yfmvfjtttiftr^ §rom ffle &i6rar£ of (profeBBor ^amuef (JttifTer in (Jttemorp of 3ubge ^amuef (gtiffer (grec&inribge $re&enfeb fit ^amuef (tttiffer QBrecftinribge feong fo f 0e fetfirarg of (princeton S^eofogicaf ^eminarg **//y?79 ■* AN EXAMINATION OF THE ESSAYS BACCHUS AND ANTI-BACCHUS. PUBLISHED ORIGINALLY IN THE PRINCETON REVIEW. BY JOHN MACLEAN, I-HOFESSOR IN the college of new jerset, PRINCETON: PRINTED BY JOHN BOGART. 1841. * » . i % * V* BACCHUS AND ANTI-BACCHUS. 1. Bacchus. An Essay on the Nature, Causes, Effects, and Cure of Intemperance. By Ralph Barnes Grindrod. First American, from the third English edition, edited by- Charles A. Lee, A. M., M. D. New York : J. & H. G. Langley. pp. 512. 2. Anti-Bacchus. Jin Essay on the Evils connected with the use of Intoxicating Drinks. By the Rev. B. Parsons, of Stroud, Gloucestershire, England. Revised and amend- ed, with an Introduction, by the Rev. John Marsh, Cor. Secretary of the American Temperance Union. New York : Scofield & Voorhees. pp. 360. These Essays owe their origin to an offer of one hundred sovereigns as a premium "for the best Essay on the Benefits of Total Abstinence from all Intoxicating Drinks." The premium was awarded to Mr. Grindrod, yet in the opinion of one of the three adjudicators Mr. Parsons was en- titled to that distinction. The comparative merit of the two Essays we shall not undertake to discuss, as our purpose is merely to examine some of the positions assumed, and to show that they are utterly untenable, being contrary to the word of God and the testimony of antiquity. So far as the object of these Essays is to promote temperance, we cordially opprove it ; and we only regret that in the prosecution of an object so important, and so benevolent, the authors have not confined themselves to arguments which will stand the most rigid scrutiny. With them we can rejoice in the triumphs of the temper- ance cause, in our own and other lands ; and according to our ability, we will cheerfully unite in efforts to give an in- creased impulse to this cause. The intelligence respecting the success of the Rev. T. Mathew, in Ireland, and of our much esteemed friend the Rev. Robt. Baird, on the conti- nent of Europe, gives us unfeigned pleasure. We could in- deed wish in the case of the Catholics in Ireland, there had been a total freedom from superstition, as well as total ab- stinence from intoxicating drinks : and we indulge the hope, that as the people become more temperate, they will also become less superstitious. But, while we make this declaration of our interest in the temperance cause, we must enter our protest against the perversion of scripture and of fact which is found in these and like publications. This perversion constitutes our chief objection to the Essays un- der review, and it is the only objection which could have induced us to notice them. Had those who favour the views they contain contented themselves with urging the expe- diency of total abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, they would have met with no opposition from us, although we might differ from them in opinion, on some points pertaining to the question of expediency itself. But when they invade the sanctuary of God, and teach for doctrine the command- ments of men ; when they wrest the scriptures, and make them speak a language at variance with the truth ; when they assume positions opposed to the precepts of Christ, and to the peace of his church ; when, in reference to wine, which the Saviour made the symbol of his shed blood, in the most sacred rite of his holy religion, they assert that it is a thing condemned of God and injurious to men, and use the language of the Judaizing teachers in the ancient church, « touch not, taste not, handle not,"* when Christ has commanded all his disciples to drink of it in remembrance of him, we cannot consent to let such sentiments pass with- out somewhat of the rebuke which they so richly deserve. That we are fully warranted in making these remarks, we expect to show to the satisfaction of all who do not first de- termine, what the Saviour ought to have done, and what the scripture must teach, and then seek to confirm their fan- cies by an examination of the sacred writings, and by an in- quiry into the conduct of the Redeemer. On such persons we expect to make no impression. They reverse all the rules that ought to guide us in our inquiries respecting duty, and pursue a course most directly at variance with that of the apostles, who always refer to the example of our Sa- viour, not as being in conformity to what is proper and right ; but as being in itself the standard of true excellence. Did Christ perform any act ? This is sufficient evidence that the act is right. We are not at liberty first to decide whether a thing is right or wrong, and then, in accordance with that decision, determine what Christ either