122

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 РYPER.

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 physiology 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, toxikon; 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 symp toms, 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 philo sophy 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 presump. tuous in the highest degree. Nay, more, I cannot help believing such teaching to be wicked and blas phemous, 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 mest 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,

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 pusillanimously shelved. The temperance cause is grow. ing 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.

66

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

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 lxv. 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 par. ticularly 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 body 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 process 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 clear. ness 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.

25, Eccles. x. 19, Zec. x. 7). It is forbidden to priests when officiating in two passages-(Lev. x. 9, Eze. xliv. 21). It is forbidden with shekar, and every part of the vine, to the Nazarite, in eight places-(Num. vi. 3, 3, 4, Judg. xiii. 4, 7, 14, 14, Am. ii. 12). In the record of the Rechabites, who abstained from building houses, sowing seed, planting or having vines, and drinking wine, it is mentioned seven times(Jer. xxxv.) Abstinence from pleasant bread, flesh, and wine, is mentioned four times in the history of Daniel-(Daniel i. 5, 8, 16, x. 3.) It figures as a curse on four occasions-(Jer. xiii. 12, 12, xxv. 15, Ps. lxxv. 9). Abuse, or excess, or unreasonableness in the use of it, is condemned in twenty-five places-(1 Samuel i. 14, 15, Prov. ix. 2,5, xx. 1, xxiii. 20, 30, 31, xxxi. 4, Eccles. ii. 3, Isaiah v. 11, 12, 22, xxii. 13, xxviii. 1, 7, 7, lvi. 12, Hos. iv. 11, vii. 5, Joel iv. 3, Amos ii. 8, vi. 5, Micah. ii. 11, Hab. ii. 5). On the other hand, it is mentioned with indifference, that is, without approval or disapproval, in thirty-two passages-(Gen. xlix. 11, 12, Joshua ix. 4, 13, Judges xix. 19, 1 Sam. x. 3, 2 Sam. xvi. 1, 2, 1 Chron. ix. 29, xii. 40, xxvii. 27, Neh. ii. 1, 1, v. 15, xiii. 15, Esther i. 7, v. 6, vii. 2, 7, 8, Job xxxii. 19, Psalm iv. 17, xxi. 17, Ezra xxvii. 18, Am. v. 11, Zep. i. 13, Hag. ii. 12). It is prescribed as a drink-offering in eight places(Exodus xxix. 40, Lev. xxiii. 13, Num. xv. 5, 7, 10, xxviii. 14, Deut, xxxii. 38, Hos. ix. 4). Its use, by the upright, is stated or implied in eighteen places(Gen. xiv. 18, Deut. xxix. 6, 1 Sam. i. 24, xvi. 20, xxv. 18, Neh. v. 18, Job i. 13, 18, Prov. xiii. 6, Eccles. ix. 7, Song i. 2, 4, ii. 4, iv. 10, v. 1, vii. 9, viii. 2, Jer. xl. 10, 12). It is described as a good or blessing in eleven places-(Deut. xxviii. 39, Psalm civ. 15, Isaiah xvi. 10, xxiv. 9, 11, lv. 1, Jer. xlviii. 33, Lam. ii. 12, Hos. xiv. 7, Am. ix. 14, Micah vi. 15). It is permitted in two remarkable passages, in the latter of which it is coupled with shekar-(Numb. vi. 20, Deut. xiv. 28). In several of these places, where the abuse of it is condemned, that of flesh or oil is condemned at the same time. This shows that the disapproval arises not from its exciting power, but from its being partaken of to excess. In a few instances it is said to be gathered, just as the tirosh is once said to be in the cluster. All the passages in which the word yayin occurs are given in the quotations, and it is easy for the reader to test the arrangement which is here given of them. Some few passages might be differently placed, but with no notable effect on the general result. It will be obvious to the dispassionate mind that the fruit of the vine is approved in some passages and condemned in others, not because there are two kinds of wine, good and bad, or unintoxicating and intoxicating, but because it is used sometimes with moderation and at other times to excess. Excess in the drinking of wine is more frequently condemned than excess in the use of flesh or oil, simply because the former is intoxicating.

Shemer (red, or pure, or fermented wine) occurs eight times, in two of which it is counted a blessing (Deut. xxxii. 14, Isaiah xxvii. 2), and in the remaining six it is mentioned without any mark of approval or disapproval-(Ezra vi. 9, vii. 22, Daniel v. 1, 2, 4, 23). Shemarim (lees or wine on the lees) is found in five passages. In one it ranks as a curse (Psalm lxxv. 9), in another as a metaphor for evil (Zep. i. 12), in one it is indifferent (Jer. xlviii. 11), and in the remaining two it is counted a blessing-(Isaiah xxv. 6).

Mimsak (mixed wine) meets us in two places. In the one its abuse is condemned (Prov. xxiii. 30), in the other it is a drink-offering- (Isaiah lxv. 11).

