besides these words we find ashishah, rendered "flagon of wine" (2 Sam. vi. 19, 1 Ch. xvi. 3), in which the words, "of wine," however, are put in italics, as not belonging to the original. This term evidently means grape or raisin cake, as we learn from the phrase ashishe 'anabim, cakes of grapes, which is rendered "flagons of wine," and gives the appearance of 'anabim grapes, having the meaning of wine. The term chomez, rendered "vinegar," and in the Septuagint and New Testament means oxos a sour wine.

The line of duty with regard to the use of these various beverages is laid down with sufficient clearness in Scripture. 'Asis, the juice trodden out, is found in five passages. It is described as a good in three places (Joel i. 5, lii. 18, Am. ix. 13), and as exciting or intoxicating in one (Isaiah xlix. 26). In the fifth passage (Song viii. 2) it denotes the juice of the pomegranate, and is counted a good. Hence we learn that that which intoxicates when taken to excess is called a good when used with moderation.

Sobe (sweet drink or syrup of wine) occurs only twice, once as a good (Isaiah i. 22), and once as an occasion of drunkenness or excess (Hos. iv. 18).

*

Tirosh (must) occurs thirty-eight times. It is rendered "sweet wine" once (Micah vi. 15), new wine" eleven times (Ne. x. 39, xiii. 5, 12, Prov. iii. 10, Isaiah xxiv. 7, lxv. 8. Hosea, iv. 11, ix. 2, Joel i. 10, Hag. i. 11, Ezek. ix. 17), and simply wine twenty-six times-(Gen. xxvii. 28, 36, Num. xviii. 12, Deut. vii. 13, xi. 14, xii. 17, xiv. 23, xviii. 4, xxviii. 51, xxxiii. 28, Judges, ix. 13, 2 Kings xviii. 32, 2 Chron. xxxi. 5, xxxii. 28, Neh. v. 11, x. 37, Psalm iv. 7, Isaiah xxxvi. 17, lxii. 8, Jer. xxxi. 12, Hos. ii. 10, 11, 24, vii. 14, Joel ii. 19, 24). It is found twenty-four times in a triad with corn and oil, ten times in a duad with corn, and only four times alone. It is counted a good or a blessing in thirty-six passages, its abuse is denounced in one passage (Hos. iv. 11), and it is described as exhilirating in another-(Judges ix. 13). If it be held that the three preceding terms always denote unfermented wine, yet it is plain that they cause excitement or intoxication when taken to excess, and that their abuse has to be condemned.

Yayin (wine) occurs 141 times, and is the most important word of all. Its intoxicating quality is indicated in seventeen places-(Gen. ix. 21, 24, xix. 4 times, Deut. xxxii. 33, 1 Sam. xxv. 37, 2 Sam. xiii. 28, Esther i. 10, Psalms lx. 5, lxxviii. 65, Isaiah xxix. 9, li. 21, Jer. xxiii. 9, li. 7, Zec. ix. 15). Its exhilarating power is noticed in three passages-(Gen. xxvii.

« PreviousContinue »