did or did not do. And yet this mode of reasoning and judging, a mode to which all heretics invariably have recourse, is the very one employed by the writers of these Essays, and other distin- guished advocates of the total abstinence scheme. On what principle is it that the Universalist rejects the doctrine of fu- ture punishment ? He first decides that it is inconsistent with the goodness of God, and he then infers that the scrip- tures, which are from God, cannot teach any such doctrine, * By a strange misconception of the design of the sacred writer in em- ploying these expressions, " touch not," " taste not," " handle not," they are often quoted by advocates of the total abstinence scheme as if they were divine precepts. and that they are to be understood in a sense different from that usually put upon them. Thus with the Socinian, he decides that the doctrines of the incarnation and of the atone- ment are inconsistent with reason and justice, and he then infers that the scriptures cannot teach these doctrines. Thus too with the Encratites, Aquarians, and other here- tics in the second, third, and fifth centuries, who rejected the use of wine, in celebrating the Lord's Supper : the Aqua- rians, substituting water for wine and that too on the pre- text of temperance. They appear to have had no know- ledge of the wonderful discovery in our day, that our Sa- viour did not use wine, but merely the unfermented juice of the grape, mixed with water. Following in their steps, our Authors, and some of their worthy co-adjutors having as- certained, as they suppose, that the use of wine, called by them " fermented wine," is always injurious, that it is de- structive to the morals, and the lives of men, and that it is im- possible for God to approve a drink so vile and worthless, have satisfied themselves, that the Saviour never used it nor provided it for the use of others ; and that when the scriptures speak of his making and drinking wine, they must be understood as referring to the unfermented juice of the grape. That it may be seen, that we do not mis-represent their views, we quote the following passages — Bacchus, p. 364 ; « His (i. e. man's) tendency to estrangement from God would certainly notbe lessened by even moderate indulgence in strong drink: and it is inconsistent with Divine Goodness to suppose that he would institute festivals commemorative of his own glorious power and benevolence, which would offer any a kind of temptation to his fallible creatures to deviate from the paths of rectitude and sobriety." Again, p. 390: " Chemical and physiological knowledge, therefore, sufficiently demonstrates that the nature of fer- mented wines is such as to render them, as articles of diet, unwholesome and dangerous. The stronger the alcoholic properties which they possess, the less nutritious matter do they contain. In other words, they become stimulants, and not nutritives. In regard to the Scriptures therefore, reference must be made to wine possessing qualities dissimi- lar to those under consideration, and such as might be wor- thy op divine commendation. Again, p. 417 ; It CAN scarcely be sijpposed that this object (viz. the object of the Saviour's mission,) would be promoted by its great and di- vine Author, who was the holiest of men, partaking and sanc- tioning the use of intoxicating wine." " We may indeed rest assured, that so holy a being as the son of God would not partake of any thing improper in itself, or calculated to lead his followers into sin." Anti-Bacchus, p. 267: " In examining the expressions, « wine that maketh glad ; or that cheereth the heart of man,' we must not forget that they were spoken by the Holy Ghost. Now God the Spirit is distinguished for truth, knowledge, and benevolence. His veracity would not allow him to af- firm that a fermented, pernicious drink, which actually poi- oned and scorched the body, and corrupted the morals, was a drink which < cheered the heart of man.' And his perfect knowledge of the physiology of our frame, and his benevo- lent regards for the human family would equally prevent him from commending what is baneful. But we know that all intoxicating drinks are pernicious, and therefore the wine spoken of in the text in question was not an alcoholic li- quor." Other passages of similar import might be quoted from this essay. Would that such sentiments were peculiar to these writers, but they are not : they have been avowed by other advocates of the Total Abstinence Scheme, and by 8 individuals too, for whom we entertain great personal re- spect, and among them Edward C. Delavan, Esq., whose zeal in the cause of Temperance deserves the highest com- mendation. In a letter to the Editors of the New York Ob- server, Mr. Delavan says: " Previous to my tour abroad, I had imbibed the strong conviction that our Saviour never made or drank intoxicating wine. I am ready to