Ihe Bible anb lemperance. THE BIBLE AND TEM-P.ERANCE ; OR, THE TRUE SCRIPTURAL BASIS OF THE TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT: THE WRITINGS OV REV. A. M. WILSON, AND PKOPES8OBS WATTS, WALLACE, AND OTHERS, ON THE WINES OF THE BIBLE, ARE EXAMINED, AND THEIR ARGUMENTS ANSWERED. BY THE REV. THOMAS PEARSON. all things. " ST. PAUL. LONDON : S. W. PARTRIDGE & Co., 9, PATERNOSTER Row. PREFACE. JHE tree is said to be known by its fruits ; and judged by this rule, intoxicating beverages and drinking customs must be of an evil nature. Under their influence men outrage every law, human and divine ; and therefore experience and morality give their testimony in favour of Temperance. Medical science demonstrates that intoxicating liquors act as poisons on the organs of the human body, that they neither warm nor nourish the body ; and therefore medical science gives its testimony also in favour of Temperance. Morality and science are thus found on the side of Temperance ; but what does the Bible say ? If on the side of morality and science, it must also be on the side of Temperance. As interpreted by many, the Bible appears rather unfavourable to temperance than other- wise ; therefore, it must be misunderstood and its teach- ing misrepresented. As the Word of God, the Bible must ever be in accord with science and morality ; and if they are found on our side on the temperance question, so must the Bible. It is time, therefore, that the teaching of the Bible on this subject should be vindicated, and its accordance with science and morality established. This is the task we have set before us in the following pages : how we have succeeded we leave it to others to judge. In carrying out this plan, we have .endeavoured to bring the Bible-wine question within the easy com- prehension of general readers. In Part I. we give all 2097029 vi Preface. the passages where the word wine occurs in our English Bibles, and the original Hebrew and Greek words in Italics, or English letters ; and thus the ground of the whole controversy is placed before the reader. In Part II. we give in order all the Hebrew and Greek words translated wine, with the definitions of the best Lexicons and standard works. From the premises thus laid down by scholars of the first rank, who have no connection with the Temperance movement, we draw the arguments and conclusions. We have designedly refrained from quoting the definitions of eminent scholars, who have nobly led the way on the side of Temperance, in order that the authorities might not be open to the charge of bias. In Part III. we give the testimony of Pliny and other writers of the highest repute, who tell us that the Greeks and Romans, in Bible times, preserved and used un- fermented wine as a beverage. If these ancient nations had unfermented wine in Bible times, why should the Hebrews not have unfermented wine in Bible lands ? Moreover, we have the testimonies of missionaries and travellers to prove, that in Bible lands at the present day, as well as in the wine-growing countries of Europe, the unfermented juice of the grape is preserved, and used by the people as a beverage. In reviewing the works of opponents, we may appear rather severe in some instances, but our remarks are intended to refer, not to the writers personally, but to their writings. In what we have written, we have no interest to serve, apart from truth itself; and we commit the fruit of our labour to the judgment of impartial readers. PART I. ^eetimong oi (Scripture. VA.GU THE SEVERAL HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS FOR WINE AND STRONG DRINK, AND THE PASSAGES WHERE THEY OCCUR IN THE SCRIPTURES. . 9.-3S PART II. Critical (Examination at INAB .... YEKEB . . . ASHISHAH . SHEMARIM . . . AHSIS ... SOBE . . . . MESECH ... CHEMER . . . . SHECHAR .. TIROSH . . . . TIROSH, DERIVATION OF TERM . TIROSH AN UNFERMENTED WINE . YAYIN .. YAYIN, DERIVATION OF . YAYIN AS A GENERIC TERM . YAYIN APPLIED TO GRAPE JUICE . Vlll CONTENTS. PAGB YAYIIC TO BE USED UNFERMENTED . . 113 YAYIN AS USED BY PHARAOH . . . 119 YAYIN AS VIEWED BY OPPONENTS . . 129 YAYIN AS A MOCKER . . . .138 YAYIN, ITS USE AND ABUSE . . . 153 YAYIN AN EMBLEM OF WRATH AND BLESSING. . 159 YAYIN IN DRINK-OFFERINGS . . . 163 YAYIN IN PASCHAL FEAST . . . .171 YAYIN AT THE FEAST OF WEEKS . . 175 NEW TESTAMENT WORDS Oxos, . . . 181 GLEUKOS ..... 184 OINOS . . . . .188 OINOS, PUT IN NEW BOTTLES . . 191 OlNOS IF USED BY OUR LORD . . .194 OlNOS A3 MADE BY MIRACLE . . 196 OINOS AND CHRISTIAN EXPEDIENCY . . 203 OlNOS AS RECOMMENDED TO TIMOTHY . 208 OINOS IN THE LORD'S SUPPER . . . 213 PART III. ^Tc0timonu0 concerning JEnfc-rtnenhi) Mine. ANCIENT WINES .... 247 IMMERSION . . . 264 FILTRATION ..... 266 INSPISSATION .... 271 FUMIGATION ..... 273 SALTED WINES .... 274 WINES OF BIBLE LANDS. . 279 THE BIBLE AND TEMPERANCE, PART I. The Testimony of Scripture. N this part of the work, under the heading of the sacred books, we give all the pas- sages in which the word wine occurs in our English Bible. The Hebrew words for wine and strong drink, in the Old Testament, are given in Italics, with their Greek equivalents of the Septuagint enclosed in brackets. The Greek words rendered wine in the New Testament are also given in Italics. By this means the mere English reader will have placed before him the several Hebrew and Greek words for wine, as they occur in the original, and will thus be in a position to judge for himself with reference to the Bible wine controversy. Genesis. 9. 21. And he drank of the yayin (oinos), and was drunken. 24. And Noah awoke from "tin, yayin (oinos), and knew what his younger son had done unto him. B id The Bible and Temperance. 14. 18. And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and yayin (oinos) : and he was priest of the most high God. 19. 32. Come, and let us make our father drink yayin (oinos). 33. And they made their father drink yayin (oinos) that night. (Also vers. 34 and 35.) 27. 25. And he said, Bring it near unto me, and I will eat of my son's venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near unto him, and he did eat ; and he brought him yayin (oinos), and he drank. 28. Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and tirosh (oinos). 37. And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and tirosh (oinos) have I sustained him : and what shall I now do to thee, my son ? 49. 11. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in yayin (oinos), and his clothes in the blood of grapes. 12. His eyes shall be red with yayin (oinos), and his teeth white with milk. Exodus. 29. 40. And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour, mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil ; and the fourth part of an hin of yayin (oinos) for a drink-offering. The Testimony of Scripture. 1 1 Leviticus. 10. 9. Do not drink yayin (oinos) nor shechar (sikera), thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die : it will be a statute for ever through- out your generations. 23. 13. And the meat-offering thereof shall be two tenth deals of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savour : and the drink-offering there- of shall be of yayin (oinos), the fourth part of an hin. Numbers. 6. 3. He shall separate himself from yayin (oinos) and shechar (sikera), and shall drink no chomets of yayin (oinos), or chomets of shechar (sikera), neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. 4. All the days of his separation shall he eat no- thing that is made of the yayin (oinos) vine, from the kernels even to the husks. 6. 20. And the priests shall wave them for a wave- offering before the Lord; this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder; and after that the Nazarite may drink yayin (oinos). 15. 5. And the fourth part of an hin of yayin (oinos) for a drink-offering shalt thou prepare with the burnt offering or sacrifice for one lamb. 7. And for a drink offering thou shalt offer the third part of an hin of yayin (oinos) for a sweet savour unto the Lord. 12 The Bible and Temperance. 15. 10. And thou shalt bring for a drink offering half an bin of yayin (oinos) for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord. 18. 12. All the best of the oil, and all the best of the tirosh (oinos), and of the wheat, the first-fruits, of them which they shall offer unto the Lord, them have I given thee. 28. 7. And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb : in the holy place thou shalt cause the shechar (sikera) to be poured unto the Lord for a drink offering. 14. And their drink offerings shall be half an hin of yayin (oinos) unto a bullock, and the third part of an hin unto a ram, and the fourth of an hin unto a lamb : this is the burnt offering of every month throughout the months of the year Deuteronomy. 7. 13. And the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy tirosh (oinos), and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware to thy fathers to give thee. 11. 14, That I will give you the rain of your land in his due season, the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy tirosh (oinos), and thine oil. 12. 17. Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy tirosh (oinos), or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds, or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offerings of thine hand ; but thou must eat them before The Testimony of Scripture. 13 the Lord thy God in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. 14. 23. And thou shall eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy tirosh (oinos), and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks ; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always. 2G. And thou shalt bestow that money for whatso- ever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for yayin (oinos), or for shechar (sikera), or whatsoever thy soul desireth : and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thy household. 16. 13. Thou shalt observe the feast of tabernacles seven days, after that thou hast gathered in thy corn, and thy yekeb (lenos). 18. 4. The firstfruit also of thy corn, of thy tirosh (oinos), and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him. 28. 39. Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but neither drink of the yayin (oinos), nor gather the grapes ; for the worms shall eat them. 51. And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed : which also shall not leave thee either corn, tirosh (oinos), or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee. 29. 6. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk yayin (oinos), or shechar (sikera) : that ye might know that I am the Lord your God. 32. 14. Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, 14 The Bible and Temperance. and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat ; and thou didst drink the blood of the grape ^/ww^r(oinos). 32. 33. Their yayin (oinos) is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. 38. Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the yayin (oinos) of their drink offerings, let them rise up and help you, and be your protection. 23. Israel shall then dwell in safety alone : the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and tirosh (oinos) ; also his heavens shall drop down dew. Joshua. 9. 4. They did work wilily, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors, and took old sacks upon their asses, and bottles of yayin (oinos), old, and rent, and bound up. 13. And these bottles of yayin (oinos), which we filled new ; and, behold, they be rent : and these our garments and our shoes are become old by reason of the very long journey. Judges. 9. 13. And the vine said unto them, Shall I leave my tirosh (oinos), which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees ? 13. 4. Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not yayin (oinos) nor shechar (methusma), and eat not any unclean thing. 7. But he said unto me, Behold thou shalt conceive and bear a son; and now drink no yayin (oinos) nor shechar (methusma), neither eat The Testimony of Scripture. 15 any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God. 13. 14. She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine of \h&yayin (oinos), neither let her drink yayin (oinos) or shechar (methusma), nor eat any unclean thing : all that I commanded let her observe. 19. 19. Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and yayin (oinos) also for me, and for thine handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants : there is no want of any thing. i Samuel. 1. 14. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken ? put away i\\y yayin (oinos) from thee. 15. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit : I have drunk neither yayin (oinos) nor shechar (me- thusma), but have poured out my soul before the Lord. 24. And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of yayin (oinos), and brought him unto the house of the Lord in Shiloh. 10. 3. Then shall thou go on forward from thence, and thou shall come to ihe plain of Tabor, and ihere shall meel thee three young men go- ing up lo God lo Bethel, one carrying three kids, and another carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a bottle of yayin (oinos). 16. 20. And Jesse took an ass laden with bread, and a 1 6 TJie Bible and Temperance. bottle of yayin (oinos), and a kid, and sent them by David his son unto Saul. 25. 18. Then Abigail made haste, and took two hundred loaves, and two bottles of yayin (oinos), and five sheep ready dressed, and five measures of parched corn, and one hundred clusters of raisins. 37. But it came to pass in the morning, when the yayin (oinos) was gone out of Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died within him, and he became as a stone. 2 Samuel. 6. 19. And he dealt among all the people, even among the whole multitude of Israel, as well to the women as the men, to every one a cake 01 bread, and a good piece of flesh, and an ashishah (laganon). 13. 28. Now Absalom had commanded his servants, saying, Mark ye now when Ammon's heart is merry with yayin (oinos), and when I say unto you, Smite Ammon ; then kill him, fear not : have not I commanded you ? 16. 1. And when David was a little past the top of the hill, behold Ziba the servant of Mephibosheth met him, with a couple of asses saddled, and upon them two hundred loaves of bread, and an hundred bunches of raisins, and an hundred of summer fruits, and a bottle of yayin (oinos). 2. And the king said unto Ziba, What meanest thou by these ? And Ziba said, The asses be for the king's household to ride on ; and the bread and summer fruit for the young men to eat, The Testimony of Scripture. 17 and the yayin (oinos), that such as be faint in the wilderness may drink. 2 Kings. 18. 32. Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and tirosh (oinos), a land of bread and vineyards, a land of oil olive and of honey, that ye may live, and not die. 1 Chronicles. 9. 29. Some of them also were appointed to oversee the vessels, and all the instruments of the sanctuary, and the fine flour, and the yayin (oinos), and the oil, and the frankincense, and the spices. 12. 40. Moreover they that were nigh them, even unto Issachar and Zebulun and Naphtali, brought bread on asses, and on camels, and on mules, and on oxen, and meat, meal, cakes of figs, and bunches of raisins, and yayin (oinos), and oil, and oxen, and sheep abundantly : for there was joy in Israel. 1 6. 3. And he dealt to every one of Israel, both man and woman, to every one a loaf of bread, and a good piece of flesh, and an ashishah (amoriten). 27. 27. And over the vineyards was Shimei the Ramath- ite : over the increase of the vineyards for the yayin (oinos) cellars was Zabdi the Shiphmite. 2 Chronicles. 2. 10. And, behold, I will give unto thy servants, the hewers that cut timbers, twenty thousand 1 8 The Bible and Temperance. measures of beaten wheat, and twenty thou- sand measures of barley, and twenty thousand baths of yayin (oinos), and twenty thousand baths of oil 2. 15. Now therefore the wheat, and the barley, the oil, and the yayin (oinos), which my lord hath spoken of, let him send unto his servants. 11. 11. And he fortified the strong holds, and put cap- tains in them, and store of victuals, and of oil and of yayin (oinos). 31. 5. And as soon as the commandment came abroad, the children of Israel brought in abundance the firstfruits of corn, tirosh (oinos), and oil, and honey, and of all the increase of the field ; and of the tithe of all things brought they in abundantly. 32. 28. Storehouses also for the increase of corn, and tirosh (oinos), and oil; and stalls for all manner of beasts, and cotes for flocks. Ezra. 6. 9. And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, chamar (oinos), and oil, according to the appointments of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them. 7. 22. Unto an hundred talents of silver, and to an hundred measures of wheat, and to an hundred baths of chamar (oinos), and to an hundred baths of oil, and salt without prescribing how much. Nehemiah. 2. 1. And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the T/te Testimony of Scripture. 19 twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king, that yayin (oinos) was before him : and I took up iheyayin (oinos), and gave it unto the king. 5. 11. Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the tirosh (oinos), and the oil, that ye exact of them. 15. But the former governors that had been before me were chargeable unto the people, and had taken of them bread and yayin (oinos), besides forty shekels of silver ; yea, even their servants bare rule over the people : but so did not I, because of the fear of God. 18. Now that which was prepared for me daily was one ox and six choice sheep ; also fowls were prepared for me, and once in ten days store of all sorts of yayin (oinos). 10. 37. And that we should bring the firstfruits of our dough, and our offerings, and the fruit of all manner of trees ; of tirosh (oinos) and of oil, unto the priest, to the chambers of the house of our God. 39. For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of corn, of the tirosh (oinos), and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers. 13. 5. And he had prepared for him a great chamber, where aforetime they laid them eat offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels, and the tithes of the corn, the tirosh (oinos), and the 2O The Bible and Temperance. oil, which was commanded to be given to the Levites, and the singers, and the porters, and the offerings of the priests. 13. 12. Then brought all Judah the tithes of the corn, and the tirosh (oinos) and the oil unto the treasuries. 15. In those days I saw in Judah some treading winepresses on the sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses ; as alsoyayin (oinos), grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the sabbath day. Esther. 1. 7. And they gave them drink in vessels of gold, the vessels being diverse one from another, and royal yayin (oinos) in abundance, ac- cording to the state of the king. 10. On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with yayin (....) he commanded Mehuman, etc. 5. 6. And the king said unto Esther at the banquet of yayin (....), What is thy petition : and it shall be granted thee? 7. 2. And the king said again unto Esther, on the second day of the banquet of yayin (....), What is thy petition, queen Esther ? 7. And the king arising from the banquet of yayin (....) in his wrath went into the palace garden. 8. Then the king returned out of the palace garden into the place of the banquet of yayin (....). TJie Testimony of Scripture. 21 Job. 1. 13. And there was a day when his sons and daughters were eating and drinking yayin (oinos) in their eldest brother's house. 18. While he was yet speaking, there came also an- other, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking yayin (....) in their eldest brother's house. 32. 19. Behold, my belly is as yayin (gleukos) which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles. Psalms. 4. 7. Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than in the time that their corn and their tirosh (oinos) increased. 60. 3. Thou hast showed thy people hard things ; thou hast made us to drink of the yayin (oinos) of astonishment. 69. 12. They that sit in the gate speak against me ; and I was the song of the drinkers of shechar (oinos). 75. 8. For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup, and the yayin (oinos) is chamar ; it is full of mesech (kerasma), and he poureth out of the same, but the shemarim (trugias) thereof all the wicked of the earth shall wring them out and drink them. 78. 65. Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of yayin (oinos). 104. 15. And yayin (oinos) that maketh glad the heart 22 The Bible and Temperance. of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengthened man's heart. Proverbs. 3. 9. Honour the Lord with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase; so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with tirosh (oinos). 4. 17. For they eat the bread of wickedness, and drink the yayin (oinos) of violence. 9. 2. Wisdom hath killed her beasts; she hath min- gled her yayin (oinos) ; she hath also furnished her table. 5. Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the yayin (oinos) which I have mingled. 20. 1. The yayin (oinos) is a mocker, shechar (methe) is raging ; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. 21. 17. He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man ; he that loveth yayin (oinos) and oil shall not be rich. 23. 20. Be not among yayin (oinos) bibbers ; among riotous eaters of flesh ; for the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty ; and drow- siness shall clothe a man with rags. 29. Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babblings? who hath wounds without cause ? who hath redness of eyes? 30. They that tarry long at the yayin (oinos) ; they that go to seek mesech (....). 31. Look thou not upon \hzyayin (oinos) when it is The Testimony of Scripture. 23 red, when it giveth its colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. 23. 32. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. 31. 4. It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink yayin (oinos), nor for princes shechar (....). 6. Give shechar (methe) unto him that is ready to perish, and yayin (oinos) unto those that be heavy of heart. Ecclesiastes. 2. 3. I sought in mine heart to give myself unto yayin (oinos), yet acquainting mine heart with wisdom. 9. 7. Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy yayin (oinos) with a merry heart ; for God now accepteth thy works. 10. 19. A feast is made for laughter, and yayin (oinos) maketh merry ; but money answereth all things. Canticles. 1. 2. For thy love is better than yayin (oinos). 4. We will remember thy love more than yayin (oinos). 2. 4. He brought me to the house of yayin (oinos), and his banner over me was love. 5. Stay me with ashishah (muron), comfort me with apples. 4. 10. How much better is thy love ihanyayt'n (oinos). 5. 1. I have drunk my yayin with my milk; eat, O friends ; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O beloved. 24 The Bible and Temperance, 7. 9. And the roof of thy mouth like the best yayin (oinos) for my beloved. 8. 2. I would cause thee to drink of spiced yayin (oinos) of the ahsis (nama) of my pomegranate. Isaiah. 1. 22. Thy silver is become dross, thy sobe {oinos) mixed with water. 5. 11. Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow shechar (sikera), and con- tinue until night, \\\\yayin (oinos) inflame them. 12. And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and the pipe, and the yayin (oinos), are in their feasts, but they regard not the works of the Lord, neither consider the operation of His hands. 22. Woe unto them that are mighty to drink yayin (oinos) and men of strength to mingle shechar (sikera). 16. 10. And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field ; and in the vineyards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting ; the traders shall tread out no yayin (oinos) in their presses. 22. 13. And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking yayin (oinos) ; let us eat and drink ; for to-morrow we die. 24. 7. The tirosh (oinos) mourneth, the vine languisheth, all the merry-hearted do sigh. 9. They shall not drink yayin (oinos) with a song ; shechar (sikera) shall be bitter to them that drink it. The Testimony of Scripture. 25 24. 11. There is a crying for yayin (oinos) in the streets ; all joy is darkened, the mirth of the land is gone. 25. 6. And in this mountain shall the Lord of Hosts make unto all people a feast of fat things, a feast of shemarim ( . . . . ), of fat things full of marrow, of shemarim ( ) well refined. 27. 2. In that day sing ye unto her, a vineyard of chemer (kalos). 28. 1. Woe unto the crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are upon the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with yayin (oinos). 7. But they also have erred through yayin (oinos) and through shechar (sikera) are gone out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through shechar (sikera), they are swallowed up with yayin (oinos), they are out of the way through shechar (methe), they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. 29. 9. They are drunken, but not with yayin (oinos) ; they stagger, but not with shechar (sikera). 36. 16. Hearken not to Hezekiah ; for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me : and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig-tree, and drink ye every one of the waters of his own cistern. 17. Until I come and take you away to a land like your own, a land of corn and tirosh (oinos), a land of bread and vineyards. 37. 30. In the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vineyards, and eat the fruit thereof, c 26 The Bible and Temperance. 49. 26. And I will feed them that oppress you with their own flesh ; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with ahsis (oinos). 51. 21. Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted and drunken, but not with yayin (oinos). 55. 1. Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money ; come ye, buy, and eat ; yea, come, buy yayin (oinos) and milk, without money, and without price. 56. 12. Come ye, say they, I will fetch yayin (oinos), and we will fill ourselves with shechar ( . . . . ), and to-morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant. 62. 8. The Lord hath sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength, Surely I will no more give thy corn to be meat for thine enemies ; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy tirosh (oinos) for which thou hast laboured. 65. 8. Thus saith the Lord, As the tirosh (rhox) is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it ; so will I do for my servants' sake, that I may not destroy them all. 11. But ye are they that forsake the Lord, that forget My holy mountain, that prepare a table for that troop and that furnish the meseck (kerasma) unto that number. Jeremiah. 13. 12. Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Every bottle shall be filled with yayin (oinos) : and they shall say unto thee, Do we not certainly The Testimony of Scripture. 27 know that every bottle shall be filled with yciyin (oinos)? 23. 9. Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets ; all my bones shake ; I am like a drunken man, and like a man whom yayin (oinos) hath overcome, because of the Lord, and because of the words of His holiness. 25. 15. For thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me ; Take the yayin (oinos) cup of his fury at My hand, and cause all the nations to whom I send thee to drink it. 31. 12. Therefore they shall come and sing in the height of Zion, and shall flow together to the good- ness of the Lord, for wheat and for tiros h (oinos), and for oil, and for the young of the flock, and of the herd : and their soul shall be as a watered garden ; and they shall not sorrow any more at all. 35. 2. Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the Lord, into one of the chambers, and give them yayin (oinos) to drink. 5. And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of yayin (oinos), and cups, and I said unto them. Drink ye yayin (oinos). 6. But they said, We will drink no yayin (oinos) ; for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no yayin (oinos), neither ye, nor your sons for ever. 8. Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no yayin (oinos) all our days, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters. 28 The Bible and Temperance. 35. 14. The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink yayin (oinos) are performed ; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their father's commandment. 40. 10. As for me, behold, I will dwell at Mizpah, to serve the Chaldeans, which will come unto us : but ye, gather ye yayin (oinos), and sum- mer fruits, and oil, and put them in your vessels, and dwell in your cities that ye have taken. 12. Even all the Jews returned out of all places, whither they were driven, and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah, unto Mizpah, and gathered yayin (oinos) and summer fruits very much. 48. 11. Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and hath settled upon his shemarin (....), and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity. 33. And joy and gladness is taken away from the plentiful field, and from the land of Moab, and I have caused yayin (oinos) to fail from the winepresses ; none shall tread with shout- ing ; their shouting shall be no shouting. 51. 7. Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken ; the nations have drunk of her yayin (oinos), therefore the nations are mad. Lamentations. 2. 12. They say to their mother, Where is corn and yayin (oinos)? When they swooned as The Testimony of Scripture. 29 wounded in the streets of the city, when their soul was poured out into their mother's bosom. Ezekiel. 27. 18. Damascus was thy merchant in the multitude of the wares of thy making, for the multitude of all thy riches ; in the yayin (oinos) of Helbon and white wool. 44. 21. Neither shall any priest drink yayin (oinos) when they enter into the inner court. Daniel. 1. 5. And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the yayin (oinos) which he drank : so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. 8. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the yayin (oinos) which he drank : therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. 1C. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the yayin (oinos) that they should drink, and gave them pulse. 5. 1. Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank chamra (oinos) before the thousand. 2. Belshazzar, while he tasted the chamra (oinos), commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels, which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jeru- salem ; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. 