Shekar is mentioned twenty-three times, in twenty of which it is conjoined with yayin. It is rendered strong wine" in one passage (Num. xxviii. 7),

66

125

simply because it is used to denote the drink-offering which, in all other places, is prescribed to be of wine. Its intoxicating quality is noticed in two places(1 Sam. i. 15, Is. xxix. 9). It is forbidden to priests when officiating in one- -(Lev. x. 9). In five passages it is forbidden to the Nazarite-[Num. vi. 3, 3, Judges xiii. 4, 7, 14). Its abuse is condemned in nine places -(Psalm lxix. 13, Prov. xx. 1, xxxi. 4. Isaiah v. 11, 22, xxviii. 7, 7, lvi. 12, Micah ii. 11. Its use is recorded in three passages-(Deut. xxix. 6, Prov. xxxi. 6, Isaiah xxiv. 9). It is proverbially recommended for the perishing and heavy-hearted, on account of its restorative property. Its use is permitted in one passage-(Deut. xiv. 26).

The above review of the texts in which these terms for wine occur will show that no wine of Scripture is absolutely prohibited, that yayin and shekar are expressly permitted; and that excess or abuse of all kinds of food as well as drink, among which tirosh is expressly included, is repeatedly and strongly condemned. The prohibition of wine to the priest when about to officiate implies the allowed use of it on other occasions. Grapes, tirosh, and every other product of the vine, as well as yayin, were forbidden to the Nazarite during the period of his vow, which was one, two, or three months, and yayin he is expressly allowed to drink after its completion. The Rechabites abstained from building houses, sowing corn, planting vines, and Daniel from eating pleasant bread and flesh, as well as from drinking wine. No one has ever supposed that the former acts are intrin sically wrong; and no one, therefore, can legitimately infer from these cases that the latter is culpable. In all these instances the abstinence was expedient, votive, religious, or symbolical, but in no case was it on the principle that there was anything inherently sinful in the partaking of wine. The use of all sorts of drink mentioned in the Old Testament is allowed either by example of the worthy or by express permission. The drink-offering consisted, with a single apparent exception of yayin in general and not of tirosh in particular, and that exception was in favor of shekar, and not of tirosh. The latter, indeed, could not be had at all seasons without an artificial expedient, and particularly at the Passover, when the wine was at least half a year old.

In the New Testament we have two words rendered wine-gleukos and oinos. The former of these is employed only once- -[Acts ii. 13.] It denotes a sweet wine, said to be the same as must, or the tirosh of the Hebrews. It is remarkable that in the only instance in which it occurs an intoxicating quality is ascribed to it.

Oinos occurs thirty-four times in the New Testament. In eight cases it is distinguished by the epithet neos, new-[Matt. ix. 17, 17, Mark ii. 22, 22, 22, Luke v. 37, 37, 38.] The abstinence of the Nazarite from it is noted twice-[Luke i. 15, vii. 33.] Its abuse is forbidden in three passages-Eph. v. 18, 1 Tim. iii. 8, Titus ii. 3.] It is six times figurative of the curse pronounced upon the ungodly-[Rev. xiv. 8, 10, xvi. 19, xvii. 2, xviii. 3, xix. 15.] Abstinence from wine or flesh for a benevolent purpose is mentioned with approval in one passage-[Rom. xiv. 21.] Wine is mentioned with indifference in 13 passages, including all those in which neos, new, is attached[Matt. ix. 17, xxvii. 34, Mark ii. 22, xv. 23, Rev. xviii. 13.] The abuse is in every case in the way of excess, and, therefore, implies the allowed use. Its use by the upright is recorded in eight passages-[Luke x. 34, John, ii. 3, 3, 19, 10, 10, iv. 46, 1 Tim. v. 23]. It is described as a blessing in one place-[Rev. vi. 6]. It is to be added that sikera the Greek form of shekar, occurs once, as a drink from which the Nazarite was to abstain-[Luke i. 15]. Kekerasmenon akraton

126

is given as a description of the wine of the Divine wrath-Rev. xiv. 10]. It denotes wine of full strength, rendered more potent by the infusion of drugs. The oinos esmurmismenos [Mark xv. 23]," myrrhed wine," is the same as the oxos meta choles memigmenon (Matt. xxvii. 34], "vinegar mingled with gall." It is probable that the sour wine in question was mingled with various ingredients, among which were myrrh and chole, which is probably the equivalent of the Hebrew rosh, and, therefore, a vegetable substance, though difficult of identification. Oros occurs eight times, all in the account of the crucifixion, and means vinegar, in the sense of sour wine, its original meaning.

It is evident from these facts that the New Testament agrees with the Old in making no distinction of different sorts of drink into permitted and prohibited, in pronouncing every kind of wine a blessing in itself, in permitting the moderate use of all then known forms of drink, and in denouncing intemperance in eating as well as drinking. This is what was to be reasonably expected in a book of heavenly wisdom. At the same time it marks with approval the practice of abstaining from wine or flesh, or any other source of temptation to the weak-minded, in order to save such from pernicious habits. It does not touch upon the question of bad, adulterated, or poisoned wines. No one will partake of these if he can help it, apart from the consideration of any duty but regard to taste or health. If such existed in early times, at all events the Scripture does not perplex the conscience with minute distinctions. This is a useful lesson, if we will learn it. It was the custom of the ancients to drink wine mingled with water, in the proportion of one of wine, to one, two, or three of water. Some other interesting details might be added, but space does not permit. Meanwhile, with the key here afforded, the English reader may examine for himself all the texts in which wine occurs.