admit that my early conclusions on this point were founded on rea- sonings drawn from my estimate of the character of the Sa- viour of the world, as the best and most benevolent of all beings, having at heart the universal interest of the human family. I found it impossible to bring my mind to think that he would make and use a beverage which, since its in- troduction, has spread such an amount of crime, poverty, and death, through this fair world. He came to save, not to de- stroy, and could I believe, with my views of alcoholic wine, that he would make or use it?" The passages above cited fully sustain our assertion, that their authors first decide what it was proper for the Saviour to do, and for the scriptures to teach, in regard to the use of wine, and then go to work to seek for evidence in support of their already formed opinions. First trust to their own unaided reason, to ascertain what is right, and then go to the scriptures to have their opinions confirmed. Are these the persons most likely to ascertain the truth? even if they can say with Mr. Delavan, " so far as I am able to sit in impar- tial judgment, in what passes on my own mind, the desire that truth may be established on this, as on every other subject of Christian morals, is paramount." We give full credit to this declaration, and we believe Mr. Delavan to be perfectly honest, and so with the other gentlemen named, but this does not render their mode of inquiring after the truth less dangerous or less censurable. Would it not have been more becoming in sincere inquiries after the truth, to seek first what the Saviour did, and from his practice to deter- mine, whether it was proper or not to use fermented drinks of any quality or description, diluted with water or pure ? To this mode of investigating scripture truth, we do totally object: it is arrogant and dangerous and a fruitful source of mischievous error.* The result of their investigations is, what might have been expected from the course pursued, a mixture of truth and error. Our authors searched the scriptures, and other ancient writings, not to discover what the truth was ; for this they knew already. The goodness of God, the holiness of the Redeemer, and the nature of man, furnished conclusive evi- dence to their minds that the scriptures do not sanction even the most moderate use of fermented liquor. All they want- ed, therefore, was to find evidence that would satisfy the minds of others ; and, by dint of false criticism, misstate- ment of facts, and inconclusive reasoning, they have accu- mulated no small amount of testimony in favour of their opin- ions. Our authors speak freely, and we do the same. Their pretensions to extensive learning, and thorough research, are certainly not slight. This, in the case of the author of Bacchus, is evident from the wide range of subjects he has discussed, and his quotations from the writings of the learned, in ancient and modern times. Criticisms on the use of Greek and Hebrew terms, with occasional reference to the corresponding words in the Arabic and Syriac, abound. The history of intemperance, and of intoxicating liquors, in * That reason has a proper province for its exercise, in all enquiries respect- ing duty, we without hesitation admit, but with persons who receive the scrip- tures as containing the revealed will of God, and as an infallible standard of right and wrong, the office of reason is simply to ascertain what, they teach : and when we ascertain this, we know what is right, 2 10 savage and civilized lands, is given in more or less detail. The effects of intemperance on the prosperity of nations, and on the welfare of the church, are brought to view. The moral and physical causes of intemperance are discussed; also, the diseases and other evils arising from the free use of in- toxicating drinks. The nature and combinations of alcohol, the nature of fermentation, and the adulteration of intoxicat- ing liquors, are examined at large ; also, the customs of the Hebrews, and of the primitive Christians, in regard to the use of wine. In examining this wide range of subjects, the author of Bacchus has certainly collected a large number of interesting facts, the perusal of which will amply repay one for the time that may be necessary to peruse the work : and yet it might not unfrequently be difficult to suggest any reason why they are classed under one head rather than another. The claims of the author of Anti-Bacchus to attention, are thus set forth by himself: " I examined every text of scripture in which wine is mentioned: I inquired very minutely into the laws of fermentation ; into the character of the grapes and the wines, and the drinking usages of antiquity : the result of these inquiries was, that I came to the firm conclusion that few, if any, of the wines of antiquity were acoholic. I ex- amined Homer, Aristotle, Polybius, Horace, Virgil, Pliny, Columella, Cato, Palladius, Varro, Philo Judaeus, Juvenal, Plutarch, and others. I read each in the original language, and therefore have not been misled by any interpreter ; and in every instance, I have carefully examined the context, that I might not give an unfair representation to any of my authorities." On this passage, we shall at the present sim- ply remark, that Mr. Parsons would probably have made fewer blunders had he not attempted to " read each in the original language." 