30 The Bible and Temperance. 5. 4. They drank chamra (oinos), and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. 23. And they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines have drunk chamra (oinos) in them. 10. 3. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor yayin (oinos) into my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three whole weeks were fulfilled. Hosea. 2. 8. For she did not know that I gave her corn, and tirosh (oinos), and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal. 9. Therefore will I return, and take away my corn in the time thereof, and my tirosh (oinos) in the season thereof, and recover my wool, and my flax given to cover her nakedness. 22. And the earth shall hear the corn, and the tirosh (oinos), and the oil, and they shall hear Jezrcel. 3. 1. The children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love ashishah inab (pemmata meta sta- phidos). 4. 11. Whoredom and yayin (oinos) and tirosh (meth- usma) take away the heart. 18. Their sobe ( . . . . ) is sour : they have committed whoredom continually : her rulers with shame do love. 7. 5. In the day of our king the princes have made him sick with bottles of yayin (oinos), he stretched out his hand with scorners. TJic Testimony of Scripture. 31 7. 14. And they have not cried unto me with their hearts, when they have howled upon their beds : they assemble themselves for corn and tirosh (oinos), and they rebel against me. The floor and the winepress shall not feed them, and the tirosh (oinos) shall fail in her. They shall not offer yayin (oinos) offerings to the Lord, neither shall they be pleasing unto him. 14. 7. They that dwell under his shadow shall return ; they shall revive as the corn, and grow as the vine : the scent thereof shall be as the yayin (oinos) of Lebanon. Joel. 1. 5. Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all ye drinkers of yayin (oinos), because of the ahsis (....); for it is cut off from your mouth. 10. The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for the corn is wasted : the tirosh (oinos) is dried up, the oil languisheth. 2. 19. Yea, the Lord will answer and say unto his people, Behold, I will send you corn, and tirosh (oinos), and oil, and ye shall be satisfied therewith ; and I will no more make you a reproach among the heathen. 24. And the floors shall be full of wheat, and the fats shall overflow with tirosh (oinos) and oil. 3. 3. And they have cast lots for my people; and have given a boy for an harlot, and sold a girl for yayin (oinos) that they might drink. 18. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the mountains shall drop down ahsis (glukasmon), 32 The Bible and Temperance. and the hills shall flow with milk, and all the rivers of Judah shall flow with water, and a fountain shall come forth of the house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim. Amos. 2. 8. And they lay themselves down upon clothes laid to pledge by every altar, and they drink the yayin (oinos) of the condemned in the house of their god. 12. But ye gave the Nazarite yayin (oinos) to drink ; and commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not. 5. 11. Ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink yayin (oinos) of them. 6. 6. That drink yayin (oinos) in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments : but they are not grieved for the afflictions of Joseph. 9. 13. And the mountains shall drop ahsis (glukasmon), and all the hills shall melt. 14. And they shall plant vineyards, and drink the yayin (oinos) thereof; they shall make gardens and eat the fruit of them. Micah. '2. 11. If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood do lie, saying, I will prophesy unto thee of yayin (oinos) and shcchar (methusma) ; he will even be the prophet of this people. 6. 15. Thou shalt sow, but thou shalt not reap; thou shalt tread the olives, but thou shalt not anoint thee with the oil ; and tirosh (oinos), but shalt not drink yayin (oinos). The Testimony of Scripture. 33 Nahum. 1. 10. For while they be folden together as thorns, and as their sobe (....), the drunken shall be consumed as stubble fully dry. Habakkuk. 2. 5. Yea, also, because he transgresseth by yayin (oinos), he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people. Zephaniah. 1. 12. And it shall come to pass at that time, that I will search Jerusalem with candles, and punish the men that are settled upon their shemarim (phulagmata) : that say in their hearts, The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil. 13. Therefore their goods shall become a booty, and their houses a desolation : they shall also build houses, but not inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards, but not drink the yayin (oinos) thereof. Haggai. 1. 11. And I called for a drought upon the land, and upon the mountains, and upon the corn, and upon the tirosh (oinos), and upon the oil, and upon that which the ground bringeth, and upon men, and upon cattle, and upon all the labours of the hands. 2. 1 '2. If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his garments, and with his skirt do touch bread, or pottage, 34 The Bible and Temperance. or yayin (oinos), or oil, or any meat, shall it be holy ? And the priest answered and said, No. Zechariah. 9. 15. And they shall drink, and make a noise as through yayin (oinos) ; and they shall be filled like bowls, and as the corners of the altars. 17. Corn shall make the young men cheerful, and tirosh (oinos) the maids. 10. 7. And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their hearts shall rejoice as through yayin (oinos) : yea, their children shall see it, and be glad ; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord. Matthew. 9. 17. Neither do men put new oinos into old bottles : else the bottles break, and the oinos runneth out, and the bottles perish : but they put new oinos into new bottles and both are preserved. 11. 19. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous and an 0/<9j-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. Mark. 2. 22. And no man putteth new oinos into old bottles : else the new oinos burst the bottles, and the oinos is spilled, and the bottles will be marred : but new oinos must be put into new bottles. 15. 23, And they gave Him to drink oinos mingled with myrrh : but He received it not. The Testimony of Scripture. 35 Luke. 1. 15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither oinos nor sikera. 5. 37. And no man putteth new oinos into old bottles ; else the new oinos will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles perish. 38. But new oinos must be put into new bottles ; and both are preserved. 39. No man also having drunk the old straightway desireth new ; for he saith, The old is better. 7. 33. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking oinos ; and ye say, He hath a devil. 34. The Son of man is come eating and drinking ; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and an oinos-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. 10. 34. And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and oinos, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. John. 2. 3. And when they wan ted oinos, the mother of Jesus said unto Him, They have no oinos. 9. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made oinos, and knew not whence it was : but the servants which drew the water knew; the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10. And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good oinos ; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse ; but thou hast kept the good oinos until now. 36 The Bible and Temperance. 4. 46. So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where He made the water oinos. Acts. 2. 13. Others mocking said, These men are full of gleukos. Romans. 14. 21. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink oinos, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Ephesians. 5. 18. And be not drunk with oinos, wherein is excess ; but be filled with the Spirit. i Timothy. 3. 3. Not given to oinos, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous. 8. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double- tongued, not given to much oinos, not greedy of filthy lucre. 5. 23. Drink no longer water, but use a little oinos for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. Titus. 1. 7. For the bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God ; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to oinos, no striker, not given to filthy lucre. 2. 3. The aged women likewise, that they be in be- haviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much oinos, teachers of good things. The Testimony of Scripture. 37 i Peter. 4. 3. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of oinos, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries. Revelation. 6. 6. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny ; and see thou hurt not the oil and the oinos. 14. 8. And there followed another angel, saying, Baby- lon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the oinos of the wrath of her fornication. 10. The same shall drink of the oinos of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation. 16. 19. And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell : and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the oinos of the fierceness of His wrath. 17. 2. With whom the kings of the earth have com- mitted fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the oinos of her fornication. 18. 3. For all nations have drunk of the oinos of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. 38 The Bible and Temperance. 18. 13. And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and oinos, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. 19. 15. And out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it He should smite the nations : and He shall rule them with a rod of iron : and He treadeth the press of the oinos of the fierceness of the wrath of God. PART II. Critical fimmtim rf 980rk PART II. Critical Examination of |AVING given in the first part all the Hebrew and Greek words for wine and strong drink, we can now with advantage enter upon a critical examination of the words them- selves. We will begin with the Old Testament, in which we find eleven such Hebrew terms. These we shall consider in order, beginning with those of least moment, and giving, in every case, the defini- tions of the highest authorities authorities who have no connection with the Temperance move- ment. n;y Inab. This word comes from a root signifying to connect, or bind together, in allusion to the clusters of grapes, which it properly denotes. It occurs nineteen times, and has various renderings. In Hos. iii. i, it is rendered "wine; "in Gen. xl. 10, it is "ripe grapes;" while in all the other instances where it occurs, the rendering is " grapes." 33y Inab, occurs not as a verb in Hebrew, but as a noun, a grape, the fruit of the vine. Grapes are so called, perhaps, from the manner of their growth in clusters or bunches. It has been already observed, that wine is called by the Hebrews D*331> tn, the blood of grapes ; to which may now be added, that their Tyrian neighbours D 42 The Bible and Temperance. used the same phraseology. This appears from a little story of Achilles Tatius, lib. ii., where after telling us that the Tyrians claim Bacchus, the inventor of wine, for their countryman, he adds a tradition of theirs : that Bacchus, having been hospitably entertained by a Tyrian shepherd, drank to him in wine, which after the shepherd had quaffed he asked, iroQiv OVTWQ evpee aip.a 2ltfN may not 44 The Bible and Temperance. be best interpreted with Vitringa, of the earthen jars, or flagons, namely, such as had been baked by fire, in which it is highly probable the ancient Moabites, like the modern Easterns, kept their wine, which they had stored up in the fortified city of Kir Hareseth. Parkhurst. Ashishah, cake, from ttto'N, root not used; Arab, to found, make firm, hence foundation, Isa. xvi. 7. Davidson. Ashishah, a vessel for holding wine ; the LXX. have translated the word Tre/z/zora, according to Jerome, pla- centce, a cake or hardened syrup made of grapes. In Hos. iii. i, it is mentioned in reference to idol-worship, but in other places as a refreshment (Can. ii. 5), par- ticularly on a journey. Wilson. Ashishah, rendered "flagons of wine," in the Authorized Version, really means a cake of pressed raisins. SmitKs Bib. Die. Ashishah, has really no right to be considered here. It is translated flagons, or flagons of wine, but by universal consent, it is now understood to be some kind of cake probably a cake of dried fruit ; perhaps of dried grapes, as there is another term for a cake of figs. Imp. Bib. Die. Ashishah) the LXX. \dyavov OTTO Trefj./j,a a yuopir^e, a cake from the frying-pan, a baked cake, a sweet cake. The Targum of Jonathan used a word for the Hebrew (Ex. xvi. 31,) which means a flat cake. Kittis Bib. Cyclo. Ashishah, rendered "flagons of wine," 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 A shishah S/iemarim. 45 anabint, cakes of grapes, which is rendered flagons of wine ; and this gives the appearance of anabim, grapes having the meaning of wine. Murphy. The LXX. render ashishah by : laganon, a baked cake ; amoriten, a cake ; muron, sweet ; pemmata, sweetmeats. Here we have some diversity of opinion, with refer- ence to the derivation and meaning of Ashishah. Park- hurst and Wilson seem to suppose that earthen vessels for holding wine are meant ; and as they trace the term to a root denoting fire, they think these vessels were baked by fire. But the Septuagint gives the meaning of the word, as a baked cake, and the Targum, as a flat cake ; and our best modern authorities, as cake of grapes or grape syrup. However, all are agreed that ashishah was not an intoxicating wine ; yet we learn from the Scriptures, that it was used to refresh the weary, or those on a journey ; and it was one of the things offered up in connection with the worship of idols. tD-npui Shemarim. Shemarim occurs only five times, and always in the plural form. It comes from a root, signifying to keep or preserve, and properly denotes grape preserves or jellies, though sometimes used in the sense of lees or dregs. But preserves is the best rendering of the root idea, and is in accordance with its plural form. The word wine is not in the original, it is supplied by our translators, who have rendered Shemarim: once, "dregs;" twice, "lees;" and twice, " wines on the lees." tr^pir) Shemarim, dregs (of wine), because when wine is kept upon the lees its strength and colour are pre- served; Jer. xlviii. u. To settle on one's lees is to lead a quiet and tranquil life. Gesenius. 46 The Bible and Temperance. Shemarim, things kept undisturbed, in the same place or state. The sediment of things thus kept, lees, dregs, Psa. Ixxv. 9. Wines long kept in the same vessel, Isa. xxv. 6. The root, to watch, keep, preserve. Lee. Shemarim, the dregs, sediment, or lees of wine, which are preserved at the bottom of the vessel, and preserve the strength and flavour of the wine. Also wine kept on the lees, Isa. xxv. 6. The root, to keep safe, preserve. Parkhurst. Shemarim, sediment, lees of wine ; E s ~i73irf, observance, keeping of a festival, Exod. xii. 42. Hence the word Samaria, which means a watch hill or height ; from the root "Wirf, to keep watch, guard ; hence shomer, watch- man. Davidson. Shemarim, properly meaning the lees or dregs of wine, but in Isa. xxv. 6, transferred to wine that has been kept on the lees, for the purpose of increasing its body. Smith. Shemarim, preserves or jellies ; rendered wines on the lees or dregs. Farrar's Bib. Die. Shemarim, from "1731$, to keep, preserve, lay up. Au- thorized Version, lees, dregs, wines on the lees ; the word occurs five times, and always in the plural. It is used both of lees, and wines preserved on the lees. It is used of wine in Isa. xxv. 6, where the prophet foretells the rich provisions of gospel blessing, under the figure of a feast of fat things, of wines on the lees (shemarim) well refined. The word is used of lees, according to some, from their preserving the strength and flavour of the wine. Kitto's Bib. Cyclo. The LXX. render shemarim by trugias ' "sediment;" m\&. phulagmata, " observance ;" but in the other instances there is no corresponding Greek term given. Shemarim Ahsis. 47 The authorities whose definitions we quote do not seem sure of their ground. There is too much quoting from each other, and not sufficient independent research ; besides, the judgment is unduly influenced by modern customs. The root idea of shemarim, to watch, preserve, is of wide application, and is often used in both a good and a bad sense. We have the idea in the case of the watch- man at the post of duty, and also in the case of the robber watching for his victim. So shemarim denotes the sediment in the vessel of drugged wine, Psa. Ixxv. 9, and also grape preserves, Isa. xxv. 6. In the former passage, the punishment of the wicked is indicated ; in the latter, the blessings of the gospel. In Isaiah, she- marim is rendered "wines upon the lees," and such wines would not necessarily be intoxicating, since the Septuagint word tnigias indicates the sediment of must. But there is no evidence that the term means " wines upon the lees," and therefore there is no authority for this rendering. It cannot mean wines, for there is no corresponding term in the original; nor lees, for they could not be well refined, and would not be suitable for a feast, and therefore it must mean grape preserves. They could be well refined, and their character would har- monize with a feast of fat things. Such preserves would be a beautiful emblem of gospel blessing ; and such are still highly esteemed in the East. These preserves it was customary to drink with milk, Isa. Iv. 1. D'py Ahsis. Ahsis occurs jive times, and is variously rendered in our version. It comes from a root signifying to tread, and according to the derivation, the term would denote 48 The Bible and Temperance. the newly expressed juice of the grape, and therefore unfermented wine. It is rendered once, "juice;" twice, "new wine;" and twice, "sweet wine." D^DJJ Ahsis, must, new wine ; root Dpy to tread down, Mai. iii. 21. Gesenius. Ahsis, must, new wine ; from the root Dpy to tread down. Davidson. Ahsis, wine, the juice pressed from the grape by treading. Parkhurst. Ahsis, new wine, the juice of the pomegranate ; Can. viii. 2. Lee. Ahsis is derived from a word signifying to tread, and therefore refers to the method by which the juice was expressed from the fruit. It may very properly refer to new wine as being recently trodden out. SmitKs Bib. Die. Ahsis, according to etymology, something trodden out ; hence grape juice, must Imp. Bib. Die. Ahsis, from asas, to tread. LXX. vdpa, oli/oc "6oe, /tteflj/. The Targum, pure wine : Vulgate, dulcedo mustum ; must, that which is expressed from the grapes by treading, or from the pomegranates. Hen- derson says, " By ahsis is meant the fresh wine, or juice of the grape or other fruit, which has been pressed out, and is remarkable for its sweet flavour, and its freedom from intoxicating qualities. Yet its intoxicating quality seems intimated in Isa. xlix. 26, They shall be drunken with their own blood, as with ahsis. Kittds Bib. Cyclo. Ahsis, 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 Ahsis. 49 expressed from the fruit of the pomegranate as well as the vine. Murphy, The Septuagint in its rendering of ahsis employs three Greek terms : nama, glukasmos, and oinos neos. Nama signifies " flowing," and hence the flowing juice ; glu- kasmos signifies " sweetness," and hence the fresh sweet juice : and oinos neon, new wine, which as an equivalent of ahsis must denote here the unfermented juice of the grape. The authorities quoted are well agreed with regard to the meaning of ahsis, which they define as new wine, must, or the expressed juice of the grape or pomegranate. But ^there is one exception to this general agreement. The writer in Kittds Bib, Cyc. agrees with the others in definition, but seems unable to divest himself of alco- holic affinities when wine is named. When Isaiah declares that certain oppressors shall be drunken with their own blood as with ahsis, this writer thinks that the intoxicating quality of ahsis is intimated, because the word drunken is used. But he ought to know that the original words of the Hebrew and Septuagint, here ren- dered drunken, do not always mean to be intoxicated. The primary idea is to be filled to the full ; to be satis- fied ; and then when filled with intoxicating drink, to be drunken. Moreover, the term is applied to blood, in the passage referred to, and blood does not intoxicate. They were to be drunken with their own blood as with ahsis, and as blood has no intoxicating qualities, neither are we to suppose that ahsis had any. Besides, it is said the mountains shall drop down ahsis, and while it is possible that grape juice might drop down from an abundance of over-ripe fruit, as the result of the Divine blessing, it is not a likely thing that they should drop 5? to mix, to mingle. Davidson. Mesech, to mix, mingle, as liquids. As a noun, wine mixed with the lees; turbid and highly intoxicating. It occurs in Psa. Ixxv. 9. The wine is turbid ; the cup is full of wine thus mixed with the lees. Parkhurst. Mesech, diluted, dilution ; from a root, " mixed, diluted." As a noun, a mixture of wine and water. Bythner. Mesech, mesec, mezeg, and mimsac, are connected etymologically with misceo and mix, and imply a mixing of wine with some other substance ; no conclusion can be drawn from the word itself as to the quality of the wine, whether fermented or unfermented, or as to the nature of the substance introduced, whether spices or water. Smith's Bib. Die. Mesech, literally, " a mixture," might be used in many senses; "Wisdom hath mingled her wine:" probably with water, according to a prevalent custom, though it might be with aromatics. But the noun appears to have been restricted in usage to a bad sense, to denote wine mingled with stupefying drugs, or exciting drugs, so that the wine might produce more powerful effects than was possible otherwise, at a time when distillation had not yet been discovered. Imp. Bib. Die. Mesech, from "jpE> misere, to mix, to mingle; wine mixed with water or aromatics. Kittrfs Bib. Cyclo. From the various definitions we have given, it is evident that mesech was a sort of general term for wine when mixed with different substances, and would be in- toxicating or otherwise according to circumstances. Wine 54 The Bible and Temperance. mixed with milk, or with water, when about to be drunk, would be intoxicating or otherwise, according as the wine was so. Unfermented wine mixed with spices would not be intoxicating; while fermented wine would have its intoxicating power increased when mixed with drugs. Hence the context must be taken to decide the character of mesech in every case. If we find the term associated with drunkenness, or used as an emblem of judgment, as in Psa. Ixxv. 9, we must regard the mesech as in- toxicating ; but if we find it associated with sobriety, or used as an emblem of blessing, as in Prov. ix. 2, we are to regard mesech as unintoxicating. The drugged or mixed wine, given to criminals before execution, appears to have brought into greater prominence the bad sense of the term. npn Chemer. This Hebrew word for wine occurs nine times; six times in its Chaldee form of chamar, or chamra, and once as a verb. It comes from a root signifying to be agitated, to be red ; and hence foaming, red, or fermented wine. The Hebrew word chemer appears to denote unintoxicating wine, while the corresponding Chaldee word chamra would probably designate wine that was intoxicating; the change in meaning being effected by the difference of language and the character of the Chaldean court. Chemer is rendered, once, "pure;" once, "red wine;" and six times "wine." iprj Chemer, wine, so called from its fermenting. From the root "tt?n chamar to boil up, ferment, to be red, from the idea of boiling, foaming, becoming inflamed. It is used of the foaming and raging of the sea, Ps. xlvi. 4 ; of wine, Ps. Ixxv. 9; where others assign the sense of Chemer. 5 5 redness. Also applied to bitumen (Ex. ii. 3) which boils up from fountains in the vicinity of Babylon, and from the bottom of the Dead Sea. It derives its name, either from its boiling up from fountains (Gen. xiv. 14) or from redness, the best kind being of that colour. Hence, clay for sealing, Job xxxviii. 14, cement, mortar. Gesenius. Chemer, vinum, wine, Chal. "ran chamar, wine; Ton clay, or earth, as used by the potter; perhaps from its redness; by builders as in forming mounds, Ex. i. 14; Job xiii. 12 ; to receive impression or form as wax. Job xxxviii. 14; clay out of which man was formed, Job x. 9. 17?n pitch, or rather a sort of tar found to issue from the earth about Babylon and elsewhere. From chamar, fermenting, becoming red, inflamed. Lee. Chemer, wine, from "ran to rise, ferment; Ps.lxxv. 9; others to be red ; to be agitated, to daub, cover over with bitumen, Ex. ii. 3 ; to become excited, troubled ; to become red, inflamed, "ran bitumen, or asphaltus, a glutinous matter issuing from the earth, in turbid effervescence, near Babylon and the Dead Sea. Hence, clay, mire, mud, cement. Davidson. Chemer, to disturb, trouble, make turbid, as water mixed with mud ; as wine mixed with lees ; but also with the drugs which were put into the " cup of malediction," as the Jews called it, which used to be given to criminals before execution. Mortar for building; mire of the streets; potter's clay; bitumen. Parkhurst. Chemer, juice fresh from the vat, wine pure, unmixed ; chamar, same as chemer, only mixed with some drug. Farrar's Bib. Die. Chemer, Deut. xxxii. 14 ; in Chaldee, chamar, Ez. vi. 9 ; and chamra, Dan. v. 1 ; contains the notion of foaming 56 The Bible and Temperance. or ebullition, and may equally apply to the process of fermentation, or of the frothing of liquids freshly poured out ; in the latter case it might be used of unfermented liquids. Smith's Bib. Die. In the Septuagint the rendering of chemer is oinos with two exceptions, Ps. Ixxv, 8, akratos, "unmixed;" Is. xxvii. 2 kalos, " beautiful." In chemer the root idea, to boil or foam, does not suppose fermentation, since it is applied to the foaming of the sea, bitumen, mire, and potter's clay, as well as to the juice of the grape. As the term gives no intimation of the character of the wine we must consider the context. Chemer in Deut. was another name for the blood of the grape, and by this phrase we are to understand the fresh juice of the grape, perhaps implying the idea of redness, which is one of those involved in the root. In Isaiah, the idea conveyed by the term, while fully corresponding with the preceding, goes further back, and we have a vineyard of chemer, or the blood of the grape, such as promised by Moses. So far chemer is unintoxicating., Ezra uses chamar, a Chaldee form of the word ; but as chamar is associated with wheat and other produce, we have a right to take it also as the blood of the grape, and especially since there is nothing to the contrary. Daniel uses chamra, another Chaldee form of the word, when he speaks of the intoxicating or drugged wine drank at Belshazzar's feast, and this fact is worthy of note ; since there is thus a clear distinction in meaning. -Offi' Shechar. Shechar occurs as a noun twenty-three times, and as a verb frequently. The root idea is drink to the full ; to satisfy, and hence to quench thirst. Shechar appears to Shechar. 57 be a general term to designate other kinds of fruit beverages except the grape, and particularly that obtained from the date-tree. As a general term for beverages obtained from the date, and other kinds of fruit and grain, it would apply to such beverages, whether fermented or otherwise. If guided by the root idea, we may conclude, that shechar, in early times, denoted a beverage that was not intoxicating; but that in later times, according to the usual degeneracy of custom, it denoted also what was intoxicating.^ Shechar is rendered, once, "strong" wine; once, "drunkard;" and one and twenty times, "strong drink." il) Shechar. Strong drink, intoxicating liquor, whether wine or intoxicating drink like wine, made from barley, or distilled from honey or dates. The verb is "O$ " to drink to the full, to drink to hilarity." The second meaning of the verb is " to hire, to reward ; " and hence which means a gift. Ps. Ixxii. 10. Gesenius. Shechar, any exhilarating or intoxicating drink. It is distinguished from yayin, with which it is often joined ; but which it includes. Num. xxviii. 7. Lee. Shechar, from a root to satisfy, satiate. To satisfy thirst, or the desire of drinking (as 2D1D of eating) to drink heartily or freely ; to be cheered with drink, in a middle or indifferent sense. In like manner the Greek word fjudvff/jiai by which the LXX. often render "Otf^ sometimes signifies to drink freely, though not to drunkenness, and is plainly used in this sense in John ii. 10. As a noun it is once used for wine (Num. xxviii. 7), but most commonly for any intoxicating liquor besides wine. Jerome informs us that in Heb. any inebriating E 5$ The Bible and Temperance. liquor is called sicera, whether made of corn, the juice of apples, honey, dates, or any other fruit. Parkhurst. Shechar, strong intoxicating drink. From "i?12> to drink to the full, to drink to hilarity, to be intoxicated. The first form of the root is to hire, to bribe, to hire out oneself; hence wages, reward. Davidson. Shechar, a generic term including palm wine, and other saccharine beverages. Farrar's Bib. Die. Shechar a generic term applied to all fermented liquors except wine (yayin). Smith's Bib. Die. Shechar, if the verb is to satiate, or cloy, there is the less reason for hesitating to connect shechar etymological ly with that widely diffused Oriental word, which with us has assumed the form of sugar, and to regard it as originally a name for "syrups." Syrups are much in use among Eastern nations, and are obtained in abundance from the luscious fruits of Palestine. But we are inclined to the belief that shechar early came to have a fixed meaning, Delated to that of yayin ; the latter denoting all the liquid products of the grape, from Ahsis to Mesech ; the formerMncluding all similar products of any fruit except the grape. /////. Bib. Die. Shechar, an intoxicating drink, whether wine prepared or distilled from barley, or from honey, or from dates. So Fiirst, who adds, or any other kind of intoxicating drink, comprehended under the name T&V ouclpiay. The word means strong drink, from whatever substance made. Tattam. Kitto's Bib. Cyclo. Shechar, from shakar to cloy or satisfy with drinking, probably denoted originally a sweet syrup, or saccharine beverage. The name is preserved in the Greek Shechar. 