Dr. Murphy and the Bible Wine
Question.*

To the Editor of the Evangelical Witness, Dublin. I Do not desire to occupy your space, with any extended critical examination of Dr. Murphy's article on this subject, but a few passing notes in the interests of truth, seem called for. With much of what the learned Professor says, I am glad to concur: especially the concessions that AUSIS, SOBIE, and GLEUKOS, at any rate, denote unfermented-drinks; either fresh or inspissated musts. TIROSH is also significant of the same product in the Doctor's mind if not in mine: and in questioning the accuracy of his view, I do it without any reference to the Temperance doctrine. There is no evidence whatever that even in one text [Isa. lxv. 8.] the word is used poetically for juice in the cluster': and I think this fancy was satisfactorily disposed of in Tirosh lo Yayin, so far back as 1841. [See my Works, vol. ii.] Nor is there a single text which speaks of it as a fluid, or compares it with 'oil.' It is not even once associated with oil [shemen]- -a most significant fact-but with corn, fruit, and growing produce' continually. The Dr. has been deceived in his texts cited [Prov. iii. 10; Joel ii. 24] by neglecting to verify the translation. In Joel i. 10 it is said to be 'dried-up,' or rather, withered-a term not applicable to fresh-trod den out juice and the Yitzhar is said to languish' with the heat-which is equally inapplicable to 'oil.'

The following reply of Dr. Lees has been published as a halfpenny tract. Friends can do much to neutralize the pernicious results of Dr. Murphy's article, by sending copies to the readers of the Witness in their various localities.

Paretz and Shookt do not even involve liquidity as their essence; and should not be translated burstout and 'overflow.'-They signify 'to heap' or spread,-and to 'a-bound.' This makes all consistent, and sense besides; for it can be no blessing to burst one's vats and lose one's wine. A careful induction, with these hints, may satisfy Dr. Murphy's candid mind, that his definition will be amended thus:-' Tirosh denotes the raw produce of the vine before the grapes have undergone the process of treading." So says Micah [vi. 15:] "Thou shalt TREAD-tirosh, but shalt not drink yayin." This is as palpable as any pike. staff that ever fell upon mortal head. Why seek to stultify this plain text to suit the blind and erring authority of the past?

The conjectural etymology of ti-rosh from an alleged root rash, 'to crush,' I shall accept when I find any examples of it in the Bible. Let the texts be produced, and the process be explained: for I cannot find either. Coupled with 'corn,' a natural raw material, both being dew-fed in their season,I cannot separate them. They grow together, and must be classed together; and it would be as reasonable to make dagan mean flour [ground corn], as tirosh prepared juice. Moreover, the juice is plainly called yayin in contrast to the natural thing out of which it is trodden. As to the poetical fancy, that it was "yet in the cluster," there is no ground for it. If we can literally speak of flowers and fruits and grains being injured in the bud and the ear, why not of tirosh? The Septuagint and the Vulgate are certainly right here: for one translates 'berry' and the other 'granum.'

YAYIN is also derived conjecturally, from a lapsed root, which "appears to have meant," (!) etc. Now Renan has two other conjectural etymologies-which, with the rest, are just-worthless guesses. What the word includes must be gathered from its ap: lica. tion: in other words, by induction. Dr. Murphy says "it is used to denote ALL STAGES [of the prepara tion or change] of the juice of the grape: and accordingly is associated with bread" [another artificial preparation. As one comes from the corn, so the other from the vine-fruit. I interpolate the words within brackets, to avoid at once a falsity and an ambiguity; since otherwise the one process of producing 'grape juice' will get commingled with arti ficial changes inducing aldheyde, alcohol, and vinegar -of which Nature knows nothing in 'the juice of the grape.' Yayin, therefore, is generic. Asman' and 'wife' include all sorts of men and wives, so this includes all kinds of wine. Being applied to " 'grape. juice' before fermentation, it follows that that after. process is no essential part of the historic meaning of the word-though it may be applied to wine that has been fermented, and, in fact, is so applied in probably fifty texts. HIEMAR, indeed, might be fermented-wine, though it signifies simply 'foaming'which is the characteristic of all fruit-juices violently pressed out- and since 'fermentation' is also a 'foaming' process [or as the French say, bouillant, 'boiling'], it would be applied to fermenting rather than fermented wine,-but to make the latter occult, and at first unknown process, a part of its meaning, would be the same absurdity as to make boiled-milk into fermented-milk. In fact, the ancient Jews had a theory that the juices of fruits did not ‘ferment,” in *Job i. 10. "His substance is increased." Must we read -"His cattle and corn are spilled or flowed away"? 1 Chron. iv. 38. The house of their fathers increased." Shall we read-"The house flowed-out"?