11 These Essays have received from various sources the highest commendation, and by many they are considered unanswerable. They are " to produce in our country a new era in the cause of temperance," and one of them at least is regarded by the American Editor of Anti-Bacchus as the production of a "giant mind." It may therefore be regarded as rather hazardous to en- counter giants so fully harnessed for the conflict as are our authors ; yet we shall venture on the execution of our pur- pose. The positions which we intend to examine are the following : I. That for the most part the ancient wines were not fer- mented. II. That a strong wine could not be produced from the grapes of Palestine. III. That the Hebrew term, translated in our English version of the Bible " strong drink," is inaccurately rendered, and should be " sweet drink." IV. That wines which could produce intoxication were not allowed to be used at any of the Jewish festivals. V. That the law, which prohibited the use of leaven at the feast of the Passover, included a prohibition of all fer- mented drinks. VI. That, as our Saviour instituted the sacrament of the Lord's Supper at the Passover, he could not have used the fermented juice of the grape. VII. That our Saviour, on no occasion, used fermented wine, or furnished it for the use of others. VIII. That it is an offence against God and man to af- firm, that the scriptures ever speak with approbation of the use of fermented wine. After examining these several positions, we shall notice 12 sundry criticisms on different passages and terms found in the sacred writings. The proposed examination we shall pursue in the order mentioned, beginning with the position No. 1 : That for the most part the ancient wines were not fermented. This position is most distinctly assumed by Mr. Parsons : "We have," says Mr. P. Anti-Bacchus, p. 206, "the most unquestionable evidence, that the wines of the ancients were thick and sweet, or, in other words, were sirups ; but you cannot make a sirup out of a fermented wine." Again p. 207 : " And hence you have a proof equal to any demon- stration of Euclid, that if the ancient wines were thick and sweet, they were hot fermented." Again, p. 234: " In a word, from science, philosophy, and history, I have demon- strated, that a large proportion of the wines of old were not produced by vinous fermentation." " The popular wine of the ancients, and that of the moderns, are, in their charac- ters, as wide apart as the poles." — p. 234. These extracts clearly indicate the views of the author of Anti-Bacchus. It is but justice to Mr. Grindrod to remark that his views on this point do not accord entirely with those of Mr. Par- sons. On the subject of ancient wines, Mr. G. observes, (Bacchus, p. 200,) " Some of the wines of the ancients were exceedingly strong ; indeed, among the sensual part of the community, the celebrity of these wines, in a great measure, depended on their alcoholic strength." As alcohol is the product of fermentation, these exceedingly strong wines must have been fermented. Mr. Grindrod does, indeed, quote, apparently with approbation, the following, as the remarks of Chaptal : " The celebrated ancient wines," ob- serves Chaptal, " appear in general to have rather deserved the name of sirups or extracts than wines. They must have been sweet and little fermented. Indeed it is difficult 13 .o suppose how they could contain any spirit whatever, or possess in consequence any intoxicating properties." — Bac- chus, page 196. These are not the words of Chaptal, but of he writer of the article "Wine," in Rees' Cyclopaedia, who, in referring to an observation made by M. Chaptal, re- specting the accounts given by Aristotle, Pliny, and Galen, of the wonderful consistency of some of the ancient wines, applies the observation to " the celebrated ancient wines in general." Of their not possessing any intoxicating proper- ties, Chaptal says not a word ; and, in quoting the language of the writer in the Cyclopaedia, Mr. Grindrod omits the words u and consequently have contained a very small pro- portion of alcohol." Mr. Grindrod, too, in copying the words of the writer in the Cyclopaedia, has of course made the same mistake ; and also another, which is his own, in referring to "Chaptal's Elements of Chemistry" instead of his "Traite sur les Vins," as authority for his statement. — (See