59 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 which is pleasant to the taste. This is the fresh palm wine. When it has gone through a process of fermentation, it becomes the intoxicating shachar,Ahe ' three forms of which correspond to the sobe, tirosh, and yayin derived from the vine. Murphy. In the Septuagint there are four Greek terms used as the rendering of shechar, namely, sikera, methusma, methc, and oinos. Sikera is only the Hebrew word in a Greek form, and this Greek form of shechar is the term most generally used by the Jewish translators. Being only a Hebrew word in Greek dress, we need not refer to classic writers in order to obtain more light upon it ; we must trace it to its source in Hebrew.^ Methusma is a Greek word, but it seems only used by Jewish writers, as in the Septuagint and Philo, though cognate forms are found in classic Greek. However, the fact that the Jewish translators of the Septuagint may be said to have coined this word, goes to show that they wished to convey some shade of thought that they could not express by the terms found in classic authors. At any rate, it is given as a rendering of shechar only five times ; Samson's mother was twice forbidden to drink this form of_shechar; Samuel's mother declared she had not drunk it; and in Micah it is supposed to be promised by false prophets. // Metric, as a rendering of shechar, is given three times ; twice in Proverbs and once in Isaiah, and always denoting an inebriating beverage. Oinos is once 60 The Bible and Temperance. given as the rendering of shechar, but oinos will be considered further on. IFrom the several definitions given of shechar by the authorities cited, it is evident that the phrase "strong drink " is not a happy rendering of the term. It appears ( that our translators, finding that the Septuagint had given methe in three instances, as the equivalent of j shechar, took this to be the meaning of the term, and ; ruled all the other cases by these, thus giving us strong ( drink as the usual rendering in our version. Thus a Greek term used only three times by the LXX. is made ', to convey the proper meaning of the Hebrew term j shechar, that is, the special meaning is taken to be the t general, and the exception is taken to be the rule. But 1 if the Jewish translators were taken for guides, why not . follow them fully, and give the exceptional renderings of ) shechar as strong drink ? The authorities quoted are generally agreed with reference to the derivation of shechar, which they derive from a root signifying to drink to the full, to satiate, to cloy. But another meaning of the root is to hire, or reward, and hence gift. This latter meaning enters into the composition of many words, and among others into the name Issachar. But the leading idea to satisfy is the same in both. As a sweet drink would satisfy the taste, so wages or reward would be pleasing to the mind and satisfy the claims of the parties concerned. Now as the leading idea in shechar is to satisfy, and as this idea is applied to wages, reward or gift, as well as to a beverage prepared from the date or the other fruit, it follows that the notion of an intoxicating quality forms no part of the primary sense of the term. If shechar is found applied to an inebriating substance or beverage, Shechar. 61 the notion of an intoxicating quality must have been engrafted upon the term in later times. The author of The Wines of the Bible contends that no importance should be attached to the fact that the root from which the term shechar is derived does not indicate intoxicating qualities. He argues that "it might as truly be said that as whiskey primitively denoted water, and rum is derived from saccharum, the man who has drunk largely of either of these liquors is not intoxicated but filled, there being nothing in the verb to be filled, or in the nouns water and sweet juice, that necessarily connects them with intoxicating qualities." This writer can seldom find a parallel case when he wants to draw a comparison. And here as usual we .find him unfortunate in this respect. Are the words whiskey and rum derived from their respective verbs like shechar? They are now English words, and are they derived from corresponding English verbs as shechar from its Hebrew verb? Then is the word whiskey derived from the word water, and the word rum from saccharum ? Now if all these questions must be answered in the negative, what becomes of the comparison and the argument drawn from it? Were we to admit that the word whiskey comes from the Irish word usquebaugh, which means not water, but water of life, and that rum comes from the Latin word saccharum, they are yet not derivations, but corruptions of these terms, and are corruptions of terms to be taken as a guide in fixing the meaning of derivations ? So this writer appears to think, since he makes the principle involved, his canon of criticism in this and similar cases. We need not stay, therefore, to notice his derivation of such terms as perry, and the conclusions he draws therefrom, as 62 The Bible and Temperance. they are, like those we have noticed, uncritical and irrelevant. The same writer proceeds to give us a characteristic criticism of the verb shakar, from which the word shechar is derived. He mentions shakah and shathah as two words meaning to drink, but as never used in the sense of drunkenness, and from this he concludes that shakar must always convey the idea of drinking what is intoxicating, or drinking to drunkenness. The argument is that as shakah and shathah are never used to designate the intoxicating effects of drink, therefore shakar must always do so. This is the type of logic employed to prove that unfermented wine is a myth, and it will be seen that this kind of logic could prove anything. Speaking of the term shathah, a term we are told occurs more than two hundred and twenty times, he says, " It is uniformly employed to describe the act of drinking, whatever may have been the liquor used, but it is never used to designate a state of drunkenness. On the contrary, when this latter thought has to be expressed, the verb shakar has to be united with it for the purpose." And in reference to shakar he goes on to say, " shakar and its derivatives, shikkaron and shikkoor, verb, noun and adjective, are uniformly employed in all the thirty- five passages in which they occur to designate the effects of drink ; but they are never used for the act of drinking, whether the quantity of liquor consumed be large or small . The reference further shows that while other terms are used to denote fulness, satisfaction, satiation, shakar and its derivatives are uniformly employed to designate the intoxicating effects of drink. A state of drunkenness whether metaphorical or literal." Now with the terms shakah and shathah here in- Shechar. 63 troduced, we have nothing to do ; our only concern is with shakar, of shakar we have in this passage two things predicated, namely, that the term shakar designates the effects of drink ; and that uniformly these effects are of an intoxicating character. We may admit the first, while denying the second, The definitions given of the term indicate the satisfying character of the drink, but this may arise from the quantity as well as the quality. The term means to drink to the full, to satiate, to cloy, and hence the allusion is not so much to the effects of the drink, as to the satisfied state of the taste or appetite. And this is the idea that runs through all the forms of the word. There may be filling to the full and satiation, without anything of intoxication. Of course when in- ebriating liquor has been drunk in this way, there will be inebriation; but not otherwise. It is further stated that " the verb shakar occurs in nineteen passages, in thirteen of which it is employed metaphorically, and in six literally " (p. 280). But this classification is scarcely correct, seeing that one important passage (Canti. v. i.) is classed with the metaphorical, while it properly belongs to the literal. The meta- phorical must agree in principle with the literal, and the argument is, that the verb and its derivatives uniformly designate the intoxicating effects of drink. Here we join issue with the author of The Wines of the Bible. We hold that shakar may sometimes designate the in- toxicating effects of drink, but that sometimes it conveys the idea of drinking to the full, or satisfaction, without any reference to intoxicating effects. In support of our position, we will give a few cases in which the term is used in the latter sense. From the passages in which shakar is said to be used in the literal sense, to designate 64 The Bible and Temperance. intoxicating effects, we select two. Joseph's brethren " drank and were merry with him " (Gen. xliii. 34). Here the phrase "were merry" is a translation of shakar ; does it mean that Joseph's brethren drank and were drunken with him ? So this writer would have us believe : but our Authorized Version, not venturing to say this, gives the strange rendering of " were merry " with him. The marginal rendering is they drank, and drank largely with him. Now, does shakar in this instance designate intoxicating effects a rendering repudiated by both the Authorized Version and marginal reading or mean full satisfaction ? We say it means satisfaction. Again, the prophet in reproving the people of Israel says, " Ye have sown much, and brought in little ; ye eat, but ye have not enough ; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink" (Hag. i. 6.) Here the rendering of shakar is " filled with drink," and are we to take it in this passage as designating the intoxicating effects of drink? The construction of the passage requires that we attach to the term here the sense of satisfaction without any allusion to intoxicating effects : Ye eat, but ye have not enough ; ye drink, but ye are not satisfied, is the proper rendering, and conveys the meaning of the prophet. From the passages in which shakar is used meta- phorically, we will point out three instances, in which it means to be satisfied or satiated, without reference to in- toxicating effects. " I will make mine arrows drunk with blood" (Deut. xxxii. 24). Here shakar is rendered "drunk," but does this mean intoxicated ? To be intoxi- cated is to reel and stagger and fall, and are the divine arrows to reel and stagger and fall ? If so, how will they find their victims or accomplish their mission ? Surely the common-sense interpretation here is, that the divine Shechar. 65 arrows will be filled or satiated with blood. "I have drunk my yayin with my milk ; eat, O friends, drink, yea. drink abundantly, O beloved" (Canti. v. i). In this passage shakar is rendered " drink abundantly," so that in the opinion of our translators it does not here designate the intoxicating effects of drink. It is true the margin reads " be drunken," but are we to understand that the invitation is to drink, yea, drink and be drunken? If so, the Bible invites certain parties to drink, yea, to drink and be drunken ! But it is said the language is metaphorical, and should not be taken literally. Yet there is the mention of a feast, there are certain things to eat, and there is wine and milk to drink, then why not take the language literally ? The book itself may be metaphorical, but the language is literal enough. There is honey to eat, and wine and milk to drink, and there is the invitation to eat, and to drink abundantly, and is not this language literal ? But if we suppose the book itself metaphorical in character, still the term shakar cannot here designate intoxicating effects ; for whatever may be the meaning of the metaphor such effects are not included. Suppose, for instance, that something in the relation between Christ and His Church is meant, there is nothing in this relation corresponding to in- toxicating effects. Hence whether the language be taken as literal or metaphorical, the meaning of shakar here is to drink freely to be satisfied. Again, "and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine " (Isa. xlix. 26). In this pas- sage shakar is rendered " drunken," but are intoxicating effects designated here ? So says the author of The Wines of the Bible. And in support of his position he quotes from various writers numerous extracts, in order 66 The Bible and Temperance. to show that it was quite customary in ancient times to drink blood on certain occasions and for certain purposes. But how his numerous quotations bear upon the ques- tion at issue we confess ourselves unable to discover. The question is not, Did the ancients drink blood, but does blood intoxicate? Some may be satisfied with rambling quotations, but we want in argument a parallel case. Let this writer, who so luxuriates in quotations, give us an instance, either in ancient or modern times, in which men were intoxicated with their own blood, and then we will admit the relevancy of his quotation, and the logical character of his argument. Otherwise, his quotations are little more than learned rubbish. Ahsis, here rendered sweet or new wine, was not in- toxicating, and blood was not intoxicating, and there- fore shakar, in this passage, cannot designate intoxicating effects. This is partly conceded by this writer when he says, "taking, then, ahsas as signifying to tread down the wicked, and ahsis as denoting the trodden-out wine, the text may probably mean that the wicked, trodden- down and crushed and bleeding, would metaphorically drink their own blood instead of the blood of grapes " (p. 261). Now, we accept of this explanation of the text, and we will not quarrel with the want of precision in the language used in that part of the paragraph which is omitted. Hence shakar here means, that they would be filled or satiated with their trodden-out blood, as those engaged in the vintage with the trodden-out wine. Then, where is the designation of intoxicating effects in this metaphorical passage ? Moreover, our author conveniently overlooks the secondary meaning of the root, to hire or reward, yet this secondary root idea occurs much more frequently than ShecJiar. 67 the other. And as this secondary sense of the root knows nothing of intoxicating effects, why should we suppose such effects as essential in the meaning of the first root form ? But let us return to the authorities whose definitions we have given at the beginning of this chapter. It will be observed that these authorities agree in regarding shechar as a generic term, including all kinds of beverages, except those derived from the grape. Now, as shechar was a generic term for beverages made from corn, barley, honey, dates, and all other kinds of fruit, except the grape, are we to conclude that these beverages were all intoxicating, or that they all deserved the name of strong drink ? Most of the authorities, indeed, speak of the intoxicating qualities of shechar, and some of them speak of its being distilled, though they ought to know that the art of distillation was unknown in the ancient times, and was not discovered until about the beginning of the thirteenth century of our era. But when the notion of distilling was adopted, the notion of shechar being strong drink would follow as a matter of course. However, as the notion of distillation, in this case, is a mere fancy, the notion of shechar being strong drink is false. For the juices of grain and fruit, by mere fermentation alone, could seldom, if ever, become so intoxicating as to deserve the phrase "strong drink," as an epithet of character. As many of those juices would be prepared by boiling, and many would be used fresh, and therefore in both cases without fermentation, we can understand how, in many cases, shechar would be unintoxicating. In those cases where honey, or the juices of fruits, had been fermented, from the nature of the case, the liquors must have had little intoxicating 8 The Bible and Temperance. power. As the ancients were ignorant of the art of distillation, they sometimes sought, by the use of drugs, to increase the potency of their beverages. However, this drugging was the exception, and not the rule, and therefore few of the forms of shechar could have been drugged. The position now taken is supported by the authority of Professor Murphy. In the extract given from his little work, Wine in the Bible (p. 4), he mentions two forms of shechar that were unintoxicating. He says, " It was chiefly obtained 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 which is pleasant to the taste. This is the fresh palm wine. When it has gone through the process of fermentation, it becomes the intoxicating shechar." Here the thick luscious syrup of the date, and juice of the palm tree itself, are ac- knowledged to be two forms of unintoxicating shechar. And how many other forms, the juices of other fruits, that were also used before fermentation we cannot tell. Of course all the juices were, in the first instance, un- fermented ; and many of them, when not used fresh, may have been so preserved in various forms, as is still customary in eastern countries. As some forms of shechar were unfermented, we can understand the liberty accorded to the people of Israel at their religious festivals (Deut. xiv. 26). They had full licence to bestow their money for whatever their soul lusted after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for yayin, or for shechar, that they might eat and rejoice before the Lord. Now let us first take up the view of this passage Shechar. 69 as maintained by our opponents, and see what this permission supposes. It is assumed that yayin, and shechar, were intoxicating, and as their soul lusted, they were to eat and drink, in a religious festival, before the Lord. Is it likely that God would give permission to follow their own lust, in choosing and drinking in- toxicating drink ? God never could keep that people under control, then would He place them in such a position of temptation ? Our opponents say '' yes ; " yet talk of " sound exegesis." " Sound exegesis," inter- prets Scripture upon sound principles of moral purity, and is it in harmony with such principles to say, that God put His people, in connection with His worship, under the guidance of their own lust, to drink intoxicating wine and strong drink ? But it is said, the permission was given " under the well-understood limitations of moderation in eating and drinking." This assumes, that God supposed that the Jews would do what they have ever done, and no other nations, namely, to keep within the limits of moderation in the use of intoxicants. Will the author of The Wines of the Bible, who has so much pleasure in learned quotations, name any nation of antiquity, accustomed to use intoxicants at religious festivals, that kept within the limits of moderation ? If not, why suppose that God would place His people in such a position of temptation and danger as is here supposed ? Does God lead His people into temptation, and tempt men to sin ? What does " sound exegesis " say? But all the difficulty vanishes if we suppose that their yayin and shechar were unintoxicating. As such, they would be better as beverages, and full licence to use them would do no violence to Scripture principles. yo The Bible and Temperance. There would be no danger of abuse, and no temptation to form drunken habits in consequence. Such we hold to be the true meaning of the passage, and such is required by "sound exegesis." We need not dwell upon the passage in Proverbs (xxxi. 6, 7), though made so much of by the author of The Wines of the Bible. That writer adopts the principle of " drown sorrow in drink " as the meaning of the passages. He says, "the object contemplated by the recommendation of the text is not an utter and eternal oblivion of sense and misery, but merely a present and temporary mitigation of suffering and alleviation of sorrow" (p. 290). What a pity this writer did not go in for utter and eternal oblivion by drink ; his peculiar logic could have proved that the text meant it. However, in support of his position, he quotes some passages of Scripture, and gives a few extracts from profane authors, to prove the cheering effects of intoxicating wine. Next, he brings forward the ancient custom of funeral festivals, at which it was customary to give the cup of consolation to sorrowing friends. Then the conclusion is reached, " So that wine might be lawfully used as a cup of consolation, an allowable comfort, by the wretched and sorrowful, without any liberty being thereby afforded to any one to drink away his senses in the oblivion of in- toxication. It is in the light of these usages we must read the text" (p. 292). Such is the "sound exegesis" of our author. He takes the ground that intoxicants may be taken lawfully as a cup of consolation, and that the text teaches that men may " drown their sorrow in drink," guarding against drunkenness, of course. We have always thought, that the teaching of the Bible was, that religion was the source of consolation to the Shechar Tirosh. 7 1 sorrowing, since it contained such passages as, " Call upon me in the day of trouble ; I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me " (Psalm 1. 15). But our author is wiser ; he would have two strings to his bow, and add the glass to religion. This cup of consolation was of heathen origin, and forbidden to the Jews, but it serves his purpose. Wine is said to cheer, but it does not follow that the wine should be intoxicating ; the cup of consolation may have been given at the obsequies of the dead, but this custom had not the divine sanction. With regard to the meaning of the passage, high authority supposes, that the allusion is to the custom of giving intoxicating or stupefying potions to criminals before execution, and we feel quite free to accept of this interpretation. Shechar, then, is a general term for numerous beverages, derived from a variety of sources, some of which beverages were more or less intoxicating when fermented, but others of which were neither fermented nor intoxicating. tthvn Tirosh. Tirosh occurs thirty-eight times, and is usually as- sociated with corn and oil as fruits of the field. The term is supposed to come from a root signifying pos- session. As tirosh is so generally associated with corn and oil, products of the ground, it is regarded by some as vintage fruit, and a number of circumstances combine to support this opinion. However, whether tirosh de- noted a liquid or a solid, grape juice or grape clusters, we do not now inquire. The point of importance is, was it intoxicating? Well, tirosh is generally defined as the fresh juice of the grape, and therefore as neither fermented nor intoxicating. It is rendered once, " sweet 72 The Bible and Temperance. wine;" eleven times, "new wine;" and twenty-six times, " wine." TD'i'rn Tirosh, must, new wine (so called because in intoxicating it takes possession of the brain) from the root TD'IP to take possession ; to occupy ; to possess the land ; to receive an inheritance. Niph, to be dis- possessed of one's possessions, to be reduced to poverty. Niph, to expel from possession, used of the juice of grapes (Isa. Ixv. 8). Gesenius, Tirosh, new wine, the juice of the grape ; from tth* to possess, to succeed in possession ; meton, to dis- possess others ; supposing possession thus to have been obtained. Hence by a further meton, to become poor. Lee. Tirosh, new wine ; k from 1lh s to succeed another in possession, or to possess anything in succession; so it is equivalent to driving out such former possessor. It is so called from its strongly intoxicating quality, by which it does as it were take possession of a man, and drive him out of himself. In Isa. Ixv. 8 it is used for the intoxicating juice yet in the grape. So Ovid applies the Latin merum, which properly signifies pure wine, as it is pressed out of the grape, in the same manner. Vixque merum capiunt grana, quod intus habent : " And scarce the grapes contain the wine within." Parkhurst. Tirosh, new wine, must; from the root Tin* to seize upon, take possession of; dispossess ; drive out. Davidson. Tirosh, wine, new wine ; from 12TP he possessed, because it formed part of man's possession ; liquids in Tiros h, defined. 73 general, in particular new wine, or the juice still unexpressed from the grape; wine in the clusters, Isa. Ixv. 8. Bythner. Tirosh, vintage fruit. Farrar's Bib. Die. 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 (Isa. Ixv. 8). But properly it is a liquor (Isa. Ixii. 8), and like oil is described as being in the vat, after flowing from the press (Prov. iii. 10). 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. The etymology I have given of tirosh is said to be at variance with Gesenius. But I need not remind the learned that both Gesenius and Fuerst agree that the stem yarash contains the root rash, which appears also in arash, rashash, rush, resheth, etc. The former gives raspere, to snatch or grasp ; the latter terere, to rub or bruise, as the primitive meaning. Now, Gesenius and Meyer suppose tirosh to be so called, because it seizes the brain or inebriates ; Fuerst for the same reason, or because it is what is got from grapes. Bythner, because it is a valuable possession ; the Talmud because all who are drawn to it shall be poor (rash). I have suggested that it was because it was bruised or squeezed out of the grape. This is at least akin to the meaning of the root, and a more obvious characteristic than any of the others. Murphy. F 74 The Bible and Temperance. Tirosh, according to Dr. Lees, is so called, because it constituted one of the most valuable possessions of the Jews. The word occurs about thirty-four times in the Bible, rendered in the LXX. by three distinct terms, olvoc, /%> yue0vff/m, sometimes in connection with yayin, sometimes 'with oil, and sometimes with other words, ^denoting the edible productions of the earth. Does it denote an intoxicating or a non-intoxicating beverage ? The latter has been asserted, but as it would seem without reason. The contrary appears to be the truth. Hos. iv. n, " Whoredom, and wine (yayin), and new wine (tirosh), take away the heart." Here the use of the phrase, take away the heart, implies the tendency of tirosh to blunt the moral feeling and derange the intellect. The testimony of the Rabbins is to the same effect. They say tirosh is new wine, the liquor of the grapes first pressed out, which easily takes possession of the mind of man. If thou abuse it thou shalt be poor, but if thou rightly use it, thou shalt be head. Again, in the Gemara Wherefore is it called tirosh ? Because all who are drawn to it shall be poor. Kind's Bib. Cyclo. Tirosh is referred to the rootyarasA, to get possession of, and is applied, according to Gesenius and others, to wine, on account of its inebriating qualities, whereby it gets possession of the brain ; but according to Bythner, to the vine as being a possession, in the eyes of the Hebrews. Neither of these explanations is wholly satis- factory, and the second is less so than the first, inasmuch as it would be difficult to prove that the Jews attached such pre-eminent value to the vine as to place it on a par with landed property, which is designated by the cognate terms yentshash and morashah. Nor do we Tiros '/i, defined. 75 see that any valuable conclusion can be drawn from this latter derivation, for, assuming its correctness, the question will still arise, whether it was on account of the natural or manufactured product that such store was set on the vine. Smittts Bib. Die. Tirosh, vintage fruit. In the Authorized Version this meaning is not found; the common rendering being "wine," and "new wine," though also "sweet wine" (Mic. vi. 15). The force of the argument for rendering it vintage fruit is seen : i. When we observe how it is habitually combined with dagan and yitzhar, translated corn and oil, in the Authorized Version, but which are to be taken in a very wide or generic sense ; the former as including all kinds of grain, and the latter as meaning orchard fruit, though in this fruit a prominent place may have been given to the fruit of the olive, from which oil (s/iemen) was ex- tracted. We find all the three terms, dagan, tirosh, and yitzhar, denoting the produce of the field, of the vineyard, and of the orchard, occurring together nineteen times, as descriptive of the abundance yielded by the good land which the Lord gave to Israel (Num. xviii. 12). We find dagan, or corn, and tirosh eleven times ; and tirosh and yitzhar, or oil, twice. Tirosh occurs thirty-eight times ; and besides this overwhelming preponderance ot combination with dagan or corn, and yitzhar or oil, it is found seven times combined with words signifying first fruits, and ten times with tithes or offerings, which were mainly the first of gathered fruits and grain in their natural state. The use of these three words for the products of the earth is thoroughly different from the specific words for bread, wine, and oil; and it is re- 76 The Bible and Temperance. markable that tirosh is never named along with shemen, or yitzhar along with yayin (these specific words). 2. Tirosh is spoken of as a solid substance, gathered like dagan and yitzhar (Deut. xi. 14). Like them and also like animal food, it is spoken of as being eaten (Deut. xii. 17). In Isa. Ixv. 8, tirosh or fruit of the grape is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it. But it is never spoken of as a liquid, in connection with bottles, cups, or the like ; nor as being poured out and drunken, unless in Isa. Ixii. 8. As vintage fruit, the labour of treading was expended upon tirosh for the production of yayin or wine, Mic. vi. 15. 3. The law of tithes seems to necessitate the inter- pretation of tirosh so as to include all that the vineyard yielded ; else a very large and valuable portion of the increase from agriculture would have escaped from being tithed. Nor is this argument met by a reference to the custom of later Jews, according to the rule in the Mishna, that wine is to be tithed from the time it is purged, which is explained to be the time when it has cast off the kernels during its effervescence. 4. Tirosh is universally spoken of as a blessing. At least the only exception, if it be an exception, is Hos. iv. 1 1 : " Whoredom and yayin and tirosh take away the heart." But the same prophet ascribes like effects to cakes of grapes, as the phrase flagons of wine is now rendered, by the consent of scholars, Hos. iii. i. Thus, too, the sin and the ruin of Sodom are traced to pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness, Ezek. xvi. 49. And a classical parallel is furnished in the words of Terence : "sine cerere et Libero friget Venus." The derivation of tirosh from the verb to take possession, Tirosh, Derivation of Term. 77 because it intoxicates, is too arbitrary to deserve serious refutation. Imp. Bib. Die. In the Septuagint, tirosh is always rendered by the word oinos, with two exceptions. These exceptional renderings are found in Isa. Ixv. 8, where the word rhox, a grape or grape berry, is used; and Hos. iv. n, where the word methusma is employed. This latter term does not always indicate what was intoxicating, and we are not to take it in that sense here, since it is given as an equivalent of tirosh. Tirosh is defined as must, or the fresh juice of the grape ; and therefore, as an equivalent of tirosh, methusma cannot mean here intoxicating wine. In the foregoing extracts we have given, in a some- what condensed form, what a number of the first au- thorities say of Tirosh. It will be seen that these au- thorities are not entirely agreed with reference to the meaning as well as the derivation of the term. Gesenius and others say, that tirosh is derived from a root signifying to possess, and was so called because it took possession of the brain and inebriated. He and others define tirosh as must, new wine, or the fresh juice of the grape, and then tell us that it takes possession of the brain and intoxicates. Thus the definition is made to contradict the derivation. For if tirosh is must, new wine, or the fresh juice of the grape, it was unfermented, and could not be intoxicating. On the other hand, if tirosh was intoxicating, it should not be defined as must, or the fresh juice of the grape, and in this case the definition given must be wrong. How such a definition of tirosh could have been given, coupled with such an explanation of its derivation, by such authorities, we confess ourselves unable to understand. But we suppose the error is to be traced, like many similar errors, to the habit of judging 78 The. Bible and Temperance. the customs of the past by those of 'the present. Even our greatest men are not always able to divest themselves of the influence of their surroundings, and hence, we have here the derivation of tirosh made to contradict the definition. As we are bound by consistency to reject either the definition of tirosh, or the explanation of its derivation, given by Gesenius and others, we will accept the defini- tion and reject the explanation, which is opposed to all the facts of the case. Tirosh is never said to take possession of the brain and inebriate, and therefore the explanation 'which supposes this must be wrong. But while rejecting the explanation given, it does not follow that we are to reject the derivation itself. The term may come from a root signifying to possess, without sup- posing that tirosh takes possession of the brain. The root idea may be explained in a number of senses, in harmony with the character of tirosh, as must 'or fresh grape juice. The verbal root is said to contain three distinct ideas : to take possession, to dispossess, and to become poor. Why should the first sense of the root be taken as that from which tirosh is derived? Are nouns always formed from the first sense of the verbal root ? And if nouns be formed from other meanings of the root, besides the first, why not in this case ? The second meaning of the root is to dispossess or drive out ; and if this sense of the root be taken, as that from which the term is derived, then tirosh would denote the pressed- out juice of the grape, or must, the definition given of it by Gesenius and kindred authorities. And surely the sense of the root, which harmonizes with the definition of tirosh, should be chosen in preference to one directly opposed to it. Tirosh, Derivation of Term. 79 Moreover, this supposed property of taking possession of the brain would not be peculiar to tirosh, seeing it is the common property of all intoxicants. How a pro- perty common to all intoxicants could become the dis- tinctive title of one, these learned authorities have failed to inform us. The very nature of the case shows it could not be, and the fanciful and uncritical conjecture must be treated as it deserves must be rejected, though emanating from authority of deserved repute. But if the derivation given of tirosh be accepted as cor- rect, why not regard it as possessing a blessing, instead of possessing the brain, since it is always spoken of as such, and never as an intoxicant. This sense of the term would be in perfect harmony with the root idea to pos- sess, and this is the sense attached to the term by Isaiah : " As tirosh is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not, for a blessing is in it " (Isa. Ixv. 8). The learned Bythner gives another explanation of the derivation of tirosh. He derives tirosh from the root to possess, and thinks it was so called because it was looked upon as a valuable possession. But it is said, "it would be difficult to prove that the Jews attached such value to the vine as to place it on a par with landed property, which is designated by cognate terms." This objection has little force, since to regard the vine as a possession does not place it on a par with landed property. It is worthy of remark, that many passages of Scripture speak of tirosh as a blessing to be possessed. When Isaac blessed Jacob he said, " Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and tirosh " (Gen. xxvii. 28). And the language of Jacob when blessing Judah is similar in character : " Binding his foal unto the vine, and his 8o The Bible and Temperance. ass's colt unto the choice vine ; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes " (Gen. xlix. 11). Surely such utterances as these go to prove, that the Jews regarded the fruit of the vine, not the manufactured product, but the natural one, as a valuable possession, and therefore Bythner may be right. It will be observed, that two of the authorities quoted differ from the others, and define tirosh as vintage fruit. One of these authorities gives a number of facts in support of his position ; these facts go far to prove that tirosh was a solid, and not a liquid. Like corn, tirosh was regarded as a blessing of Providence ; gathered as a product of the earth, and expressly designated fruit, the fruit of the land (Deut. vii. 13). Tirosh was offered as a first-fruit (Num. xviii. 12), and was trodden like olives (Mic. vi. 15). Then tirosh is associated with dagan or corn, and yitzhar or olive fruit, as products of the ground, but never with lechem or bread, nor shemen or olive oil. Tirosh is never found associated with bread and shemen as manufactured articles. And this view of tirosh is fully supported by Professor Eadie, who says, " Tirosh appears often to mean the solid produce of the vine, and is frequently used along with the word corn or field produce, and oil (yitzhar) or orchard produce." In opposition to these views, it is objected in Kitto's Bib. Cyc., "that the association of corn and tirosh fails to prove that tirosh is a solid, as the association of bread and water fails to prove that water is a solid." One would hardly expect to find such a frivolous objection in a work of such high repute, but so it is. Most people can see that the cases are not parallel. Corn and tirosh are associated as products of the ground, as things that grew ; Tirosh) Unfermented Wine. 81 and are bread and water thus associated ? Have these the common bond of being \h& fruit of the field to unite them? Bread and water are associated, not as products of the ground, but as food as meat and drink. Now, while solids and liquids are associated together zsfood, solids and liquids are not associated together as the produce of the ground. Hence the analogy, on which this objection is based, has no existence, and therefore the objection can have no force; it is a mere shadow opposed to solid reasons on the other side. Now, from the substantial arguments advanced in support of the position, that tirosh meant vintage fruit, we might rest satisfied and adopt the conclusion. How- ever, for our present purpose we prefer taking the definition of the majority of the authorities we have quoted, who define tirosh as mttst, new wine, and the fresh juice of the grape. The question is not, was tirosh a solid or a liquid ; but the question is, was it an in- toxicant? Of course, if tirosh meant vintage fruit, it could not be an intoxicant, and this would decide its character as a Bible wine. But we waive any argument that might be built on this, and take another ground. The ground we take up is, that tirosh meant must, new wine, or the fresh juice of the grape, and therefore it was neither fermented nor intoxicating. Must, or new wine, is not intoxicating, and from the nature of the case could not be, and as most of our authorities define tirosh as must, new wine, or the fresh juice of the grape, if we accept of their definition, we must conclude that tirosh was an unfermented wine. Hence Professor Murphy contends, that tirosh is "the juice of the grape, which is given forth when it is in any way crushed or bruised." The Scriptural use of tirosh fully sustains our position. 82 The Bible and Temperance. In Scripture, it is never said to intoxicate or take posses- sion of the brain, and in no instance do we find it associated with drunkenness. It is also uniformly re- garded as a providential blessing, given in abundance to Israel, when obedient, but partially or wholly with- held when rebellious. Tirosh is never associated with drunkenness, or charged with producing it, and the abuse of it is never condemned. It is worthy of note, that this wine that is so uniformly spoken of as a blessing, is never spoken of as an intoxicant. There is one passage indeed which has been so in- terpreted as to connect tirosh with drunkenness, but the interpretation is forced upon the passage ; we refer to Hos. iv. n. The erudite author of the article on wine, in Kitto's Bib. Cyc., may be allowed to state the case on behalf of those who are like-minded. In the extract already given, he says, " The use of the phrase, take away the heart, implies the tendency of tirosh to blunt the moral feelings, and derange the intellect." It will be seen, by looking at the context, that this language is designed to convey the impression that tirosh was an intoxicant. But as the passage would not bear this construction, it could not be honestly stated, so we have the peculiar phraseology of the extract. It does not say that tirosh intoxicates, but that the phrase, take away the heart, implies the tendency of tirosh to blunt the moral feelings, and derange the intellect. He would not commit himself to the position that the phrase, take away the heart, means to intoxicate, but he would endeavour to convey that impression by the use of ambiguous language. Such an insidious effort is worthy of the cause it is designed to defend. But does the phrase, take away the heart, imply a Tirosh, Unfermented Wine. 83 tendency, or express a. fact? If tirosh have a tendency to blunt the moral feelings and derange the intellect, how comes it to pass that it is promised as a blessing by Isaac to Jacob, and by God to Israel? Would God promise to His people as a blessing, a thing that had a tendency to take away their heart from Him ? It would not be like Him to do so, but in the eyes of some men it appears more important to prove the wines of Scrip- ture intoxicating, than to maintain the purity of the Divine character; everything is to be sacrificed to the interest of drink. Now when the prophet says, " Whoredom and yayin and tirosh take away the heart," does he express a tendency, or does he state a fact ? We say the prophet records an historic fact. The context shows, that the sacred writer does not speak of a tendency, but records a fact in the history of backsliding Israel. A similar fact is stated in the first verse of the preceding chapter. There the prophet says of the children of Israel, that they look to other gods, and love flagons of wine. Here flagons of wine are supposed to take away the heart, but these flagons of wine are only cakes of grapes, and cakes of grapes can have no tendency to blunt the moral feelings and derange the intellect. In like manner, the sin and ruin of Sodom are traced to pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness (Ezek. xvi. 49). The effort to make the phrase "take away the heart " imply a tendency to blunt the moral feelings and de- range the intellect, or, in other words, to intoxicate, utterly fails. The Hebrew word Hpi? here rendered " take away," occurs more than nine hundred and sixty times, and yet in no instance does it express a tendency to intoxicate, or is it in any way associated with drunken- 84 The Bible and Temperance. ness. We have yet to learn, therefore, by what law of interpretation this phrase can be made to bear this exceptional meaning here. And unless some such ac- knowledged law of interpretation is adduced, we must protest against this arbitrary mode of wresting Scripture language, for the purpose of proving that the wines mentioned in the Bible were all intoxicating. The effort of this writer on sacred literature to make the Bible give its sanction to the use of intoxicants is bad enough, but to wrest Bible language for this purpose is still worse. Moreover, it is the heart that is here spoken of, and not the brain. It is not said that tirosh takes possession of the brain, but that with certain other things it takes, or has taken away the heart. When the Scriptures speak of drunkenness, they do not point to the heart as the part affected, or say the heart was intoxicated ; it is only writers of a certain type, and those connected with the trade, who so err in vision and stumble in judgment. It will be observed, that there are three things in this passage that are said to take away the heart, and what is said of tirosh is also said of the other two. It is said that -whoredom, yayin, and tirosh take away the heart. Now, unless we suppose that whoredom intoxicates, we cannot conclude that tirosh does ; and as we cannot suppose that whoredom intoxicates, we have no right to infer that tirosh does, since the same thing is said of both. It is evident, therefore, that in this passage the phrase, take away the heart, does not refer to in- toxicating qualities of whoredom, yayin, and tirosh. The language here refers to the heart, and not the brain, to what is moral, and not to what is physical. As the phrase, take away the heart, never elsewhere means to intoxicate, we conclude that it does not mean Tirosh, Unfermcnted Wine. 85 so here, and therefore, that there is nothing in this passage to show that tirosh was an intoxicant. Indeed, there is no allusion to intoxication in the passage. The context shows, that the prophet is speaking of religious apostasy. In the next verse we read, " My people ask counsel at their stocks, and their staff declareth unto them ; for the spirit of whoredom hath caused them to err, and they have gone a whoring from under their God" (Hos. iv. 12). Then, by whoredom we are here to understand religious whoredom or idolatry. By yayin and tirosh, we are here to understand, the things offered to idols, and used at idolatrous feasts (Hos. ii. 8). The whole passage would mean, that idol worship, and idol feasts, had taken away the heart of the people from the God of Israel. The objection is not to yayin and tirosh, in themselves considered, but to yayin and tirosh, as things offered to idols, and as things occupying the chief place at idol feasts. We find the same thing condemned by Jeremiah (Jer. vii. 18 and xliv. 17-19). The Rev. A. M. Wilson, author of The Wines of the Bible, gives us another view of the passage than that we have just considered. He says, " The taking away the heart from God is regarded, not as signifying intoxication, but as exhibiting the effect of intoxication, arising from indulgence in yayin and especially tirosh (P- J 33)- And in proof of this statement he quotes Prov. xxiii. 33, where tirosh is not so much as named, and which has no connection with the passage before us. We are told that the taking away the heart from God is the effect of intoxication, arising from indulgence in yayin, and especially tirosh. But why leave out whoredom, which is joined with yayin and tirosh in the text ? And why add to tirosh the word " especially," which is not in the 86 The Bible and Temperance. text? This writer must forget his position when he can add to the inspired text, and take from it, as seemeth good in his sight. However, if taking away the heart from God exhibits the effect of intoxication, this in- toxication must be attributed to whoredom equally with yayin and tirosh ; and does whoredom intoxicate ? Our author does not say that whoredom intoxicates, though the text predicates the same thing of whoredom as of yayin and tirosh ; but he quietly puts it aside, that it may not embarrass him in drawing his conclusion. So his mode of explaining Scripture is to leave out of the passage anything that may not harmonize with his opinion. Accordingly, his interpretation of this passage is, that intoxication takes away the heart from God. The text says whoredom, yayin, and tirosh take away the heart ; but he says no, it is intoxication that does it ; and he thus puts intoxication for whoredom, yayin, and tirosh. Thus this learned author would amend the text, and correct the prophet ! We shall not follow this writer in his devious criticisms on the views of Dr. Lees and Dr. Ritchie in reference to tirosh. These gentlemen are well able to defend themselves, and the criticisms of our author are so largely made up of what is pretentious, and trifling, that we have neither time nor space to examine them at length. But we may note a sort of conclusion he comes to, at the close of a long discursive ramble. In reference to the views of the writers which he had been criticising, he says " If the reader is not satisfied with any of these far-fetched and unnatural interpretations of the text, we recommend him to fall back upon the simpler and more reasonable view, that the prophet is depicting the demoralizing effects produced upon the TirosJi, Unfermented Wine. 87 people of Ephraim by indulgence in wine and women, the chosen wine of the inebriates being a species of yayin, designated tirosh " (p. 333). Here, the reader is modestly asked to believe his statement without proof. Our author is a privileged writer ; he can pronounce the opinions of his opponents so far-fetched and unnatural that they should be rejected, and his own so reasonable that they should be received by the reader, without a particle of proof. Notwith- standing this self-confidence, it is evident the writer does not understand the passage. Where does he learn that the text speaks of inebriates ? Where does he learn that the chosen wine of these conjured-up inebriates was a species of yayin designated tirosh ? And where does he learn that the prophet is here depicting the demoralizing effects produced upon the people of Ephraim by in- dulgence in wine and women ? Neither in the text nor the context is there any authority for these statements they are the offspring, not of a pure, but of an impure fancy. The subject of which the prophet speaks is idol worship, with its demoralizing effects. In that worship there may have been prostitution and drunkenness ; but if so, they are looked at as parts of the evil which the prophet denounced. And these parts, if such there were, are not particularized in this writer's style ; the general evil of idol worship is condemned, and thereby all the evils associated with it. And in those cases where particulars are mentioned, as a rule they are to be taken as representatives, or in a metaphorical sense. Hence we would recommend the reader of The Wines of the Bible to accept none of the statements therein contained, however confident they may be, unless sustained by sufficient evidence. 88 The Bible and Temperance. The writer in Kitto's Bib. Cyclo., to whom we have often referred, and whose language we have quoted, gives the testimony of certain Jewish Rabbins in support of the opinion that tirosh was an intoxicant. But the Rabbins do not say that tirosh intoxicates. They only say, " If thou abuse it thou shalt be poor, but if thou rightly use it thou shalt be head." Were it otherwise, the force of the evidence is weakened by the twofold fact that it comes to us through a translation, and that the lan- guage is ambiguous. However, one might prove almost anything by Rabbinical testimony take an instance. In the Gemara Pesachim we find the following, " They said that Rabbi Johanan, son of Norbai, did eat three hundred calves, and drank three hundred measures of wine, and eat forty sooks of doves, for luncheon only " (P- 57)- Hence our opponents must be sorely in need of evidence to support their views when they have recourse to Rabbinical testimony. Were we to admit it here, we might prove that the wine of which the Rabbin drank three hundred measures was not intoxicating, since so much intoxicating wine would kill any Rabbin even Johanan, the son of Norbai. Our position is, therefore, that if tirosh was a liquid, it was the fresh juice of the grape, unfermented and un- intoxicating. In no case is it spoken of as producing drunkenness ; in no case is it forbidden ; in no case is it taken to be a curse ; but in every case it is regarded as a blessing. Its use in idol worship alone is condemned (Hos. iv. n). Yayin. 89 j-;: Yayin. Yayin is the term most frequently used in the Hebrew Scriptures to designate the juice of the grape. It is a generic term for this juice, both in a fresh and fermented state, and occurs no less than one hundred and forty- one times. In one instance yayin is applied to the juice of the pomegranate. In harmony with its generic character, yayin is spoken of in Scripture both as a bless- ing and as a curse, thereby indicating that things of a very opposite nature are designated by it. The term evidently covers the juice of the grape in all its forms, whether fermented or not. The derivation of yayin appears somewhat doubtful, as little better than mere conjecture is offered on the subject. In our English Bible yayin is rendered once, " vine " ; once, " vine tree " ; once, " wine-bibber " ; once, " banqueting " ; and one hundred and thirty-seven times, " wine." 1^ yayin, wine; perhaps so called from bubbling up and fermenting ; from \\\ an unused root, which appears to have had the sense of boiling up, or bubbling up. Whence ] clay, and ]V wine ; unless it be deemed better to regard it as a primitive wine, Greek olvoe; Latin, vinum. Gesenius. Yayin, wine ; which is made by squeezing the grapes ; the expressed juice of grapes. From nr to press, squeeze. It is worthy of remark, that the Hebrew name for wine has been retained with little variation in many other languages, as in the Greek olvoc ; Latin, vinum ; whence Italian and Spanish, vino ; .French, vin ; and English, wine. Parkhurst. Yayin, wine; melon, drunkenness. Greek oIVoc; Latin, vinum. Lee. B 90 The Bible and Temperance. Yayin, wine; meton, intoxication; from "jV root not used, to which is ascribed the signification of heat, and fermentation; whence "jV mire, mud. Davidson. 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 produce of corn, in the well-known phrase, bread and wine, except in one case where it is conjoined with corn (Gen. xxvii. 28). The meaning assigned to the root is, in Gesenius, to effervesce ; in Fiierst and Meyer, to tread ; in some others, to twine, bind, squeeze. I think the last very likely. Murphy. Yayin, the most general term for wine is yayin, which is undoubtedly connected with the Greek ol^oe; the Latin, vinum ; and our wine. It has hitherto been the current opinion that the Indo-European languages borrowed the term from the Hebrew; the reverse, however, appears to be the case. The word belongs to the Indo-European languages, and may be referred either to the root we, to weave : whence comes viere, vimen, mils, vitta ; or to the root wan, to love. The word being a borrowed one, no conclusion can be drawn from etymological considerations as to its use in the Hebrew language. The treading was effected by one or more men, according to the size of the vat ; and the expressed juice escaped by an aperture into the lower vat, or was at Yayin, defined. 91 once collected into vessels. As to the subsequent treat- ment of the wine, we have but little information. Some- times it was preserved in an unfermented state, and drunk as must ; but more generally it was bottled off after fermentation, and if it was designed to be kept for some time, a certain amount of lees was added to give it body. Smith 1 s Bib. Die. Yayin, wine ; the general word for the produce of the vine, when it has been transformed into a liquid; derived, according to the prevalent opinion, from a root signifying to be turbid, to boil up, and applied to the grape juice as it rushes foaming into the wine vat Others consider it to be a word foreign to the Jews, and the nations who spoke kindred languages ; certainly the word is found to be very widespread, as in the Greek olvoe; the Latin vinum, &c. It seems to be used to describe all sorts of wine (Ne. v. 18) from the simple grape juice, or a thickened syrup, to the strongest liquors with which the Israelites were acquainted, and the use of which often led to deplorable scenes of drunkenness. Imp. Bib. Die. Yayin, according to Gesenius, from |T an unused root having the force of fervendi aestuendi; according to Fiirst, from "pi vin, like the Arabic 'p? Greek Folvog', Latin, vinum ; and English, wine. The LXX. olvoq, 0.0x0$, y\tvKOQ. Others take the word to be of Indo-European extraction, from the root we, to weave ; or wan, to love. The meaning of the word therefore is regarded by some as uncertain, but apparently without reason, as Gesenius is clearly in the right in his derivation of it. This word, the most commonly employed for wine in the Old Testament Scriptures, is also the most comprehensive, 92 The Bible and Temperance. including, like the corresponding English word, wines of all sorts, although used also in a more restricted sense to denote red wine. Kitto's Bib. Die. In the Septuagint yayin is uniformly rendered, in every case where an equivalent is given, by the corresponding Greek word oinos, unless in one exceptional case, where another word is used. This exceptional case is found in Job xxxii. 19, and there the word gleukos is used. The use of the word gleukos in this place connects the passage with Acts ii. 13. The Derivation of Yayin. In reference to the authorities cited, two things may be noted. They do not agree with regard to the derivation of yayin ; but they all suppose it to be a generic term for the juice of the grape. Gesenius is of opinion that the term is derived from an unused root, signifying to boil, or bubble up. Parkhurst supposes that it comes from a root meaning to press or squeeze. Others think that it is not a genuine Hebrew word, and suppose it borrowed from some foreign tongue by the sacred writers. As our authorities are found to differ so much in opinion, and have little more to offer than mere conjecture, we are not to expect much aid from the derivation of the term, in our efforts to fix its meaning. Gesenius, and those who adopt his opinion, suppose that the root idea is boiling, or bubbling up, and that this idea may refer to the process of fermentation. How- ever, they proceed immediately to trace mud and mire to the same root. They fail to see, that if the root idea of bubbling up refers to fermentation, then mud and mire, coming from the same root, must convey the idea of Derivation of Yayin. 93 fermentation as well as yayin. And as mud and mire are not supposed to be fermented, and are not much esteemed as intoxicants, we are not prepared to admit that the root idea of bubbling up has reference to the process of fermentation, or that the term yayin embodies the idea. It is no more the embodiment of the idea of fermentation than mud or mire. If yayin be derived from a root signifying to boil, or bubble up, the allusion may be to the commotion produced in the wine vat by the rushing in of the grape juice from the winepress, and not from the process of fermentation. It will also be observed, that other derivations given, allude to the twining and creeping propensities of the vine, or to the process of treading the grape, and make no reference to the process of fermentation. Accordingly, there is nothing in the derivation of the term to indicate that yayin was an intoxicant. Further, if yayin be regarded as a generic term for the juice of the grape in all conditions, and without reference to distinctive qualities, the root idea of bubbling up could not refer to fermentation. In this case, the term would only cover the juice of the grape when fermented, and designate the different kinds of fermented wine. It could not therefore apply to grape juice that had not been fermented, and consequently could not be a generic term for the juice of the grape as denned by our authorities. But if the root idea of bubbling up be taken as referring to the foaming of the newly expressed juice, as it rushes into the vat, then the term embodying this idea would be applied at the time of treading, and would be of a genuine character, designating this juice through the stages of its subsequent history. Accordingly, Parkhurst defines yayin as the expressed juice of the 94 "The Bible and Temperance. grape. And Murphy says, "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," then, if yayin be a general term for the juice of the grape as such, the root idea of bubbling up cannot refer to the process of fermentation, since all sorts were not fermented. But here we are brought into contact with certain objections raised by opponents. The Rev. Dr. Watts, in his review of the Temperance Bible Commentary, writes, " Now as both the commentators and those with whom they differ, are agreed that yayin comes from a root signifying to foam, the question may be discussed whether it be more natural to characterize the liquid product of the vine, from the initial foaming produced mechanically, or the subsequent foaming arising from a long-continued process of fermentation. Surely there is no room for dispute here. If yayin were derived from the former, it could not be used as a distinguishing term among liquids at all, for all liquids do foam when subjected to mechanical disturbance. But discriminating to this extent, at the least, the term must have been at the very outset It must have suggested, and been used to suggest, at once a liquid distinct from all liquids. This it could not do if derived as these commentators say, from a word expressive of mere foaming, for the action of foaming is not a differentia among liquids. Not so, however, if derived from the subsequent effer- vescence arising from fermentation and indicative of it. Embodying this idea, the term would be intelligible, as it would necessarily suggest a liquid which had undergone fermentation. (Brit, and For. Evan. Review, page 21, Jan. 1876.) Derivation of Yayin. 