Annales de Chimie — T. xxxv. p. 245. M. Chaptal's remark we shall have occasion to notice further in our subsequent discussions. Mr. G. and M. P. both inform us, (Bacchus, p. 194; Anti- Bacchus, p. 237) : that "the Egyptians, at an early period, made use of must, or unfermented wine ;" and, in proof of it, refer to the dream of Pharaoh's butler, and Mr. G. adds are- mark of Dr. Adam Clarke's: "From this we find that wine an- ciently was the mere expressed juice of the grape, without^/cr- mentation. The saky or cup bearer took the bunches, pressed them into the cup, and instantly delivered it into the hands of the master." Avery philosophical mode of reasoning this, to infer a general custom from a particular instance, and that not said to have occurred in real life, but in the visions of the butler while dreaming ! We think it perfectly idle to in- fer any thing in regard to the character of the wine, from the accomit given by the butler of his dream. Why not in- 14 fer from Pharaoh's dream that the cows m Egypt were car- nivorous, for it is said that " the lean and ill-favoured kine did eat up the first seven fat kine." The only legitimate inferences from the dream of the butler, so far as the customs of the ancient Egyptians are concerned, are: 1. That it was the office of the butler to hand to the king the cup from which he drank his wine, and: 2. That the wine drunk by the king was usually the product of the vine. In confirma- tion however of his remark, Mr. G. adds "this wine of nature" is called by Herodotus, oivos dprsXivos, literally " wine of the vine" and he refers to Lowth's Isaiah, vol. ii. ch. v. 2, as authority for the statement. M. P. makes the same reference. It is true that it may be inferred from the words of Bishop Lowth, that the "fresh juice pressed from the grape," was called by Herodotus oivos dprs'Xivog, and if he meant so to say, it is also true that the learned Bishop was mistaken, and that Herodotus employed this phrase, oivos dfjttfs'Xivos, not to de- signate " the fresh juice of the grape," but to distinguish it from the oivos xgiQms, the wine or beer made from barley, a common drink among the ancient Egyptians, 6'ivw <5' be xgi- Asuv ffSfl-oi-^viJ Sta^iuvraf ov yag fffpi sitfi sv s. Are not these wines mentioned by Aristotle, Pliny, and Galen, on account of their wonderful consistency? And does not this very circumstance show that they were differ- ent from the wines in common use ? Nothing is said by these writers in regard to the mode of preparing them, though, with respect to some, the mode of preserving them is mentioned. The wines of Arcadia, Aristotle says, were * " Mais tous ces faits ne peuvent appartenir qu' a des vins doux, epais, peu fermentes, ou a des sues non alteres et rapproches ; ce sont des extraits plu- tot que des liqueurs ; et peut-etre n'etoit-ce qu'un raisine tres analogue a celui que nous formons aujourd' hui par l'£paississement et la concentration du sue du raisin." Annales de Chimie. xxxv. p. 245. 52 placed, while new, in skins, and dried by smoke f and those mentioned by Galen were treated in the same way. Were the original juices very rich in saccharine matter, they may have been fermented, and yet there would have remained after the fermentation, a considerable portion of the sugar unchanged. Then by exposing them, when deposited in skins, to the action of hot smoke, the watery parts would have been evaporated through the pores of the skins, and lite sugar and other more solid ingredients would have re- mained. And farther, this result might have taken place without any diminution of the alcohol. For it is a well es- tablished fact, that there are some substances which permit the aqueous parts to pass through them more freely than they do the alcohol, and there are others through which al- cohol escapes, while the water remains. Henderson, p. 325, mentions this experiment : " Dr. Soemmering filled a com- mon Bohemian wine-glass with Ansmanshauser, covered it with ox-bladder, and allowed it to remain for eighty-one days undisturbed, in a warm and dry room. During this time, one half the quantity enclosed had evaporated ; and the residue had acquired a more spirituous, and at the same time more mellow and agreeble flavour and aroma than the wine originally possessed. The colour was considerably heightened ; a crystalline coat, or film, had formed on the * As a specimen of Mr. Grindrod's accuracy in quoting his authorities, we give the following sentence from Bacchus, p. 197 : "Aristotle states, that either by their natural consistence or by boiling, or by adulteration, the wines of Arcadia were so thick that they dried up in the goatskins." Now Aristotle says not one word about natural consistence, boiling, or adulteration, (as the reader may see by examining the original ;) and on the subject of their consistence, he says merely, that new wine possesses more of the nature of earth than of water, and refers to the wines of Aicadia as furnishing a striking example of the fact. — (Meteor : iv. 10.) Mr. G. appears to have fallen into this error from a misap- prehension of some remarks in Rces' Cyclopsedia. 