95 It will be seen, that the very first thing stated in this extract is open to question, seeing that these com- mentators, and their opponents, are not agreed with regard to the derivation of the term yayin. From the definitions we have cited, any one may see, that our highest authorities are anything but agreed on the subject, and therefore the first thing stated here has no foundation in fact The reviewer next proceeds to argue, that the root idea of foaming has reference to fermentation, and not the rushing of expressed juice into the vat. He contends, that the foaming of the newly expressed juice is not a differentia among liquids, for all liquids do foam when subjected to mechanical disturbance. But here the point of the argument is evaded, for he must know, that the question is not the foaming of liquids in general, but the foaming of juice pressed out from fruit. Limiting the language thus, the foaming of ex- pressed grape juice, is a differentia among fruit juices. It is for him to point out any other kind of fruit juice than the juice of the grape, that rushes foaming into a vessel as the result of treading. Olives and dates may have been trodden, but the shemen and the shachar would not rush foaming into the vat; they were too thick for this, and would move too slowly. The mechanical disturbance in the case of other kinds of fruit trodden, would not produce the same effect as in the case of the grape. Then, if the distinguishing characteristic of the newly-expressed grape juice, be this foaming in the vat, why not embody this peculiarity or differentia in the name ? For this the husbandman has long looked and laboured, and the mode of its first appearance would naturally impress his mind, and suggest the term by which to designate it. And the 96 The Bible and Temperance. name thus given would be a proper, though general designation for the juice of the grape, whatever form it might assume in the future. This mode of naming objects is in full harmony with ancient custom. It was usually at the first appearance of a person or thing that the name was given. And in such cases, the name was the embodiment of an idea suggested by some remarkable fact or circumstance connected with the first appearance of the person or object. The names Esau, Jacob, and Moses, may be taken as good illustrations of this ancient custom. These names are the permanent embodiments of certain remarkable circumstances connected with the first appear- ance of those who bore them, but they were never supposed to indicate the subsequent character of the men. In like manner, the term yayin may be taken as the embodiment of the idea of foaming conveyed by the first appearance of the grape juice, as it rushes into the vat at the time of treading, and the name thus given, would never be supposed to indicate the subsequent character of the liquid. Moreover, the argument that the term yayin is derived from the subsequent effervescence of fermentation proves too much. For if yayin be the embodiment of the idea of fermentation, then the term would designate, and include all fermented liquors, and if so, where would be the differentia among such fermented liquors? All fermented things would be yayin, and therefore the term would designate, and include, all the fermented things known to the Jews. For if the foaming or bubbling up of fermentation, be the thought embodied in the term, it would include all things fermented. In such a case, the term could not be limited in its application to the juice Derivation of Yayin. 97 of the grape, and consequently all the authorities whose definitions we have given, must be wrong, since they all regard yayin as a generic term for the juice of the grape. Further, if all the beverages derived from different kinds of fruit, and from grain and tapping trees, were all fermented as our opponents suppose, and if yayin, as embodiment of the notion of fermentation, included them all, what becomes of the differentia among liquids for which this writer contends ? It would be a very difficult thing to prove that the notion of fermentation is em- bodied in any one of the terms applied to the beverages mentioned in the Bible, if we except vinegar. And to prove that yayin was an intoxicant, this writer must seek evidence elsewhere than in the derivation of the term. Besides, we are to bear in mind, that day, mud, and mire, are derived from the same root as yayin, and as already observed, if the root idea be fermentation, then these terms must be the embodiments of the idea of fermentation as well as yayin. And if yayin always designates an intoxicating beverage, on account of the term being the embodiment of this root idea, so also must clay, mud, and mire designate intoxicating beverages, seeing that these terms are the embodiments of the same idea. Is our reviewer prepared to give these a place among his wines, and commend them to his friends as some of the rarest viands that have ever found their way to the tables of the great ? And if any one should be found to doubt the truth of the commendation, the fact, that those who incline to drink, incline to the mire, should be taken as sufficient evidence of their natural relationship. Our reviewer indeed admits, that it is open to us to take the derivation of yayin, for which we are contending, 98 The Bible and Temperance. but says "In establishing this position they have to explain away every passage in which the qualities of yayin are indicated by its effects. And still more, inasmuch as the idea of the root is traceable in the remotest signification of the word, they are bound to show that the idea of foaming obtains to some extent in all the instances in which yayin is described by its effects. (Brit, and For. Evan. Review, p. 21.) Now we do not feel under any obligation to comply with these demands of the reviewer. The idea of the root, however, is traceable in every signification of the word, inasmuch as it is the designation of the juice of the grape that rushed foaming into the vat at the time of treading. But the term may embody an idea connected with the first appearance of the liquid, without in any way describing its subsequent character. We may take any of the names before mentioned as an illustration and proof of this. Is the root idea of drawing out of the water, traceable in the remotest feature of the character of Moses, and necessary to explain all the passages where his name occurs ? And if not in the name Moses, why in the term yayin? And if we admit the canon laid down here by this writer in the case of yayin, why not in the case of clay, mire, and mud, which come from the same root ? And in the case of these latter terms, is the idea of foaming or fermentation, traceable in their remotest signification? Thus the difficulties conjured up by the reviewer are unreal, and vanish with a touch. The writer may suppose his canon of criticism very profound and philosophical, but it does not apply in this case, and we are under no obligation to comply with its demands. Yayin, a Generic Term. 99 It will be observed, that the reviewer takes up the position, that the word yayin is the embodiment of the idea of fermentation, and consequently the juice of the grape designated by it, must be an intoxicating liquor. Now to establish this position, he would require to prove two things. First, that the term yayin is derived from a root signifying to foam or bubble up ; and, secondly, that this foaming or bubbling up is the effervescence of fermentation. It is clear he has failed to prove one or other of these propositions, and is unable to prove either. All the authorities we have quoted, do not derive yayin from a root signifying to foam or bubble up, and those that do, give this derivation only as a pro- bable conjecture. And as this writer is unable to prove either of the propositions on which his argument is based, it must in consequence fall to the ground. It is true the argument itself is carefully constructed, and is very elaborate, but having no foundation on which to rest, it resolves itself into a mere dialectic war-dance, in which the reviewer shows his skill in using his weapons, but only wastes his energy in beating the air. Yayin as a generic term. Next to the derivation of yayin, we may consider the character of the term. Is it a generic term, and if so, what is the nature of its generic character? It is generally conceded by our opponents that yayin is a generic term, but they limit the sense to the fermented juice of the grape, while we extend the meaning to the juice of the grape both fermented and unfermented the juice of the grape in all its liquid conditions. We may allow the reviewer of the Temperance Bible Commentary to state the case on the other side. He says, " If yayin be a. genus IOO The Bible and Temperance. of which fermented grape juice is one species, and un- fermented grape juice another species, it cannot, of and by itself, designate either. But the Scriptures, to the utter confusion of the theory, abound in instances in which yayin, unqualified by any specific term, is used to designate the fermented juice of the grape, while no unquestionable instance of its application to the un- fermented juice can be pointed out. If, then, we would abide by the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, we must regard the fermented juice of the grape as the only proper meaning of yayin." Brit, and For. Evan. Rev. p. 29. Here, in the first sentence, the reviewer fairly enough states the position. But in the second sentence, he says the Scriptures abound in instances in which yayin, un- qualified by any specific term, is used to designate the fermented juice of the grape. Now, this we deny ; and if the Scriptures abound with such instances, why did he not give us one ? In no single instance does yayin of itself designate the fermented juice of the grape; its being fermented, can only be inferred from the context in every case. It is true, that fermented yayin is not qualified by specific terms, but it is qualified by the context, which takes the place of specific terms, and the reviewer could hardly be ignorant of this. Is it ingenuous, then, to suppress the fact, and for the purpose of argument, to force upon the language of Scripture an unreal technicality. The Rev. A. M. Wilson, author of The Wines of the Bible, takes a somewhat different view of the generic character of yayin. He writes " the wine is never, in any circumstances, designated a fermented or an unfer- mented liquor; neither is any distinction of this kind ever made in the use of the term, as if to discriminate Yayin, a Generic Term. 101 between two different kinds of wine. This fact might not have been of any special significance, the nature of the liquor being otherwise indicated, were it not that the Bible is a book of such minute precepts that it carefully distinguishes between beasts, fowls, flesh, garments, places, and persons that are clean, and those that are unclean; and between cakes that are leavened or fer- mented, and those that are unleavened or unfermented. Surely the alleged difference between the two kinds of yayin was as great and important and as much in need of special distinction as between animals clean and un- clean, and bread leavened and unleavened." (p. 212.) This writer, in the beginning of this extract, gives a correct view of the case ; but, as usual, he fails to dis- tinguish between things that differ. The distinctions referred to between clean and unclean, and between cakes leavened and unleavened, are distinctions of a religious character, and have nothing to do with those which he seeks between different kinds of wine. The law of distinctions alluded to would apply to wine when used in religious worship, and this subject will be con- sidered in due season. But this law of distinctions under ordinary circumstances, does not apply to wine, no more than to cakes, with which in this case it should be classed, and they were not subject to distinctions in ordinary life. It is true, that in the case of animals, those distinguished by certain marks, and designated clean, were the only ones permitted to be used for human food. By such distinctions, God pointed out the class of animals that were most suitable for the food of man, and which He designed him to use for this purpose. Then, with regard to the clean animals designed for food, there were no more distinctions drawn, with reference to the mode in IO2 The Bible and Temperance. which they were to be prepared and used. For certain reasons, the blood was not to be eaten, or a kid seethed in its mother's milk; but apart from these exceptions, there were no other distinctions made. Now, the fruit of the vine is given to man for use, and therefore must be classed with clean animals, and as in their case, so here, there are no distinctions drawn with reference to the mode of preparation or use. Hence the law dis- tinguishing between clean and unclean cannot apply to wine. Moreover, our author informs us that the Bible is a book of " minute precepts," and appears to forget, that it is also a book of broad principles and generic terms. And it will be observed, that the terms he uses when speaking of distinctions, are terms of a general character, and as in the case of yayin, it is only by the context their specific meaning can be determined. In proof of this, we may instance the term (~r*2) garment, which denotes a covering ; hence a covering for the ark ; raiment for the body ; and perfidy. So yayin is a generic term for the juice of the grape, and as in the case of garment, the context must decide the sense in which it is to be taken. What this writer wants is, that the generic term yayin should be marked off into specific terms for his con- venience, but he has to show that the sacred writers are accustomed to do this in other cases, before he can claim it in the case of yayin. The next thing to consider is the Scripture usage with regard to the term yayin. Do the sacred writers use the term in the sense for which we contend, or in the sense attached to it by our opponents ? This Scripture usage must decide the question. Yayin, applied to Grape Juice. 103 Our Position. OUR position is that the term yayin as a generic term is applied by the sacred writers to the juice of the grape both in a fermented and unfermented state. It is ad- mitted that the term is applied to fermented grape juice ; and to prove that it was also applied to unfermented grape juice we will cite a few passages, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. The first passage we would cite is found in the blessing given by the dying patriarch to his sons. When the pilgrimage of Jacob had come to a close, he called his sons together unto him that he might tell them what should befall them in the last days. In blessing Judah he said, " Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass's colt unto the choice vine ; he washed his garments in wine and his clothes in the blood of grapes " (Gen. xlix. n). In this passage the allusion is to the treading of grapes, and the sprinkling of the garments of the treaders with the grape juice, which is called yayin, and this yayin that sprinkled the garments of the treaders was unfermented. But this instance is not a solitary one, we will give two more, in which the term yayin is also applied to the unfermented juice of the grape. " And gladness is taken away, and joy out of the plentiful field ; and in the vine- yards there shall be no singing, neither shall there be shouting ; the treaders shall tread out no yayin in their presses " (Isa. xvi. 10). "And joy and gladness is taken from the plentiful field and from the land of Moab ; and I have caused yayin to fail from the winepresses ; none shall tread with shouting" (Jer. xlviil 33). 1O4 The Bible and Temperance. We have here three instances in which yayin is a designation of the fresh juice of the grape, and there- fore of unfermented wine, and these range over a period of more than a thousand years. According to our common chronology, the first instance may be set down as some seventeen centuries before Christ, and the last six. Now if we find the term yayin applied to unfer- mented grape juice, over such a range of time, and in such a way as to lead one to suppose it to be a customary thing, have we not a right to infer that the term designated " juice of the grape," unfermented as well as fermented ? And as we find the term thus applied to the unfermented juice of the grape, at times so far removed from each other, it follows that during the most important period of Jewish history, the Jewish people employed yayin as a designation of unfermented wine. It will also be observed, that in every one of these instances, this tinfermented ivine is regarded as a blessing. In "the case of Judah it was a blessing promised, and in the other passages quoted it was a blessing withheld from the Jews as a punishment for their sins. We have there- fore gained two points of great importance, namely, that the term yayin was applied by the Jews to unfermented grape juice; and that this unfermented yayin was ac- counted a blessing. That the foregoing passages refer to the process of treading the grape is not alone our opinion, it is also the opinion of the highest authority. An eminent writer says : " The treading was effected by one or more, ac- cording to the size of the vat. They encouraged one another by shouts and cries (Isa. xvi. 10); and their legs and garments were dyed red with the juice" (Gen. xlix. ii ; Isa. Ixiii. 1-3). Smith's Bib. Die. Yayin, applied to Grape Juice. 105 Of course our interpretation of these passages has been disputed, and criticism has done its best to shake their testimony in our favour. Our interpretation is natural, and involves no wresting of the language, but the testi- mony is too strong to be admitted without question. Accordingly, our opponents say, "Whilst we hold that yayin means the fermented juice of the grape, we hold also that it may be applied poetically and proleptically to the juice of the grape." Thus what we contend for is admitted, but in order to weaken the testimony of the passages, the language is supposed to be poetic or proleptic. With regard to the passages quoted from Isaiah and Jeremiah, we think the language literal, and the simple expression of fact, and should therefore be so understood. And if men are at liberty to wrest the literal language of Scripture in this way, in order to make it square with their theories, there is an end of language as the medium of thought or of truth, since men can make it say whatever they please. There is no proof that the language here is proleptic, and to regard it as such without proof, and thereby changing its meaning, is surely one mode of wresting the language. When the prophets say that the treaders shall tread out no yayin in their presses : and that God had caused yayin to fail from the winepresses ; the term yayin is manifestly applied to the fresh unfer- mented juice of the grape; and surely these inspired men must mean what they say. When the language is so plain and easily understood, has any man a right to say it should not be taken in its natural sense? The in- spired writers must be allowed to mean what they say, unless there is some reason for supposing otherwise, and as in this case there is none, we cannot regard the language therefore as proleptic. i lo6 The Bible and Temperance. While the term yayin is supposed to be used prolep- tically in these passages from the prophets, it is supposed to be used poetically in the blessing of the patriarch. Thus, as occasion requires, one theory gives place to another. This poetic theory is also very convenient, and so plastic, that the interpretation may be made to assume any shape required. Accordingly, in the case of the blessing pronounced on Judah, the language of the dying patriarch is interpreted after this manner : "As regards the action of washing his garments in yayin, it must be borne in mind that we are dealing with poetry, and that we are not at liberty to treat it as prose. No man would think of washing his garments either in yayin or grape juice. The idea is simply this, that wine would be as abundant as water. Of course, the language is in the highest vein of Oriental imagery, and if taken literally becomes absurd," (Brit, and For. Evan. Review, p. 39.) Hence, according to our reviewer, when Jacob would tell Judah that he should have wine as abundant as water, he expresses this idea by saying that he should wash his garments in it. And when Jacob uses this mode of expression, his language is said to be in the highest vein of Oriental imagery. What a .profound acquaintance our reviewer must have with Hebrew poetry and Oriental imagery ! Might we not then expect him to know that while " no man would think of washing his garments in yayin or grape juice," a man might think of treading out yayin or grape juice in a winepress. The reviewer elsewhere says, in reference to the writers whose work he is reviewing, " Well, if a man have dis- covered a principle by which exegetical difficulties of this sort may be obviated, let him go through with it." Yayin, applied to Grape Juice. 107 Now, as the term " washed " is not to be taken literally, so neither are the other terms to be taken literally then what can the passage mean ? However, while laying down the principle, he is careful not to go through with it, seeing it would carry him too far. Accordingly, all the words in the passage that speak of yayin as being unfermented, he regards as poetic, and not to be taken in a literal sense. But when he comes to the clause, " His eyes shall be red with wine," as the term red would appear to intimate that the yayin was intoxicating, he insists on taking the language in a literal sense. That is, when the language is against him, it is in the highest vein of Oriental imagery, and cannot be taken literally ; but as soon as it seems to favour him, it ceases to be poetic, and must be taken literally. Such is our re- viewer's canon of criticism, and such is his mode of judging between Hebrew poetry and Hebrew prose. But while compelled to reject this poetic theory of interpretation, we nevertheless believe in the poetic character of the language of Jacob in this passage. But while poetic, the language is literal, for this species of Hebrew poetry is as literal as prose. The poetry in this case is that sort of Hebrew poetry designated sententious by Bishop Lowth, and is of that peculiar metrical form, into which the prophetic language of the Old Testament is frequently thrown. With regard to this kind of Hebrew poetry, Bishop Lowth observes, " The poetic formation of the sentences, which has been so often alluded to as characteristic of Hebrew poetry, consists chiefly in a certain quality, resemblance, or parallelism between the members of each period ; so that in two lines or members of the same period, things for the most part answer to things, and words to words, as fitted to each other by a kind of io8 The Bible and Temperance. measure. This parallelism has many varieties and many gradations ; it is sometimes more accurate and manifest, sometimes more vague and obscure ; it may, however, on the whole be said to consist of three species." " The first species is the synonymous parallelism, when the same sentiment is repeated in different but in equi- valent terms. This is the most frequent of all, and is often conducted with the utmost accuracy and neatness ; examples are very numerous, nor will there be much difficulty in the choice of them." It will be observed that this sententious poetry the poetry of the passage now under consideration has chiefly to do with the structure of the sentences, and consists in repeating the same sentiment in different but equivalent terms or phrases. So that in two lines things answer to things, and words to words ; that is, the second line expresses the same sentiment as the first line, but in different terms. Now, the blessing pronounced on Judah is expressed in this kind of Hebrew poetry ; and while there are many examples of it in the sacred oracles, a single instance will suffice for our present purpose : " Surely He hath borne our griefs, And carried our sorrows, Yet we did esteem Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted." Isa. liii. 4. Compare this with the language of Jacob, and it will be found to be the same kind of poetry : " Binding his foal to the vine, And his ass's colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes." Here we have Hebrew poetry, but where is the kind Yayin, applied to Grape Juice. 109 of Oriental imagery of which the reviewer speaks ? Is not the language in these passages as simple and literal as ordinary Biblical prose ? Then what becomes of all the arguments based on this poetic theory of Oriental imagery ? Having no foundation in fact, they are only things of the imagination, and are scarcely weighty enough to fall to the ground. Perhaps their destiny is to solve the problem of perpetual motion in mid air However, as this language of blessing is poetic, our position is thereby strengthened. In this kind of poetry the second line expresses the same sentiment as the first line, but in different terms. Hence in the two lines, "He washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:" the term "clothes" in the second line answers to " garments " in the first line, and the phrase " blood of grapes " answers to " wine." And as wine (yayin) in the first line means unfermented grape juice, so the corresponding phrase blood of grapes in the second line must also mean unfermented grape juice. We have therefore gained another important point in our argument, namely, that the phrase blood of grapes means unfermented grape juice, or, in other words, un- fermented wine. The language of Jacob intimated that the vine should be the most notable thing in the earthly heritage of Judah, and this prediction was afterwards verified by the position assigned to the tribe of Judah in the promised land. The Hebrew word atun, here rendered ass, means an ass of a superior breed, and by binding his atun's colt to his vine of Sorek, Jacob intimated that both the ass and vine of Judah should be of superior growth and quality. Then the two parallel clauses, "Washing his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes," no The Bible and Temperance. would refer to the process of treading the grapes, and the rich abundance of grape juice expressed the abun- dance of the juice expressed being such that the garments of the treaders should be saturated therewith. The only difficulty in this interpretation of the passage is the use of the word washed " He washed his garments in wine ; " but the difficulty is not so great as it would appear by the use of our English word washed. The Hebrew word (CQ3) here rendered washed, according to Gesenius, means " to tread with the feet," and in a secondary sense to wash in the Oriental mode by treading. In washing, the water was thrown up on the clothes with the foot during the process of treading. Hence another sense of the word is to bedew or sprinkle. The Psalmist uses the term in this sense when he says, " Purge me with ^hyssop, and I shall be clean ; wash (D33) me, and I shall be whiter than snow" (Psa. li. 7). Here the term wash refers to the sprinkling of blood with hyssop, and the 'petition is that God would purify his soul by the sprinkling of the sacrificial blood. Now, if we take the two ideas of treading and sprinkling, leaving out the idea of cleansing, which the term does not necessarily include, we have the meaning of the passage. Then it would mean that the heritage of Judah would produce vintage fruit so rich and abundant, that in treading the grapes his garments should be so saturated with the juice as to appear like clothes sprinkled with the foot in washing. Nor is our position at all affected by the language of the next verse, which indicates the effects produced by the use of the yayin. From the structure of the language, the effect would appear to be produced by external application during the process of treading. Still the idea of abundance is expressed ; and if the teeth are not made Yaym, applied to Grape Juice. 1 1 1 white by drinking milk, so the eyes are not red by drink- ing yayin. That is to say, as the whiteness of the teeth is not an internal effect produced by milk-drinking; so redness of eyes is not an internal effect produced by wine-drinking. But if we suppose the teeth ren- dered white by drinking milk, and the eyes rendered red by drinking wine, it does not follow here that the wine was intoxicating. The word rendered red is a very general term, of various shades of meaning, one of which is the redness of eyes resulting from drunkenness, but there are others which have no connection with that vice. The reviewer, however, contends that the clause, " His eyes shall be red with wine," shows that the wine was intoxicating. He says, " The Hebrew word chaklili (red) expresses not the idea of a redding arising from an ex- ternal application, but that arising from an internal participation of the yayin. The noun chiklilooth (redness) occurs in Prov. xxiii. 29, where there can be no doubt that it is represented as arising, not from the external, but from the internal application of yayin ; for the red- ness of the eyes is ascribed to the tarrying long at the wine." (Brit, and For. Evan. Review, p. 40.) The ground taken in this extract is that the Hebrew word rendered red has only one meaning, and therefore means the same thing in both places. For if the term has more than one meaning, the argument of the re- viewer has no force. Now it so happens that the root of this Hebrew word is lapsed, and the meaning uncertain, so much so that different authorities attach to it different meanings. In the Septuagint it is rendered cJieerful, and in other Greek versions, bright or glowing. Gesenius gives the meaning as dim ; Parkhurst, as sparkling ; and 112 The Bible and Temperance. Lee as refreshed. In opposition to the views of the reviewer, we will place the opinion of one who occupies a first place among scholars, and who has no connection with the temperance controversy. He writes, " The phrase therefore v^l? I*.-* 3 ^^^ means the refreshed of eyes, i.e., he whose eyes evince the refreshment re- ceived from wine, as taken moderately and for this purpose, and thence fitted for great undertakings. Not from the half-blinded eyes of the drunkard, as Gesenius thinks, merely to show the fruitfulness of the land. I think revealed religion nowhere has recourse to ex- pedients so filthy as this." (Lee's Heb. Lex.} It should also be observed that in the Septuagint, the same Greek word is not used in Genesis and in Proverbs as the equivalent of [the Hebrew term rendered red in the former, and redness in the latter. For the Hebrew word rendered red in Genesis, the Septuagint gives xapoTToiol, cheerful ; but for the Hebrew word rendered redness in Proverbs the Septuagint gives TreXiSoi, lividness. Besides, there are moral principles of great moment involved in the interpretation of this passage. If we adopt the view of the reviewer, this part of the blessing of Jacob would mean that Judah's descendants, among their other blessings, should enjoy the privilege of being a race of drunkards. But however incongruous it may appear, this race of drunkards was to be a lordly race, and sway the sceptre until the coming of Shiloh, who was Himself to come of this race of drunkards. If the descendants of Judah were to be a race of drunkards, and our Lord one of that race, then our author joins with the Jews in charging Christ with being a wine- bibber. No doubt, he would shrink in horrors from such a charge when made directly, yet such is the tendency of his exegesis, and such also his teaching in morals. Yayin, applied to Grape Juice. 113 Our position therefore remains unaffected by the objections and arguments of the other side. It is evident that the term yayin was applied to the unfermented juice of the grape ; that this unfermented yayin was accounted a blessing; and that this unfermented yayin was de- signated " the blood of grapes." It now remains for us to prove that this unfermented yayin was used as a beverage in Bible times. We learn from the prophetic song of Moses that the God of Israel designed that His people should drink the blood grapes (Deut. xxxii. 14). Moses enumerates certain rich providential blessings which they were to enjoy, and amongst them he classes the blood of grapes. Now we have just shown that this poetic phrase blood of grapes means unfermented yayin, and therefore the God of Israel designed His people to use unfermented yayin with the other good things specified by Moses. In the original the clause reads thus : "And the blood of the grape-cluster thou shalt drink chemer." Here the word chemer, at the close of the sentence, has created some difficulty and produced some controversy. The term chemer properly denotes red wine, which was esteemed more highly than any other, and accordingly Isaiah lauds "a vineyard of chemer or red wine" (Isa. xxvii. 2). The original word conveys the idea of redness, as well as wine, and taking it here in the sense of red wine, would suit the context, where it is classed with the best of other providential blessings. Besides, red wine, from its colour, would also be more in harmony with the phrase blood of grapes. Then the clause would literally read : " And the blood of the grape-cluster thou shalt drink red wine." This is the natural meaning of the passage, and taking it in this sense, all the supposed 114 The Bible and Temperance. difficulties vanish. And being the equivalent of the phrase, the blood of grapes, this chemer or red wine was unfermented. There is, moreover, a closer connection between the phrase "blood of grapes," as used by Jacob and by Moses, than we have yet pointed out the " choice vine " or vine of Sorek, to which Judah was to bind his atun's colt, is defined by Fuerst, in his Hebrew and Chaldee, concordance, as a vine laden with grapes " filled with a red and superior wine." Thus the language of Jacob in blessing Judah is in full accord with the language of Moses, in his prophetic song. Judah was to tread out in abundance the red juice of the grapes of the vine of Sorek, and thus wash his clothes in the blood of grapes : and God's chosen people were to drink this blood of the grape, or this red wine. Thus the unfermented yayin that Jacob promised as part of the heritage of Judah, was identical with the chemer or unfermented red wine, which God provided for and designed His people to drink. This was the best wine, for the vine of Sorek, the clusters of which produced this red wine, is described by the prophets as " the choicest vine " (Isa. v. 2 ; Jer. ii. 21). The Rev. A. M. Wilson, however, attaches a very different meaning to the phrase " blood of grapes." As a matter of course, he supposes that the phrase designates an intoxicating wine. And in proof of this, he can find evidence everywhere, even in the writings of Burns and Byron. Few would think of appealing to the authority of these poets when a nice point in Biblical criticism was to be decided, but the author of The Wines of the Bible is not particular, any kind of evidence satisfies him. However, the passage he quotes from Achilles Tatius, Yayin, to be used Unfermented. 115 containing the account which the Tyrians give as to the origin of wine, is more to the point " Bacchus having been entertained by a Tyrian shepherd, gave him some wine to drink. The shepherd having taken a hearty draught, and becoming very jovial from its effects, he said, 'Whence, stranger, did you procure this purple water, this delicious blood? It is quite different from that which flows along the ground; for that descends into the vitals, and affords cold [comfort at the best ; whereas this, even before entering the mouth, rejoices the nostrils, and though cold to the touch, leaps down into the stomach, and begets a pleasurable warmth.' To this Bacchus replied, ' This is the water of an autumnal fruit, this is the blood of the grape :' and so saying, he conducted the neat-herd to a vine, and squeezing a bunch of grapes, said, ' Here is the water, and this is the fountain from which it flows.'" Wines of tJie Bible, p. 76. The inference drawn from this passage is that the wine given to the shepherd was a fermented liquor, but of this there is no proof. If this mythical story be taken to prove anything, it will bear witness in our favour. In it there are several points to be noted. First, the wine was red, and on account of its colour the shepherd called it blood, which goes to sustain the ground we have taken in the preceding argument. Second, Bacchus squeezed this red wine out of a bunch of grapes : then squeezing out the wine with the hands was the primitive mode of expressing the juice. Third, the wine thus expressed was not intoxicating. The author of The Wines of the Bible also gives a quotation from Dr. Duff in reference to the wine used by the French peasants. The doctor had said in a n6 The Bible and Temperance. letter : " ' Instead of milk he has a basin of pure unadul- terated blood of the grape. In this its native original state, it is a plain, simple, and wholesome liquid ; which, at every repast, becomes to the husbandman what milk is to the shepherd, not a luxury, but a necessary : not an intoxicating, but a nutritive beverage.' In the letter recently published, Dr. Duff explains the above reference : ' On inquiry, I found it was the pure juice of the grape which, as you know, ferments spontaneously when ex- pressed from the husk fermented, therefore, but still pure, i.e., wholly undrugged or unadulterated with any extraneous matter of any kind. It was also very weak, that is, contained very little spirit, but still enough to preserve it. Being so weak, and so free from all adul- terating mixtures, and taken in the manner in which I saw it taken, it was utterly incapable of intoxicating a child, and constituted a wholesome refreshing beverage, instead of milk, which was not to be had in that quarter. That is the sum and substance of what I wrote and meant to write. Such a thing as unfermented wine I never heard of in any country ! thus the pure blood of the grape referred to by Dr. Duff, was a fermented and alcoholic liquor." (Wines of the Bible, p. 78.) If we admit, that what Dr. Duff calls the " blood of the grape," was a fermented and alcoholic liquor, it does not follow, that what the Bible calls the " blood of the grape," was such. Now, we have a profound respect for the character of Dr. Duff, and for the sake of that character, we regret exceedingly that he should have been induced to attempt to explain his letter. If the statements in the letter were wrong they might have been retracted, but if correct, they cannot be explained Yayin, to be used Unfermented. 117 away. The statements in the letter were evidently correct, and when used as an argument by the Temperance party, Dr. Duff, not being in a position to investigate the matter, was not in a position to explain his letter. The consequence is, the explanation is an utter failure, being full of mistakes and contradictions. We are told, that pure grape juice ferments spontaneously : this is only partly true ; but the subject will be considered in due time. We are told, the wine was fermented, but very weak ; now fermented wine could not be very weak, unless the fermentation was checked at a certain stage, and this is supposed to be impossible. We are told, that this fermented wine, though taken in basins like milk, was yet utterly incapable of intoxicating a child. It is evident therefore that Dr. Duff was wrongly informed when he offered such an explanation as this. Bearing this in mind, we can estimate the value of his closing statement, that "such a thing as unfermented wine I have never heard of in any country." There is many a thing existing in different countries that the doctor never heard of. However, we will only say, that the wine that was utterly incapable of intoxicating a child, could not be intoxicating. The other extracts quoted from different authors, by the author of The Wines of the Bible, do not affect the point at issue, and they do not therefore require a detailed examination from us. If the language of the inspired writers is to be taken in the same sense as the language of poets and profane writers, these quotations would be admissible; but as we do not admit the principle of Biblical interpretation here laid down by our author, namely, that the phraseology of poets and profane writers should be taken as the standard in fixing the n8 The Bible and Temperance. meaning of the language of Scripture, we must dismiss the authorities cited as incompetent witnesses. The adoption of this erroneous principle of Biblical exegesis, has led the Rev. A. M. Wilson to crowd his pages with endless extracts from all sorts of writers, and the con- sequence is, that his Wines of the Bible is one mass of vicious reasoning, and misapplied quotation, from beginning to end. It is no doubt admissible to quote poets and profane writers for the purpose of illustration, but to make them a standard of appeal, as our author has done, in order to decide the meaning of a passage of Scripture, is another matter. And how any writer, con- nected with the ministerial office, could adopt such a principle of Biblical interpretation, even for the very desirable object of proving that unfermented wine is a myth, we must leave to the author of The Wines of the Bible to explain. Having now proved that such a thing existed in Bible times as unfermented wine, and that this was the kind of wine that God designed His people to drink, the question arises, is there an instance of its use recorded ? Such an instance would greatly strengthen the preceding argument. If God designed His people to drink the unfermented juice of the grape, and if we can find an instance in which this unfermented wine was used, our argument would be complete. Well, we have certain incidents in the life of Joseph, that bear directly upon the point now before us. There is the dream of the chief butler, and Joseph's entertainment of his brethren. The chief butler says of his dream : " And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand ; and I took the grapes, and pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand" (Gen. xl. n). The first point of im- Yayin, to be used Unfermented. 119 portance here is the supposed action in the dream. Was it in accordance with his usual custom, or was it merely a dream ? Was he accustomed to press the grapes into Pharaoh's cup, and then to give the cup into Pharaoh's hand? In the case of the chief baker, his supposed action of carrying the baskets upon his hea.d, was true to his usual custom. The " white baskets," or salley chori, mentioned in the narrative, are referred by some to the whiteness of the bread ; by others to the whiteness of the baskets ; and again, by connecting the original word chori, with the idea of a hole, to a basket of open-work, or bread baked in a hole. However, these baskets were placed on a tray, and carried on the baker's head. This is clear from the language of Herodotus (ii. 35), and the representations on the monuments of Egypt as given by Wilkinson (ii. 386). Now, as the supposed action of the baker was in accordance with his usual custom, why should not the supposed action of the chief butler be also in accordance with his usual custom ? And if so, the chief butler was accustomed to press the grapes into Pharaoh's cup, and to give the cup into Pharaoh's hand. It is true, that time is not taken into account in the supposed growth of the grapes, but the order of nature is observed, and the grapes are supposed to be produced according thereto. There is first the bud, then the blossom, and then the cluster bringing forth ripe grapes. Now, as the order of nature is observed in the supposed growth of the grapes, and as his usual mode of pro- ceeding is observed in the supposed action of the chief baker, we have a right to conclude that the supposed action of the chief butler was also according to his usual mode of proceeding. And if the chief butler was ac- customed in the time of Joseph to press the grapes into I2O The Bible and Temperance. Pharaoh's cup, and to give the cup into Pharaoh's hand, it necessarily follows, that Pharaoh was accustomed to drink unfermented wine. In support of this view we have the authority of Dr. A. Clarke, who gives his comment on this passage thus : " From this we find, that wine anciently, was the mere expressed juice of the grape without fermentation. The saky or cup-bearer took the bunch, pressed the juice into the cup, and instantly delivered it into the hands of his master. This was anciently \hzyaym of the Hebrews ; the oinos of the Greeks ; and the mustum of the Latins." ( Clarke's Comment ) The story of Bacchus and the Tyrian shepherd, quoted by the author of The Wines of the Bible, would sustain and illustrate the view of the passage now given. The Tyrians say that Bacchus brought the shepherd' to a vine, and squeezing a bunch of grapes, showed him the fountain whence the wine flows. And this is the account the Tyrians give of the origin of wine. A rather singular illustration of this Tyrian story has lately come to light through the excavations at Pompeii. An emblematic picture of Bacchus was discovered, repre- senting the god of wine standing by a pedestal, and holding in both his hands a large cluster of grapes, and squeezing them into a cup. Thus the Tyrians and the inhabitants of Pompeii agree in their notion of the origin of wine, and suppose that Bacchus taught men how to procure wine by squeezing the grapes with their hands. Then squeezing the grapes with their hands was the primitive mode by which men obtained wine. The whole of the preceding argument is entirely corroborated by the testimony of Herodotus. Speaking Yayin, as used by Pharaoh. 121 of the priests of Egypt, the father of history says : "They do not consume or expend any of their private property; but sacred food is cooked for them, and a great quantity of beef and geese is allowed each of them every day, and wine from the grape is given them." (Herod, ii. 37). Now, the law of the priesthood would apply to Pharaoh, who was invested with the highest sacerdotal dignity. And from the circumstance that in the earliest names inclosed .in ovals the title priest precedes that of king, we may gather that the hierarchial was combined with the legal power. The form of govern- ment in Egypt, as in other countries in early times, partook of the patriarchal, and included both the hier- archial and regal powers. If the priests were given wine from the grapes, as Herodotus says, and if Pharaoh stood at the head of the priesthood, and bore a priestly character, we have irrefragable proof of the literal character of the Biblical narrative ; the chief butler was accustomed to press the grapes into Pharaoh's cup, and Pharaoh was accustomed to drink unfermented wine. (Hengs. Egy. 35. Wilkin. \. 245.) At this point we are brought into contact with the reviewer of the Temperance Bible Commentary. He argues "that if the vine budded and shot forth her blossoms, and the blossoms developed into clusters, and the clusters into ripe grapes, while the butler gazed upon them, it is but natural to infer, that the ripe grapes when pressed into a cup, brought forth, not mere grape juice, but yayin." (Brit, and For. Evan. Review, p. 28.) Here the reviever says it is natural to infer that the ripe grapes when pressed brought forth yayin, by which he means intoxicating wine. We never before knew that K 122 The Bible and Temperance. ripe grapes, or unripe grapes, brought forth when pressed intoxicating wine. But the reviewer says it is natural to infer such a thing : it is, no doubt, natural to some men to infer anything, and this writer seems one of them. The inference appears drawn from the rapidity of the process, by which the grape is supposed to have been matured, as if the growth was so rapid it could not stop short of fermentation. But the time occupied by the supposed growth of the grape, has nothing to do with the character of the wine. Time is no element in the case, the order of nature is the point to be considered. Is the process described in the dream in harmony with the order of nature ? This is the question we have to decide. The process of budding, blossoming, and the clusters bringing forth ripe grapes, is according to the order of nature, but here the order of nature ceases, and art commences. Nature does not press the grapes, and nature does not grow intoxicating wine. These are things of art, and art should not be confounded with nature. The bud and the blossom invariably precede the cluster of grapes, in the order of nature, but it is not the order of nature to press out intoxicating wine from grapes. Then, while it may be natural for some men to infer such a thing, it is not a natural thing in itself, that ripe grapes, when pressed into the cup, should bring forth, not mere grape juice, but intoxicating wine ; it is a thing against nature. The author of The Wines of the Bible takes the same side as the reviewer, but occupies an advanced position. As is his wont, our author gives numerous quotations, which he manipulates with startling dexterity, and is thereby enabled to arrive at the conclusion, that the chief butler was the minister of drunkenness, and that Yayin, as used by Pharaoh. 123 Pharaoh was an inebriate. After quoting a wild alle- gorical dissertation on the passage, from Philo, he says : " These references show that the royal butler was regarded not as a mere grape-presser, but as a wine-pourer, and minister of drunkenness ; that the Egyptian king was not a drinker of mere grape juice, but an intemperate drinker of strong, unmixed wine ; and that the wine poured out by the butler for his master's use, was no unfermented liquor, but a veritable intoxicating wine " (p. 206). We have here a fair specimen of the mode in which this writer can reach his conclusions. The passage quoted from Philo is fanciful and absurd, and it affords no ground for the conclusion at which he has arrived. In another place, Philo uses a Greek term for the chief butler, meaning "chief wine-pourer," or chief of the cup-bearers, among the Greeks. This term is eagerly seized upon by our author, and made the basis of an argument, on the assumption that the wine was in- toxicating. He changes the chief butler into the chief of the cup-bearers, and then, by availing himself of the Greek term used by Philo, he changes the chief cup- bearer into the chief wine-pourer." And having gained this point, he finds himself in a position to conclude that the butler was not a grape-presser or wine-maker, but a wine-pourer, and the duty of his office was not to press grapes, but to pour out wine and convey it to the king. He contends further, that Nehemiah filled the same office at the court of Artaxerxes, and in his case the wine was already prepared and set before the king. The assumption here is, that the wine given to the king by Nehemiah was intoxicating, but of this there is not a particle of proof. The fact that it was prepared, and set before the king, proves nothing, since Nehemiah, or 124 The Bible and Temperance. those under him, may have previously prepared it. And the offices being the same is no evidence of the wine having been intoxicating in either case. It will be observed, how the term butler is made to change its form, and how every change is made to answer the writer's purpose, and lead still further off from the original meaning. The Hebrew term (npn>72) rendered butler, literally denotes drink-giver, and the phrase chief butler denotes chief of the drink-givers. But this word drink is not to be taken as meaning wine or strong drink, the allusion being generally to water. For instance, we are told, that before rain fell upon the earth, there went up a mist, and watered the whole face of the ground (Gen. ii. 6). Here the verbal root of the Hebrew term rendered butler, is applied to the watering of the ground, and are we to suppose that the mist was d'jtnne-pourer ? Again, this same verbal root is applied to the watering of the garden by the river of Eden (Gen. ii. 10). And are we to suppose that the river of Eden, that parted into four heads, was a wine-pourer ? If so, the first man and woman had an abundance of wine, and having had so much, we need not wonder at their sudden fall. Further, this Hebrew term rendered butler is applied to the plain of Jordan, that was well watered everywhere (Gen. xiii. 10). And are we to conclude that the plain of Jordan was a wine-pourer ? If so, it would account for the wickedness of the people, and the fate of Sodom. In later times we find this Hebrew term for butler described as the fat pastures "the fat pastures of Israel" (Ezek. xlv. 15). And are we to believe, with the author of The Wines of the Bible, that these fat pastures of Israel were wine-pourers ? We can now see what his learned references, and endless quotations are worth, in his efforts to prove that unfermented wine is a myth. Yayin, as used by Pharaoh. 125 It is true, the LXX. use a Greek word for butler which may be rendered <- wine-pourer," as a designation of office. But it does not follow, that this Greek designation of office conveys the same thought as the Hebrew term for butler. There was no such office among the Greeks when Moses wrote, as there was no Greek ruler at whose court such an officer could be employed. It was long afterwards before we have any trace of such an office among the Greeks. And in after times when such an office existed at the court of a Greek or Persian monarch, we are not to suppose that it was exactly the same as at the court of Pharaoh. Moreover, in ancient times, oinos, the Greek word for wine, included grape juice as well as intoxicating wine, and therefore the term could apply to the chief butler pressing grapes and pouring the juice or grape wine into Pharaoh's cup. So that nothing is gained by having recourse to the Greek word for chief butler. In support of his position, however, our author bases another argument on the unreal character of dreams, He asks : " If the butler's dream is interpreted as a correct representation of the actual' method of preparing Pharaoh's wine, why should not the other dreams of Scripture be interpreted on the same principle ? Thus, the king dreamed that seven ill-favoured and lean-fleshed kine came from the river, and did eat up the seven well- favoured and fat kine. Is that also a true picture of an actual event ? Are lean oxen in the habit of devouring their fat brethren ?" ( Wines of the Bible, p. 206.) This is a sample of this writer's reasoning, and there is a good deal more in the same strain, which we need not transfer to our pages. As usual, he appears unable to distinguish between things that differ. Of course we 126 The Bible and Temperance. cannot examine all his statements, or point out in detail his many fallacies. In reference to the first point raised here, we reply, if all the dreams of Scripture are alike in character, the same principle of interpretation will apply in all ; but if all the dreams of Scripture are not alike in character, then the same principle of interpretation will not apply in all. And as the dreams of Scripture are very different in character, the principle of interpretation must differ accordingly. With regard to the dreams of Pharaoh, we are quite willing to apply the principle we have applied to the dream of the chief butler. The dreams are much the same in character, being both pictorial and literal, which from the nature of the case they should be. How could years be presented to the eye, but by what they produced, namely, the kine and the ears of corn. Now, let the kine and the ears of corn, the produce of the years, represent the years, and all else is quite literal. It is well known that Egypt owes its fertility to the Nile, accordingly the kine came out of the river. Then the number seven in each case pointed out exactly the number of years. And the seven fat kine, and full ears of corn, precede the seven lean kine, and the thin ears of corn, to show that the seven years of plenty were to precede the seven years of famine. And whereas, the seven lean kine eat up the fat kine, and the seven thin ears of corn eat up the full ears of corn, so the seven years of plenty were not to be known in the land, by reason of the seven years of famine that should follow. Here some things in the dreams are necessarily pictorial, but nothing could be more literal than the dreams as compared with the reality. Then what shall we say of the shallow criticism that asks, Are lean oxen in the habit of devouring their fat brethren ? Yayin, as used by Josepli. 127 There are other arguments drawn from various sources, some of which are very remote, that are still less sub- stantial than those we have noticed. But it is by such arguments, that this writer endeavours to prove that the chief butler was a minister of drunkenness, and that Pharaoh was a drunkard. If from such premisses as are available in this case, a writer can draw such a conclusion, one is disposed to think it useless to attempt to put him right. For a man who seriously undertakes to prove that Pharaoh was a drunkard, would undertake to prove anything ; and it seems almost hopeless to attempt to correct his errors, since they seldom fail to keep pace with his utterances, on every page of his work. We come now to consider the second incident in the life of Joseph, bearing on the subject before us, namely, the entertainment of his brethren. In the light of the preceding discussion, this incident can now be considered with advantage. Occupying a place so near the throne, Joseph's entertainment of his brethren would, probably, be influenced by the custom prevailing at the royal table, but still more pure and free from every kind of excess. If it was the custom at the Egyptian court to use unfermented wine, we have a right to conclude, that the same custom prevailed also at Joseph's table. We cannot suppose, that Joseph was less temperate than Pharaoh, and less disposed to deny himself any sinful indulgence. Moreover, such a beverage would be much more cooling and refreshing, in such a country as Egypt, than intoxi- cating wine. Then, the circumstances of the case, and the character of Joseph's brethren, must be taken into account Joseph was not a man to encourage dangerous indulgence, and he knew his brethren too well, to make their hearts merry with intoxicating drink. If he supposed 128 The Bible and Temperance. it necessary to admonish them at their departure, saying, " See that ye fall not out by the way," would he be likely to ply them freely at his feast, with wine that was intoxicating? The language supposes that they drank freely ; for the word " merry," in the text, the margin reads, " drank largely," with him. Now, must there not be something wrong in the interpretation, that makes Joseph and his brethren drink largely, under the circum- stances, of intoxicating wine ? Such a thing would be unlike Joseph, and contrary to his character, and there- fore we must reject it. On the other hand, they might drink freely of the unfermented wine, and their hearts would rejoice in the favour of their newly-found brother. However, the reviewer of the " Temperance Bible Commentary," views matters in a different light. Having proved, no doubt, to his own satisfaction, that the ima- ginary grape juice, pressed out by the chief butler in his dream, was intoxicating wine, he proceeds in unctuous phrases, to expatiate upon the fine example of pious drinking furnished Joseph in the entertainment of his brethren. He says " If ever there was a man who feared God and eschewed evil, that man was Joseph. And yet we find him, with no apparent scruple, giving a banquet to his brethren, and making their hearts glad, without for a moment entertaining the notion, that he was thereby constituting himself the patron of drunken- ness. Joseph's standard of hospitality, and social ethics, was unquestionably very different from that laid down by this so-called Temperance Commentary." (Brit, and For. Evan. Review, p. 39.) So the reviewer professes acquaintance with Joseph's notions, and is able to tell us what they were not. On Yayin, as viewed by Opponents. 129 account of his intimate acquaintance with the patriarch, he professes to be in a position to say, that Joseph had no notion of constituting himself the patron of drunken- ness, though representing him as causing his brethren to drink, largely of intoxicating wine. A man who causes others to drink largely of intoxicating wine, must be a patron of drunkenness, whatever his notions may be. And if Joseph induced his brethren to drink largely of intoxicating wine, he must have thereby constituted himself a patron of drunkenness, whether he had a notion of it or not. We have not now to do with Joseph's notions, but with facts. And are we to believe with this advocate for intoxicating wine, that the pure and self- denying Joseph did constitute himself the patron of drunkenness? We are not prepared to join with the reviewer in sinking the character of Joseph to a level with that of our modern religious tipplers, who are the patrons of drunkenness, and who seek to shield them- selves behind the example of saints of the olden time. Joseph was no patron of drunkenness, and the unctuous homily of this writer upon the pious drinking of Joseph is only the offspring of fanciful desire. The homily and the argument are alike fictitious, and the tippling saints of the present day have neither the example nor the sanction of Joseph, to encourage them in their bibulous efforts to gratify the flesh, with its desires and lusts. The Position of our Opponents. It is now time to examine the position occupied by our opponents. The reviewer of the "Temperance Bible Commentary" may be allowed to state the case on behalf of his friends. The reviewer says : The position is this, that the term yayin, throughout the Bible, from the first 130 The Bible and Temperance. instance to the last, wherever its qualities are indicated, designates an intoxicating drink; whilst, on the other hand, there is no instance in which it can be shown to have any other meaning. (Brit, and Foreign Evan. Review, p. 31.) It will here be observed, that the language is very guarded, and the terms are so vague and indefinite, that it is no easy matter to catch the meaning. It is said, there is no instance in which yayin can be shown to have any other meaning than as an intoxicating drink. We have given several instances in which we have shown, that yayin has another meaning than that attached to it by the reviewer. We have given instances in which yayin clearly designates an unintoxicating drink, and there- fore the statement made in this extract is untrue in fact. However, we wish to draw particular attention to another statement made by the reviewer. He says, "that wherever the qualities of yayin are indicated it designates an intoxicating drink." But what does he mean by the qualities of yayin ? Sometimes it is spoken of as a blessing, but in no instance when described as such, is there any proof that it designates an intoxicating drink. The opposite is the fact, as we have already shown. Then by its qualities being indicated, we are evidently to understand its intoxicating qualities ; so that our reviewer's dictum amounts to this, that wherever the intoxicating qualities of yayin are indicated throughout the Bible, it designates an intoxicating drink. This is the lofty position taken by our opponents, and fully establishes their learning and ability. Their case is, that the term yayin, throughout the Bible, from the first instance to the last, wherever its intoxicating qualities are Yayin, as viewed by our Opponents. 