53 surface ; a deposite of crystals had also taken place, at the bottom of the glass, and the proportion of alcohol was ex- actly doubled — the areometer showing an increase from 4.00 to 8.00." The crystals which were thus formed were crystals of sugar, which had been held in solution by the evaporated water, and they would doubtless have been increased in number, if the remaining water had also been dissipated, and the result would have been in entire accordance, we think, with the result of the evaporation mentioned by Ga- len, viz. that the wines acquired, hi consequence of it, the hardness of salt.* Having no knowledge of sugar as it ex- ists at this day, lie could not well have made a more apt comparison with respect to the crystals of sugar which were formed in consequence of the evaporation. This process is well known to the Chemists, under the name of exosmose. The fact mentioned by Aristotle, that the wines of Ar- cadia were scraped from the skins, shows that the bulk of the dried product must have been exceedingly small in comparison with the original bulk of the wine, and such as might well be the product of a very sweet wine, and one but little fermented; at the same time the strength of the wine must doubtless have been increased by the process employed. The fact that the quantity was diminished, and that the strength of the wine increased with its age, did not escape the attention of the ancients, it being distinctly mentioned by Plutarch, in his Symposiacs, L. III. c. vii. xoiyivsrai fisV^w ftsv £>\o iriveiv fjt^uC/jia. Thus again in his treatise on Drunkenness, in quoting the answer of Hannah to Eli, in 1 Samuel i. 15, he expresses the import of shekhar by the Greek term pMvaiiu, which beyond all cavil denotes an intoxicating liquor. This explanation of shekhar, given by Philo, is confirmed by Origen, who, in his comment on Lev. x. 9, says, that " in the vernacular appellation of the divine scripture it is usual to name every * Saepe diximus esse vinum quod de Tineis fit : sycerain autem omnera po- ionem quae inebriate potest et statum mentis evertere, quam proprie Aquila ebrietatem transtulit sive ilia frumento sive ordeo, sive mileo pomorumque suce, et palmarum fructu, et alio quolibet geuere conficitur. Jerome. Isaiah xxviii. 7. 67 drink which can intoxicate, she/char." See seventh homily on Leviticus.* The translators of the Septuagint, and also Clemens Alex- andrinus, in the passage, " Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging," Proverbs xx. 1, use for "oh* (shekhar) the Greek term pi&r), drunkenness ; and to express the import of shek- har, Jerome frequently uses the Latin word ebrietas, drunk- enness : and we make bold to assert, that in no one passage of scripture, can it be shown, that the term shekhar is used to denote any other drink than one that can intoxicate ; and that not one single authority can be adduced in support of the assertion of Mr. Parsons, " that undrugged shacar was not a fermented drink." pp. 255-G of Anti-Bacchus. To strengthen his assertion with respect to the meaning of shekhar, Mr. Parsons adverts to the fact that this term, and the Arabic, Greek, Latin, French and English words for sugar, have all sprung from the same root, and that in the Arabic language, the same word denotes " both honey and palm wine," p. 254. But may not all this be accounted for, from the circumstance, that the various intoxicating drinks, and different kinds of honey and sugar made from the juices of fruits, trees, and sugar cane, are obtained from the same sources, the sirupy or solid products by concentra- trating the saccharine properties of these juices, and the liquors by converting them into alcohol, the very process in * The homilies of this celebrated writer, who flourished in the first half of the third century, were translated into Latin by Rufinus, a distinguished father in the Latin Church, and who died A.D. 410. As the original is lost, we quote from the Latin the following passage, which it will be seen at once is free from all ambiguity. "Lex evidens datur, et sacerdotibus et principi sacerdotum, ut cum accedunt ad altare, vino abstineant, et omni potu qaod inebriare potest, quid scripturae divinae appellatione vernacula, sicerom (shekhar) moris est nominare." 