131 indicated, designates an intoxicating drink. Surely this is a great discovery, worthy of the men and of their cause. The argument, however, appears to be, that those instances in which the intoxicating qualities are indicated, should fix its character, and rule all those instances in which its intoxicating qualities are not indicated. In other words, the context proves in some cases that yayin was intoxicating, therefore it must have been intoxicating in all cases. But this is the very thing to be proved, and is nothing more than a mere begging of the question. It is drawing a general conclusion from a particular premiss. The intoxicating qualities are indicated in no more than seventeen passages, though the term occurs one hundred and forty-one times. Hence the passages in which the intoxicating qualities of yayin are indicated are comparatively few, and these few are supposed to decide the character of the many. But if we adopt this mode of reasoning on other subjects, we will find our- selves arriving at strange conclusions. The argument is, in some cases yayin was intoxicating, therefore in all cases yayin was intoxicating / Now let us adopt this style of reasoning to other things. For instance, in some cases men are blind, therefore in all cases men are blind. In some cases, men are mad, therefore in all cases men are mad. In some cases, religious professors are hypocrites, therefore in all cases religious professors are hypocrites. In some cases, those who plead for strong drink are drunkards, therefore in all cases those who plead for strong drink are drunkards. Our reviewer would hardly approve of this kind of reasoning when applied to other things, yet this is the kind of logic he employs in support of his position. But any kind of logic will pass current when directed against temperance, and advanced in favour of intoxicating drink. 132 The Bible and Temperance. In defence of the ground occupied, our reviewer takes up in order the most remarkable instances in which the intoxicating qualities of yayin are indicated, and argues therefrom that in all the other passages where the term occurs it designates an intoxicating drink. As in duty bound, he begins with Noah, in whose case the intoxicating qualities of yayin are indicated. For it is said, that Noah drank of the yayin and was drunken. From this, it is inferred, that the yayin mentioned else- where was also intoxicating. But as we have just shown, this conclusion does not logically follow. The passage only proves that the yayin drank by Noah, on that particular occasion, was intoxicating. The passage does not prove that the yayin Noah was accustomed to drink was intoxicating. He is supposed to have lived after this occurrence some three hundred years, yet was never again drunken. There is no proof that ever Noah was drunken but once, and it is important to note how he became drunken in this case. It could not be a wilful transgression, nor could it be through ignorance of the general character of yayin, and therefore he must have been deceived with respect to the yayin he drank. He must have supposed the yayin he drank would not have intoxicated him, and therefore there must have been yayin that would not have intoxicated him, the knowledge of which led him to form that opinion. Taking all the circumstances into account, we think the drunkenness of Noah can only be explained upon the supposition, that there was yayin in his day that would not intoxicate, nay more, that the yayin he was accustomed to use would not intoxicate, the existence of which led him to think that he could drink of the yayin he drank and not be drunken ; otherwise, how can we account for his being Yayin, as used by Melchizedek. 133 drunken, and yet not guilty of the sin of drunkenness ? And as he was not guilty of the sin of drunkenness, he must have been deceived in the character of the wine he drank, and supposed that it would not intoxicate. The next instance noted is that of Melchizedek. Here there are no intoxicating qualities indicated ; but some four hundred years before, these qualities were indicated in a particular case in another land, and now it is con- cluded they existed here, and therefore this yayin was also intoxicating. This reasoning is not very conclusive, but it appears the best that can be given. The reviewer is pleased with it, and assuming that the yayin was intoxicating proceeds thus : " The yayin is shewn to have the approval of one who was a priest of the Most High God, and recognized in the New Testament as one of the most eminent of all the ancient types of Christ." Very true, but what has this to do with the point at issue ? Here the argument is, Melchizedek approved of the yayin, therefore it was intoxicating. Does this follow from the premisses ? The cause must be bad when no better arguments can be found to sustain it. The reviewer is first to show that the yayin was intoxicating, and then, that Melchizedek approved of it. It is not enough in support of his position to talk piously of the character of Melchizedek, he must show that the yayin approved of by Melchizedek was intoxicating. Until he has done this, his talk about Melchizedek is worth nothing. The case of Lot is made to bear an emphatic testimony in support of the intoxicating character of yayin. Ac- cordingly our reviewer says : " Lot's daughters through- out proceeded on the assumption that yayin would make 134 The Bible and Temperance. drunk. This is conclusive as to the idea attached by the daughters of Lot and Moses to the term yayin. They do not say, let us give him drugged yayin, or fermented yayin, but satisfied that the term itself, carried with it the idea of intoxicating drink, they qualify it with no epithet." (Brit, and For. Evan. Review p. 36.) The yayin that made Lot drunk must have been intoxicating, of course, but it does not therefore follow that all kinds of yayin were intoxicating ; yet this is the argument advanced. The daughters of Lot dwelt alone dn a mountain cave, and had no intercourse with the world outside. They must therefore have obtained the yayin which they gave to Lot, from Sodom or Zoar, the guilty cities of the plain. And the yayin given to Lot must have been that designated the wine of Sodom, which is denounced by Moses as the poisons of dragons and the cruel venom of asps (Deut. xxxii. 33.) Moses, and the daughters of Lot, knew that this wine of Sodom was intoxicating, but what does this prove? Not that .all wines were intoxicating, since all wines were not the same as the wine of Sodom. If this writer can show that the wine of Salem was the same as the wine of Sodom, his argument would have some weight; but until he has done this, it goes for nothing. The wine of Salem used by Melchizedek, could not have been the poison of dragons, and cruel venom of asps. However, the author of The Wines of the Bible is of opinion that this wine of Sodom was not fermented or alcoholic wine, but the produce of some poisonous plant. He contends that " the vine and its fruit must fall under the same condemnation, for they are the pernicious Yayin, as used by Lot. 135 sources of this poisonous yayin. Their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah; their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter (v. 32). If the wine was a poisonous liquor, the grapes were poisonous fruit; for the Hebrew ros/i, translated gall, designates a poison." ( Wines of the Bible, p. 227.) This argument has little force, since the vine and grapes may be judged by what they are made to produce. If the vine had been cultivated for the purpose, and the juice of the vine fermented, and perhaps drugged, and thus alcoholic and poisonous wine obtained, might not the grapes be said to be grapes of gall? Moses is speaking of the vine, and grapes, that produced wine which was the poison of dragons, and cruel venom of asps, and which 'are therefore judged by what they pro- duced. Besides, there is no evidence that the poisonous plants referred to by the author of The Wines of the Bible ever produced wine ; and if not, how could the inspired writer speak of what was only formed in the imagination of our author, some thousands of years after he wrote ? As to the notion that the language of Moses should be taken figuratively, as designed to describe "the morally depraved character of the people," it has no foundation in fact, unless Moses be regarded as tracing their morally depraved character to intoxicating wine. The fruit of a poisonous plant would not induce moral depravity, and if such is referred to, the wine of Sodom is given as the cause. This intoxicating wine of Sodom, appears to be a rather favourite beverage with certain of our friends on the other side. Its character is so pronounced, that its -testimony is esteemed of much value, and may be taken 136 The Bible and Temperance. as a standard or test of character for other wines. So it is concluded, with evident satisfaction, " that the third instance is against the doctrine of an unintoxicating wine." However, we do not grudge our opponents all they can make out of this wine of Sodom. Having proved that the wine of Sodom, that made Lot drunk, was intoxicating, the reviewer of the " Tem- perance Bible Commentary" proceeds to consider the character of the yayin that Jacob gave to his father Isaac. " The next instance is the one in which Jacob is represented as giving yayin to his father, when he was about to perform one of the most solemn acts in which a father and a priest could engage the act of blessing him as the heir of the promises vouchsafed, that of him the Messiah should come. With the light of prophecy shed on his soul by the Holy Spirit, he refuses not, but drinks the yayin presented by his son. Nor does the Spirit of Christ, by whom he was inspired to forecast the destinies of his sons, abandon him, or refuse to speak through him because of the wine." (Brit, and For. Evan. Review, p. 36.) It is assumed here that the wine given to Isaac was intoxicating, and the same in character as the wine of Sodom. However, this is the point to prove, in order to make the allusion to Isaac of any value as an argu- ment against the doctrine of unfermented wine. It will be observed how eloquent our reviewer becomes, when he comes to dilate upon the harmonious action of the Spirit of Christ and the spirit of wine. Somehow they did not act harmoniously in Sodom, or in the case of Lot, and we wonder how they became such good friends in the case of Isaac. Mr. Dodwell speaks somewhere Yayin, as used by Isaac and Jacob. 137 of certain Jewish priests, who made use of wine as an aid to the spirit of prophecy. But our reviewer has discovered, that in this they only followed the example of their father Isaac. However, the point at issue is evaded, since there is no proof that the wine given to Isaac was intoxicating, or the cruel venom of asps. Besides, there is no evidence to show that Jacob had procured from Zoar some of the genuine article for the aged patriarch. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Isaac and Jacob esteemed the wine of Sodom so highly as the reviewer and his friends appear to do. In our Lord's allusion to Sodom, it is intimated that the wine of Sodom had much to do with the degeneracy and wickedness of the inhabitants, and we have nothing to lead us to believe that it would aid the spirit of prophecy in the case of Isaac. (Luke xvil 28.) Further on, the reviewer proceeds to argue, that the yayin brought to Shiloh by Hannah, was of the genuine orthodox sort But his argument runs in the old groove, and is, that because some wicked people at Shiloh may have used intoxicating yayin, therefore Hannah brought a bottle of it with her when she brought Samuel. And the same sort of logic is adopted in the case of Abigail. It is contended, that as the yayin used by Nabal was intoxicating, so also must have been the yayin that Abigail brought to David. Thus Abigail is supposed to do David the favour of presenting him with some of the yayin that killed her husband. It will be observed, that such arguments are very narrow and superficial, they do not take into account the changes that may take place under different circum- stances, and in connection with persons of different L 138 The Bible and Temperance. character. Surely, circumstances alter cases, and merr of different character act differently. Our reviewer has just succeeded in proving, that the yayin that made Noah, Lot, Nabal, and some others drunk, was intoxi- cating, but beyond this he has proved nothing. He has utterly failed to prove that good men drank, and that Scripture approves of intoxicating yayin. Yayin as a Mocker. Unless the intoxicating qualities of yayin are in some way indicated, we are not prepared to admit that it was intoxicating. Such qualities may be indicated in two ways, either by making men drunk, or by being con- demned in Scripture as an evil thing. Unfermented yayin has no evil qualities, and produces no evil effects, and therefore the Scriptures would not condemn it, or denounce it as an evil thing. We conclude therefore, that when the Scriptures speak of yayin as an evil thing, they must speak of the intoxicating yayin. We have just followed the reviewer in his survey of certain pas- sages where the qualities of the yayin are indicated by producing drunkenness, and we will now consider some passages where its qualities are indicated by being condemned. As we have given three instances in which unintoxi- cating yayin is approved in Scripture, we will also give three instances in which intoxicating yayin is condemned in Scripture. As our friends on the other side contend that all kinds of yayin were intoxicating, they will admit it was so in the following instances. " Their yayin is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps " (Deut. xxxii. 33). a Mocker. 139 " The yayin is a mocker, shechar is raging, and who- soever is deceived thereby is not wise" (Prov. xx. i). " Look not thou upon the yayin when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder" (Prov. xxiii. 31, 32). The first of these passages has been already considered, and requires no further notice at present. The second, however, demands particular attention on account of the strange comments made upon it, and the conflicting arguments drawn from it. The conflicting views of it, taken by the defenders of intoxicating wine, show how hardly they are pressed in defending their position. The author of The Wines of the Bible argues that as the article " a " or " the " is not prefixed to the noun yayin in this passage, the noun yayin should be taken in its widest sense, and include all kinds of yayin, just as when we say " man is mortal," we mean all men are so. Taken in this, its widest sense, the passage would mean that yayin of all kinds is a mocker, and therefore yayin of all kinds was intoxicating. On the other hand, the author of Bible Words for Wine contends that as the article " the " is prefixed to the noun yayin the noun yayin should be taken in its widest sense, and include all kinds of yayin, which were therefore intoxicating. Now, it is evident that both of these writers cannot be right, and therefore that one of them must be wrong. The fact is, that both of them are wrong. The former, with regard to fact ; the latter, with regard to argument. The Rev. A. M. Wilson, author of The Wines of the Bible, says, " It is to be observed here, that the form of expression employed in the text, shows that the king is speaking of the genus, not of a species. He says, yayin 140 The Bible and Temperance. is a mocker ; not a yayin, the yayin, or some yayin is so. This mocking power must, therefore, be a distinguishing property of the entire species of yayin, and not of some only. If we say ' man is mortal/ mortality is attributed to the whole race of man. In like manner, when Solomon, using a confessedly generic term, says, ' yayin is a mocker,' he thereby ascribes this quality to every species of the genus, and not to some only. And if this be so, yayin must be a generic term for r all sorts of fermented wine only." ( Wines of the Bible, page 230.) Having thus proved, as he supposes, that the term yayin is here to be taken in its widest signification, our author proceeds to draw a number of arguments from the premises laid down. Of course, the arguments based upon the premises depend upon them, and must stand or fall with them. Now, unfortunately for our author and his arguments, his premises are false. He assumes that the article is not prefix to the noun yayin, and then infers that the term should be taken in its widest signification. However, if he had consulted the Hebrew text, he would have found that the definite article is prefixed to the term yayin, so that the whole of his arguments fall to the ground. As this writer goes to the original in other cases, we wonder how it came to pass that he failed to do so in this case. Was it that as our English translation did not give the article, he thought it more favourable to his views, and therefore took advantage of the omission to build an argument upon it ? We should be sorry to suppose that he would be capable of resorting to an unworthy expedient of this kind for the purpose of buttressing up a bad cause, yet how can we account for the fact? However, as his Yayin, a Mocker. 141 premises are false, so are all the arguments educed from them, and they must be dismissed as mere fallacies unworthy of any credit. The Rev. W. Macloy, author of Bible Words for Wine, takes up a position directly opposite. He says : " From this passage we draw an argument against the assumption of those who say that yayin meant an unfermented as well as a fermented wine. They say that yayin was a generic term for wine, and that one of its species was unfermented grape juice. We admit that yayin may have been a generic term for wine, but we demand proof from the Word of God that grape juice, preserved from ferment- ation, was a species of yayin. The words of Solomon are opposed to such a supposition. The clause in our English version iea.ds,yayin is a mocker, but in the Hebrew it is the yayin is a mocker. The inspired writer does not say that some kinds of yayin are intoxicants; but in point of fact he says all kinds of yayin are intoxicants. The definite article which he prefixes to yayin generalizes its meaning, and shows that he employs the term in its generic sense, and that in that sense it denotes an in- toxicating wine. Let the reader clearly understand the facts of the case. Literally translated, the words in the Hebrew read, " Mocker, the yayin," that is, the yayin is an intoxicant. The phrase " the yayin " means yayin as the generic term for wine; and Solomon says, that yayin, taken as the generic term for wine, possesses the generic characteristic of being an intoxicant. Thus the words of the wise man show, that this unfermented grape juice was not a species of yayin." (Bible Words for Wine, page 48.) It will here be observed, that while this writer starts 142 The Bible and Temperance. from the fact that the definite article is prefixed to the noun yayin in this passage, he yet arrives at the same conclusion as the author of The Wines of the Bible, who starts from a denial of this fact. It is evident, therefore, that with these writers their starting point is of little importance, since they are sure to arrive at the same conclusion, whatever the starting point may be. One writer builds an argument on the absence of the article before the noun, and the other writer builds an argument on the presence of the article before the noun, and they both arrive at the same conclusion. Such logic as this can reach any conclusion desired, and therefore can have no difficulty in proving that unfermented wine is a myth. The author of Bible Words for Wine is right enough in his rendering of the original text, but he is utterly wrong in his reasoning upon it. His premises and con- clusion are opposed to each other, and logically the conclusion should be the reverse of what it is. He admits that the term yayin is a generic or general term, and then tells us that the definite article prefixed to it generalizes it, that is, makes it just what it was before. Properly speaking, the definite article never generalizes the substantive to which it may be prefixed. The use of the article is to define, and therefore to individualize its substantive. When it is supposed to generalize, it only makes a singular substantive the type of a class, which it points out as distinct from other kindred classes. Thus we speak of the horse or the dog, which we dis- tinguish in this way from other classes of animals. But even here the article particularizes a class, which it distinguishes from other classes ; and we do not speak of particular animals, but of classes of animals. In this Yayin, a Mocker. 143 :sense the article could not be prefixed to yayin, as there are no kindred classes from which to distinguish it. Then, in whatever sense we take the term yayin, whether as a genus or a species, the definite article prefixed could not generalize it, and the argument built upon the sup- position that it could, is purely the offspring of error. Further, even if the English definite article did in a certain sense generalize the substantive as the type of a class, it does not therefore follow that the Hebrew definite article does the same. The Hebrew letter n, used as the definite article, has the force of our demon- strative pronoun this ; and the language of Solomon literally translated would read, " this yayin is a mocker," or, " a mocker this yayin," thus pointing out some par- ticular kind of yayin that he condemned. Moreover, the definite article and demonstrative pronoun both individualize general terms, and the demonstrative pro- noun even marks some special opposition between individuals. Hence, instead of the Hebrew definite article generalizing the term yayin, it particularizes it, and points out some particular kind of yayin which Solomon designates a mocker. And as he can only mean yayin of an intoxicating kind, then the intoxicating yayin is here condemned as a mocker. This kind of yayin, and how it became so, Solomon explains further on. If we apply the rule laid down by the author of Bible Words for Wine, in other cases, we will see how it may work. For instance, we may apply it in the case of David. According to his notion of the definite article, when Nathan said unto David, "Thou art the man;" the article prefixed would generalize the term man, and make it mean all men. In this way David would be made to denote mankind. And when we say, The man 144 The Bible and Temperance. is a drunkard, we are to mean that all men are drunkards. Such is the logic employed against us. In studying the Scriptures, we are to compare spiritual things with spiritual. And in order to get the meaning of a writer, we are to compare what he says in one place, with what he says in another place, on the same subject. Now, let us apply these principles in the present case. When Solomon says, the y ay in is a mocker, there may be some allusion elsewhere to this language that would throw some light upon it, and indicate the kind of yayin referred to. We might expect as much, and reading on for a little, we find him using again the very same phrase the yayin, and minutely describing its character. After describing the sorrows of those who tarry long at the yayin, he proceeds to point out in the way of warning, the characteristics of the yayin that works so much misery, and which he had just condemned as a mocker. " Look not thou upon yayin when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder" (Prov. xxiii. 31, 32). Here the description of this yayin must apply either to its appearance in the cup, or to the process of fer- mentation, the description is not strictly correct if applied to the former, but minutely true if applied to the latter. Either of these senses would serve the pur- pose of our argument, since both describe what was intoxicating. But as the language can only strictly apply to the process of fermentation, we will take it in this sense, and note Solomon's description of this process. In the fermentation of this yayin, Solomon notes four things ; this yayin is red, it gives its colour in the cup, it moves itself aright, then it bites like a serpent, and stings Yayin, a Mocker. 145 like an adder. But the full meaning of the original language is not clearly brought out in our English version. We will therefore give a literal rendering of the Hebrew text, that the force of the wise man's description of fer- mentation may be seen and appreciated. " Look not thou upon yayin that shall make himself red, that shall give in the vessel his eye, that shall move himself in uprightnesses ; his latter state as a serpent shall bite, and as an adder shall sting." Here we have a striking description of the yayin mentioned in the preceding verse, and to which he traces so much misery. " Who hath woe ? who hath sorrow ? who hath contention ? who hath babblings ? who hath wounds without cause ? who hath redness of eyes ? they that tarry long at the yayin (l^n) they that go to seek mixed wine." After thus tracing so much wretchedness to this yayin, the mocker, he proceeds to describe the process through which it becomes such : " Look not thou upon yayin that shall make himself red." On this clause we are glad to be in a position to give the opinion of Harmer, whose " observations on various passages of Scripture," have been long regarded as of the highest authority. He says, " The Hebrew word D"Wrr. here ren- dered red, is of the conjugation called Hithpahel, which, according to grammarians, denotes an action that turns upon the agent itself. It is not always, it may be, ac- curately observed ; but in this case it ought to be taken according to the strictness of grammar, and that it intimates the wine's making itself red." The Hebrew term here rendered red, is of wide signification, and is used in several senses in modified forms. We have the term in the name Adam, in man's earthly nature, and in the colour of the ground. It 146 The Bible and Temperance. includes all shades of red, from a bright red to an earthy colour. Josephus and others have supposed that the best vegetable mould, or true virgin earth, is of this reddish colour. Now, as the term is applied to the colour of the ground, we may here take it to indicate the earthy or turbid appearance of the grape juice, when the process of fermentation has entered on its first stage. By the yayin making itself red, we are to understand the commencement of this process. Liebeg says, " The fermentation of grape juice begins with a chemical action. Oxygen is absorbed from the air, and the juice then becomes coloured and turbid, by the falling of the albumen, and the rising of the gas, and the fermentation only commences with the appearance of this precipitate." The second clause agrees with this view, and describes the second stage in the process of fermentation : " that shall give in the vessel his eye." We have here given vessel for " cup," and eye for " colour." The Hebrew word 3" 1 ?, rendered colour, literally denotes eye ; but from this primary meaning several others are derived. From eye the term probably came to denote the face, of which the eye is the leading feature; and from the face, the personal appearance ; and from the appearance, the idea of colour, the most striking thing in the appearance of objects. Again, in accordance with the primary idea, the term is applied to a fountain or spring of water, which appeared to the Oriental mind as the eye of the ground. It is in this latter sense that Solomon uses the term here, in reference to the bubbling up of the carbonic acid gas in fermentation, which bears such a striking resemblance to the bubbling up of the fountain or spring of water. In vinous fermentation, a twofold chemical action takes place. The saccharine matter, or grape sugar, is de- Yayin, a Mocker. 