68 the latter case greatly diminishing if not altogether destroy- ing the sugary portions of the juices. How idle therefore to infer that shekhar denotes " a sweet, luscious satisfying liquor," and one that will not intoxicate, because a cognate Arabic term denotes both honey or sugar and palm wine ;* especially when the Hebrew term occurs more than twenty times in the scriptures, and in not one single instance, is there the least evidence that it denotes any other than an intoxicating liquor, unless the express permission to drink it found in the scriptures, is to be taken as evidence that it was not intoxicating ; as is done by Mr. Parsons. On the other hand, there are numerous passages which prove in- contestably that shekhar, whether it is palm wine or barley wine, or some other drink, is an intoxicating liquor. See Leviticus x. 9, Numbers vi. 3, 1 Samuel i. 15. In the passages just mentioned, yayin and shekhar are both used, and together they denote every species of intoxi- cating drink. If further evidence is wanted in regard to the import of shekhar, it may be found by consulting Wetstein's Greek Testament, who quotes the Greek scholiast as saying, 2fxspa <5s £tf iv tr\ itfo TaCrrjs u*£(jLV-/]tf«( Jt ' £v /3i€Xw' vuv; 5s i-gntxs-^ufxsda s'voi, xuxXu jjisv yjj'ouvrai crs^ip^so'dai fa Travfa. p; 66. * EixoTWg Guv tfTSggdf ara 6 itaibuyuiylc, airayogstsi, t^s '/jfj.£f£|as xyjSo- f/,svos Cw]t)iv, d'fft'^Eigs tfctXiv, tfgog tous fAa$T)Ta<; Ill What testimony can be more to the point ? This passage contains the very language of our Saviour when he institu- ted the Eucharist, and gave the cup to his disciples. If on that occasion he used an unfermented and an unintoxicating wine, surely Clemens Alexandrinus could never have heard of the fact. In confirmation of his position, Clemens adds, « And that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, (is evident,) for he again speaks of himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart, the Son of man, says he, came, and they say, behold a gluttonous man and a wine- bibber, a friend of sinners. Let this be firmly fixed in our minds against those called Encratites,"* a heretical sect, who opposed marriage, the use of animal food, and wine, accounting them an abomination. Commenting upon the command given to Aaron and his sons, with respect to wine and strong drink, Origen observes, that before they approached the altar, they indulged in the use of wine ; but that when they began to draw nigh to the altar, and to enter into the tabernacle of testimony, they ab- stained from wine ; and he proposes, as a subject of inquiry, whether any thing similar can be found in the conduct of our Saviour and his apostles. And in order to show that there existed a striking resemblance, he says, " The Saviour had come into the world that he might offer his own flesh a Xsywv* Ou fw} itiu h tou yswY^aros ty^ a/Mrs'Xou Taurus, fJ-s'x£'£ av itiu auTo (X£^' u(aojv h tv /3a5up oi'vav £v o€X. iii., and Philo Judaeus, TTOTPI\ I\OE, p. 186. Neither Mr. G. nor Professor Stuart produces a single au- thority for limiting the import of the term in the way they do ; and whether or not, as Prof. Stuart supposes, the use of the word irdpoivos by Paul in reference to bishops, shows that a greater restriction is laid upon bishops than upon deacons, who are directed not to be " addicted to much wine," not "to be enslaved to much wine," it is evident that the use of the phrase \i.r\ fi-a^oivos, does not require bishops or ministers to abstain alto- gether from wine as a beverage."* ■ NrjpuXios (or NijipttXeog-) and N-^u are terms used in the New Testament, the true import of which is not given by our au- thors. They imagine that these words, even when used meta- * When in the same connexion bishops are commanded not to be given to wine, and deacons not to be given to much wine, it is certainly fair to infer that the same kind of wine is meant in both cases. And if so, then if the wine be not intoxicating, and if Mr. G.'s explanation of the words [>-'h -ttupoivoc; be correct, bishops are not allowed to use even the unfermented, or " healthful juice of the grape," as it is styled by Mr. G., nor are they at liberty to drink fermented wine diluted with water, which Mr. G. tells us was drunk by the ancient Christians, and the use of which he says differs very little from the use of water itself, Bac- chus, p. 426. On the other hand, if it be intoxicating, then deacons are alloiued to drink intoxicating wine, in moderate quantities — " not given to much wine." He may choose which of these he pleases. 139 phorically to express vigilance or watchfulness, imply entire abstinence from all use of intoxicating drink. And to sustain them in this opinion, they rely upon the etymology as given by different lexicographers, of the verb vfypw, viz. vq not, and tfi'vw to drink. They advert, not to the fact, that this com- bination may denote nothing more than the avoiding of all excess in drinking, and that v7Jjo*tv $}itpaivsi. From this definition of ptdveiv, it is fair to infer that V7j, et *iW" In the ear- lier editions of Schleusner's Lexicon, the words "omni (Soph. Oed. Col. 100) aut" do not occur, and the whole structure of the sentence shows that vv;