147 composed ; and the elements thereby liberated, then enter into new combinations, forming two new chemical sub- stances, namely, alcohol and carbonic acid. The alcohol, having an affinity for water, remains in it ; but the carbonic .acid, being a gas and lighter than water, endeavours to escape, boiling up and forming bubbles on the surface. These bubbles, or eyes, thus formed by fermentation, are described in our Version as giving its colour in the cup. The Hebrew term rendered " cup " is rather indefinite in meaning, denoting a purse, bag, cup, or vessel of any kind ; and is accordingly applied to a species of pelican, on account of a sort of bag being attached to the lower part of the bill. It was an unclean bird ; and in our English Bible it is twice designated the little owl, and once the owl of the desert (Psa. cii. 6). As the meaning is so indefinite, we have given the general sense of the term, and rendered it vessel. Our position is further sustained by the third clause, " that shall move himself in uprightnesses." The Hebrew word for uprightnesses, though a noun plural, is also used as an adverb, and therefore we may read, " that shall move uprightly." The idea is, a moving upwards in straight lines. The plural form of the Hebrew word is probably used of design, to indicate the many upward movements of the yayin during the process of fermenta- tion. It is important also to note, that the form of the Hebrew verb is reflective, and indicates an action that returns upon the subject. Thus in the yayin itself there is some power at work, producing the several changes here described, and this power can be no other than that developed in fermentation. The fermentation having taken place, the concluding 148 The Bible and Temperance. clause describes the character of the fermented liquor, " His latter state as a serpent shall bite, and as an adder shall sting." The phrase, " at the last," must mean the last state at which the yayin arrives by fermentation. Solomon is here speaking of the yayin itself, and not of a course of indulgence in yayin. He describes certain changes that are supposed to take place upon it, and when these changes have taken place, as a serpent it bites, and as an adder it stings. This fermented yayin, therefore, is regarded by Solomon as a deadly thing deadly as the serpent's bite or the adder's sting. In the context he speaks of the evil of indulgence, but here he speaks of the evil character of fermented yayin. The personal pronoun, used in the preceding clauses, is used also in this clause, and therefore he must still speak of the same thing. Hence, the correct rendering of the text requires, that the language be understood as refer- ring to the yayin described, and not to the course of indulgence in it. Suppose we take the phrase " at the last," to refer to a course of indulgence, then it may be asked, does not this fermented yayin bite like a serpent at the first, as well as at the last? Fermented yayin has just the same effect upon man at the first as at the last. It is true, the effect goes on accumulating in power with the in- dulgence, and becomes more marked as time progresses, nevertheless the nature of the bite is the same. The character of the bite is the same at the first as at the last the difference is one of degree, not of kind. The repetition of the bite will increase the effect, since every repetition of it will add to the quantity of the poison imbibed, and of course the effect thereby produced must correspond. Nevertheless, the poisonous character of Yayin, a Mocker. 149 the bite is always the same ; hence the language cannot properly apply to a course of indulgence, and must apply to the fermented yayin. Another thing to be observed is that while the definite article is found prefixed to yayin in the preceding verse, it is not used when Solomon comes to make a distinction by describing the process of fermentation in the passage we have been considering. In the verse preceding, he speaks of the mocker, " the yayin " that intoxicated, and then he proceeds to distinguish this by description, a description of the process of its fermentation. This yayin, the mocker, he condemns, and says, Look not on yayin when it ferments, for its latter state will bite like a serpent, and sting like an adder. Accordingly, the yayin that ferments is the yayin that is to be shunned as the mocker. " Look not thou upon yayin that shall make himself red, that shall give in the vessel his eye, that shall move himself in uprightnesses ; his latter state as a serpent shall bite, and as an adder shall sting." It will be observed, that this passage contains an admonition to beware of \\\\^ fermented yayin, the mocker. It might be expected that the wise man would raise his warning voice against this mocker, that has mocked so many. Accordingly he says, Look not thou upon it. But v/hat does Solomon mean by this language of ad- monition? Would he have us abstain altogether from this yayin, or would he inculcate the doctrine of modera- tion? The answer must depend upon the meaning of the language he uses. Does the phrase, "look not upon," mean entire abstinence from this fermented yayin, or the moderate use of it ? Surely, to look not upon a thing, means entire abstinence from the use of it, and not its use in moderation. 150 The Bible and Temperance. The Hebrew word mo rendered "look upon," conveys the idea of viewing with favour or desire, and as here used with the negative, simply means not to view with favour or desire the yayin described. In the next verse, the same Hebrew word is used without the negative, in reference to strange women : " Thine eyes shall behold strange women." This is mentioned as one of the evils that result from looking upon fermented yayin. The admonition evidently means, that if men look upon fermented wine, they will look upon strange women , and if men should avoid strange women, they should avoid fermented wine. If we put the language of the admonition in reference to strange women in the same negative form, we will have a parallel case : " Look not thou upon strange, women." Now, would such an ad- monition as this mean entire abstinence or otherwise? To this there can be but one reply ; and when the same language is applied to fermented yayin, we must take it in the same sense, as when applied to strange women, and therefore in the sense of entire abstinence. But the language used here by Solomon implies more than mere abstinence, it implies that the temptation to drink should be avoided. We are not to look upon this fermented yayin with favour or desire. The language not only condemns this kind of yayin, and forbids its- use, it commands us to guard against the temptation arising from its presence or its possession. This is the teaching of the wise man in this passage ; and it is in full harmony with the language of our Lord, who has taught us to pray, " Lead us not into temptation." The author of The Wines of the Bible very properly observes, when speaking of this passage : " The agitation 'in the cup' must have been uncommonly significant Yayin, a Mocker. 151 and demonstrative, when it is pointed to by the sacred writer as a distinguishing feature of the forbidden wine ; for the same agitation, but probably of a less marked character, must have been exhibited by the pouring into the cup of any or every fluid, whether fermented or not." Now, there is no agitation so " significant and de- monstrative" as that of fermentation, and there is no other that would suit the description which Solomon gives in this passage. Nevertheless, this writer attributes the agitation to foreign ingredients, as drugs, or colour- ing substances like saffron. At the same time, there is no proof that drugs or colouring substances do produce any agitation. He says, " Taking all these facts into consideration, and associating them with the reference to ' mixed wine,' we are shut up to the conclusion, that the artificial colour of the liquor, with its accompanying characteristics of sparkling eye, and motion in the cup, are exhibited as the peculiar effects produced by the introduction of some foreign ingredient into the wine, whereby it was converted into a cup full of mixture, like that of the Psalmist, and thus a drugged liquor. So that here again is no evidence that yayin is a generic term for both fermented and unfermented wines." (Wines of the Bible, p. 243). The first mistake here is, the substitution of one kind of wine for another of mesech for yayin. Solomon speaks of yayin, and this writer understands him as speaking of mesech. Solomon's language is clear enough, " Look not thou on yayin that shall make itself red ;" but our author is not accustomed to observe distinct- ness of this kind in his arguments. It is true, he appeals to certain authorities which he quotes ; but if they mis- 152 The Bible and Temperance, took the meaning of the inspired writer, that is no excuse for him. Solomon describes, and condemns, a kind of yayin, and no one has a right to say that he means mesech, Another mistake of our author is, the assumption that this yayin is coloured "by the introduction of some foreign ingredient." Now, the yayin is said to make itself "red; and if it makes itself red, it cannot be coloured by foreign ingredients. In support of his assumption, he quotes a passage from Harmer's Observations, an extract from which we have lately given ; but what Harmer says of the introduction of foreign ingredients like saffron, is not in harmony with the grammatical rule he lays down. He says that the Hebrew word here is in L the conjugation called Hithpahel, which, according to grammarians, denotes an action that turns upon the agent itself. "Look not thou upon yayin that shall make itself red." Now, if the yayin is made red by foreign ingredients, it does not make itself red, and therefore this rule of grammar is broken, which cannot be granted. The ground taken up by the author of The Wines of the Bible is open to another objection, namely, that there is no evidence to show that foreign ingredients would produce such an agitation as described in this passage. And as the introduction of such ingredients could not cause fermentation, the agitation, so "un- commonly significant and demonstrative," could not be pioduced, and therefore, the supposed introduction of foreign ingredients utterly fails to explain the language of Solomon in this case. Solomon says nothing of the introduction of foreign ingredients, or of the effect of such upon the yayin ; but speaks of yayin that produces Yayin, Use and Abuse. 153 a certain kind of commotion upon itself, and declares it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. The connection of this passage in Proverbs, with the language of the Psalmist, where he speaks of drugged wine, is quite characteristic of the author of The Wines of the Bible. In Psalm Ixxv. 8, the Hebrew word rendered red is chamar, while in Proverbs the Hebrew word rendered red is yithaddam. These two words are very different in meaning, yet they are spoken of by this writer as if they were convertible terms. Then this yayin chamar of the Psalmist is full of mixture, but in Proverbs there is nothing said about mixture in the yayin yithaddam. We can easily see, therefore, what this writer's arguments are worth ; a writer who can substitute one term for another, and disregard grammatical distinctions, that he may the more easily arrive at the desired conclusions. Yayin, use and abuse. It is assumed, that intoxicating yayin is in itself a good thing, and has the approval of Scripture, and that it is only its abuse which is condemned. In support of this theory, we may cite the vigorous dogmatism of the author of Bible Words for Wine. This writer says, " There is not a passage in the Bible, which, correctly interpreted, condemns yayin as an evil in itself; in every instance in Scripture of the disapproval of yayin, it is in relation to sinful indulgence. Yayin is never spoken of as an evil in connection with using it, but only in connection with abusing it." (Bible Words for Wine, p. 31.) Our author appears to think, that a strong assertion M 154 The Bible and Temperance. may be made to serve for argument. And as in this case, it is much easier to make a strong assertion than to furnish evidence, he prefers the assertion. We have just given three passages in which the sacred writers speak of yayin itself, and not of its abuse, as this theory would have us suppose. In their case this theory fails, and it will also fail in the case of other passages of a similar character. Moses tells us, that the intoxicating yayin of Sodom was the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps, and are we to suppose him to refer to its abuse, and not to its character? He says nothing of excess, or drunken- ness, but speaks only of the character of the yayin. He does not say, as this theory of abuse would have us believe, the yayin of Sodom is a good creature of God, to be used in moderation, but its abuse is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. There is no reason to suppose that this is his meaning, and this he has not said. If he had the abuse of a good thing before his mind, he would have condemned the abuse, and not the good thing. It is the evil act, or sin, that God's Word condemns ; and if a thing is evil in itself, that evil thing is condemned. Now, as Moses speaks of the thing itself, and not of its abuse, we conclude that it is the thing itself which is condemned. Solomon tells us, that yayin is a mocker, and are we to regard him as referring to its abuse ? Are we to suppose that Solomon designed to say, that the yayin to which he refers was a good creature of God, to be used in modera- tion, as its abuse would be a mocker? Now, this wise king of Israel evidently speaks of the character of the yayin, and not of the abuse, and there is no evidence to show that he did not mean what he said. He speaks of Yayin, Use and Abuse. 155 the yayin itself, and says this yayin is a mocker ; and no one has any right to say, he does not mean the yayin, he refers to its abuse. And further on, he speaks of this same yayin as biting like a serpent, and stinging like an adder. In this language he speaks of the yayin itself, which he compares to the serpent and adder, and says it stings and bites like them. This comparison is fair and just, for the character of intoxicating yayin is in reality, like the character of the serpent and adder, and still more deadly; for it has slain its tens of thousands, where they have only slain their tens. If the author of Bible Words for Wine is not prepared to apply his theory of moderation to the use of the serpent's bite, and adder's sting, he should not plead for the moderate use of in- toxicating yayin, which has done infinitely more harm than they. Now, will this writer, or any of our friends on the other side, point out a single passage in the Bible in which a thing good in itself \& condemned on account of its abuse ? Every blessing of providence has been abused more or less by man, and do we find them all condemned on account of this abuse? If other good things are not condemned on account of their abuse, how comes it that yayin is condemned ? It must be on the ground of its own character, and not because of its abuse. The author of The Wines of the Bible, indeed, professes to furnish evidence in support of this theory of use and abuse, but fails in the attempt. He asks, " Why should the sajne thing not be, and be described as, both a curse and a blessing, the reference being not to any supposed difference in the nature of the thing itself, but to the way in which it is used, and the purpose for which it is employed? There are, undoubtedly, differences 156 The Bible and Temperance. of qualities in many things allowed and forbidden, at particular times, and in special circumstances; but these differences are carefully noted and exhibited in the minute precepts which regulate their usage." (The Wines of the Bible, p. 218.) All this is beside the point at issue. The point to prove is, that things good in themselves, are condemned in Scripture on account of their abuse. This is the theory contended for in the case of yayin, and we want evidence of its existence. If it exists in the case of wine, it must also exist in the case of other things, and of this we have no proof. Our author acknowledges that he can- not find support for his theory in the Scriptures, seeing that his appeal is chiefly to profane writers, as Ovid and Pliny, Asclepiades and Panysias, and others of like cha- racter. We are here also met by the leading principle of interpretation adopted by this writer, namely, judging of the meaning of Scripture by the language of profane writers. This is one of the cardinal errors underlying and vitiating the whole of his arguments. We have noticed this false principle before, and protested against it, but it meets us on every page. But this appeal to profane writers fails to give the support required, since they do not condemn wine on account of its abuse. They nowhere say, like the sacred writers, that wine is a mocker, or that it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Hence the passages quoted are not parallel For instance, Pliny is quoted as saying, " By the use of wine in moderation the sinews are strengthened, but taken in excess it 'proves injurious to them; the same too with the eyes." Here it is excess that is con- demned. Yayin, Use and Abuse. 157 There is also an appeal to Scripture, but it is feeble and hesitating, and no more successful. In support of the theory of use and abuse, our author says : " In the same way money is good, for it answereth all things, and yet it is bad when the love of money is the root of all evil. Learning is a valuable acquisition, and yet much study is a weariness of the flesh. Food is a necessary of existence, but overfeeding is a pernicious gluttony. The simple juice of the grape is an innocent thing, and yet Juvenal draws a disgusting picture of the zest with which the ladies of ancient Rome made even innocent must to pander to their debauched and morbid tastes. My son, says Solomon, eat thou honey because it is good ; but the same wise king also says, It is not good to eat much honey." The Wines of the Bible, p. 220. This may be regarded as a good specimen of this writer's reasoning. Not one of the passages quoted can be regarded as a parallel case ; yet he quotes passage ifter passage, from all sources, and appears to think ie is proving his point. It may easily be seen in the instances we have given, where the fallacy lies. He confounds momy with the love of money ; learning with mucli study ; food with overfeeding; and so on in all the other quotations. Any one but an advocate for in- toxicating wine, could see that money is a very different thing from the love of it ; that learning is a very different thing from much study ; and thatyfov/is a very different thing from overfeeding. In all these cases, the thing itself is not condemned, but the abuse is pointed out and condemned. But in the case of wine, the thing itself 'is condemned, while the abuse is neither mentioned nor condemned in the passages quoted. It is evident, 158 The Bible and Temperance. therefore, that the cases are not parallel, yet our author crowds his pages with quotations of a similar character to those we have now given. And all will see, that it is rather a difficult matter to reason with a writer on temperance who appears unable to distinguish between food and overfeeding. It should be borne in mind, that the question is not the abuse of a good thing, which may thereby become an evil ; but the condemnation of a good thing on account of its abuse. Every good thing has been abused by man, but does it therefore follow that every good thing is condemned ? The Bible condemns the abuse of good things, but not the things themselves. And if the Bible is not accustomed to condemn good things on account of their abuse, if things themselves are condemned, it is not on account of their abuse, but on account of their own character. Accordingly, when yayin is designated a mocker, it must be condemned on account of something in its own character, and not on account of its abuse. Those who say that yayin is a good thing in itself, and when condemned, it is on account of its abuse, are bound to show that the Scriptures do condemn good things on account of their abuse ; otherwise, the theory cannot hold good in the case of yayin. Now, as they have failed to do this, we must infer that this yayin is condemned on account of its own character, and not in these instances, on account of its abuse. And as the Scriptures are found both to approve and condemn yayin, we infer that there were two kinds, unfermented and fermented, which were accordingly approved or con- demned. Yayin, an Emblem of Wrath or Blessing. 159 Yayin, an Emblem of Wrath or Blessing. The language of Scripture is frequently metaphorical, and accordingly the term yayin, like other terms, is sometimes used in a figurative sense. The difficulty is, that yayin is used in Scripture as an emblem of both Divine wrath and blessing. Now, could one kind of yayin be used as an emblem of both wrath and blessing ? Could a thing good in itself be used as an emblem of wrath ; or could a thing bad in itself be used as an emblem of blessing? An emblem, or symbol, is a picture or representation of some object or doctrine ; and must therefore correspond in character to the object or doctrine represented. If the emblem fail to picture fairly the thing represented, it would then become a misrepresentation, and the Scriptures do not deal in misrepresentation. The opponents of the unfermented wine theory say they do, since they say that one kind of wine is used as an emblem of both wrath and blessing. The advocates of the unfermented wine theory say, that the emblems of Scripture are not misrepresentations ; and therefore, since yayin is used as an emblem of both wrath and blessing, there must have been two kinds of yayin, fermented and unfermented, to correspond with the things represented. The author of The Wines of the Bible takes a different view of the matter, and contends earnestly for the notion, that one kind of yayin is used as an emblem of both wrath and blessing. " It is further argued that yayin must be the designation of two kinds of wine, because it is employed as a metaphor both of divine wrath and divine blessing. Hence it is inferred 160 The Bible and Temperance. that yayin referred to as a figure of wrath must be alco- holic, and therefore evil ; while that spoken of as a symbol of blessing must be unfermented and good. Why should the same thing not be used metaphorically, both as a symbol of wrath and a symbol of blessing ? The Psalmist says of the wicked, Let their table become a snare before them (Ps. Ixix. 22). Must we from this conclude that two different kinds of tables are alluded to, the one good and the other bad ? No ; for he adds, And that which should have been for his welfare, let it become a trap." (The Wines of the Bible, p. 224.) It will be observed here, that this passage from the Psalms is not a parallel one. The term table in this passage is not used as an emblem or symbol, but as a metonymy, a figure of speech altogether different. Our author, therefore, confounds one figure of speech with another, a metonymy with a symbol, and fails to note the distinction between them. But confusion is his distinguishing characteristic as an author. In this passage, the word table signifies the food placed upon it, and this food might be bad or good, and in this sense there might be two tables, as well as two kinds of yayin. Besides, there is an important point overlooked here, that is, the connection of this verse with the preceding, in which the Psalmist says, " They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." Then he proceeds to say, "Let their table become a snare before them," referring to the kind of meat and drink Avhich they had given to him. Now, if the word table denotes here what was put thereon, and if gall and vinegar were bad meat and drink, must we not infer "that two kinds of tables are alluded to, the Yayin, an Emblem of Wrath or Blesssng. 161 one good and the other bad." Then, the word become in this instance, " Let their table become a snare," shows that this passage is not parallel to those in which yayin is used as a symbol of wrath or blessing. It is further contended that as "innocent water ' is used as an emblem of wrath, as well as an emblem of blessing, so may wine. Our author proceeds, " ' And they shall drink water by measure and with astonishment ' (Ezek. iv. 16.) Here innocent water is put on a level with the ' wine of astonishment,' and both are used as figures of divine judgments. The same usage is followed in a number of other instances. Thus innocent water is again employed as a symbol of wrath, ' Waters of a full cup are wrung out to them' (Ps. Ixxiii. 10); ' I will pour out my wrath upon them like water'" (Hos. v. 10). (The Wines of the Bible, p. 224.) The argument here is, that there is only one kind of water, and that as this one kind of water was used as the symbol of wrath and blessing, so might one kind of wine. This argument shows how profound was the writer's acquaintance with the Scriptures, when he as- sumes that there is only one kind of water innocent water mentioned there. However, ordinary readers of the Scriptures find several kinds of water mentioned, and some of them were anything but innocent. There was the water of jealousy, " the bitter water that causeth the curse ; " there were the waters of Marah, " for they were bitter ; " there was the water of Jericho, which " was naught ; " and there were also " living waters ; " " still waters;" and the "waters of life." Ordinary readers of the Bible will easily see, therefore, that there are two kinds of water mentioned there, and they can easily 1 62 The Bible and Temperance. understand how these two kinds of water would become the symbols of wrath and blessing. For instance, when the Psalmist speaks of the water of a full cup being wrung out to the wicked, there is nothing more natural than that he should allude to the bitter water that causeth a curse, which most people would not consider innocent (Num. v. 18). The author of The Wines of the Bible also brings forward rain as a symbol of wrath and blessing, the point of his argument being that the same kind of rain is used as an emblem of both . " The rain is used as a symbol of blessing ' He shall come to us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth ' (Hos. vi. 3) ; ' I will cause the shower to come down in his season, there shall be showers of blessing (Ezek. xxxiv. 26). The same rain is employed as a figure of wrath ' I will even rend it with a stormy wind in my fury, and there shall be an overflowing shower in mine anger ' (Ezek. xiii. 13)." (The Wines of the Bible, p. 225.) Here it is supposed that the same rain is employed as a symbol of both wrath and blessing. Most people suppose, however, that the Bible speaks of more kinds of rain than one. There was the former and latter rain that brought a blessing, and that therefore became the symbol of blessing. But there are other kinds- of rain mentioned in the Bible, that did not bring a blessing. There was the rain of the deluge, that drowned the world ; there was the rain of the fire and brimstone, that burned up Sodom and Gomorrah ; and there was the rain of hail, which the Lord sent upon Egypt. These kinds of rain were somewhat different from the former and latter rain ; and as they were sent in judgment, they Yayin, in Drink Offerings. 163 would naturally be regarded as the symbols of wrath. But it is rather a remarkable circumstance, that a Christian writer should appear conversant with classic authors, and yet appears to know nothing of the Deluge, the overthrow of Sodom, the plagues of Egypt, or the rain of judgment mentioned in the Bible. The bread of adversity and water of affliction, and other phrases of a similar kind, have nothing to do with the point at issue. They refer to the time of bondage in Egypt, or some time of Divine chastisement, and the language used is not parallel in character to that in which yayin is spoken of as a symbol. All the instances brought forward against us, are found on examination to be in our favour ; and so would all the similar in- stances mentioned in the Bible, if examined in detail. Now, in all other cases, a thing used as a symbol of both wrath and blessing, is found to be of two kinds, and these two different in character. Then, if yayin is used as a symbol of both wrath and blessing, have we not a right to infer that there were two kinds of it, corresponding in character to the things represented ? Yayin, in Drink Offerings. Drink offerings formed a part of the symbolic worship of the Jews, and yayin was the liquor appointed to be used in them. In Num. xxviii. 7, s/iediaris mentioned as the drink offering ; but if we compare it with Ex. xxix. 40, we will find that it is used as a name for yayin. Now, from the fact that yayin was used in the drink offering, there are two conclusions drawn adverse to us. It is taken as an evidence that there was only one kind of yayin ; otherwise, there would have been some distinction 164 The Bible and Temperance. made between the lawful and the unlawful. And further, if yayin was authorized to be used in God's service, to drink it could not be wrong for God's people. In reference to yayin in the drink offerings, and the conclusions drawn therefrom, Dr. Watts, in his work on Yayin, states the case against us much more forcibly than the author of The Wines of the Bible ; we shall therefore examine the case as presented by him. He says, " No morning or evening passed, or month was inaugurated, without a drink offering of yayin being pre- sented to Jehovah, by His own command, for a sweet- smelling savour. Yayin then was used in these most sacred ceremonies ceremonies symbolical of Christ's cross and passion, and typical of both as the great atonement for sin. Surely these facts are conclusive, and place the men who pronounce such use of yayin a profanation, in an attitude of palpable antagonism to the Word of God." " The only way in which the force of this argument can be met, is by showing that this yayin, used in con- nection with the sacrifices, was not of the same kind as the yayin used by Noah. But that it was of the same kind has been already proved, and may be further shown from the fact that in the law enjoining its use, there is no command given to guard against an improper kind. This fact is conclusive, for the ceremonial law did not overlook the minutest detail." ( Yayin, p. 24.) It is assumed here, that the yayin used in the drink offering was the same in kind as that used by Noah. The writer says he has already proved this, but he has not told us where. Assumptions he designates facts, and then tells us that these facts are conclusive. He Yayin, in Drink Offerings. 165 further thinks, that these assumed facts place those opposed to him in opinion, in an attitude of palpable antagonism to the Word of God. Now, we are not pre- pared to take his opinion, or interpretation of the Scrip- tures, as the Word of God, and therefore it does not follow, that opposition to him places us in an attitude of palpable antagonism to the Word of God. There is more reason for supposing, that those who interpret the Word of God so as to make it harmonize with our drink- ing customs, do what they can to degrade the Word of God, and make it give its sanction to human selfishness and wrong-doing. Of course we agree with the writer, that yayin was used in the sacred service ; but we do not agree with him in supposing, that the yayin in the drink offering was the same in kind as that used by Noah. The only evidence he has advanced in support of his position, is the minuteness of the details with which every thing in the Jewish worship was prescribed by God. From this he properly infers, that a law which fixed the age and quality of the animal, and enacted, with the utmost precision, the various symbolic acts connected with the offering would not overlook the important matter of the quality, as well as the quantity, of the yayin in the drink offering. The point raised is, that if there were two kinds of yayin, a distinction would have been made between them, and the proper kind to be used in the drink offer- ing pointed out. Then the inference is, that as there is no distinction made, there was no distinction to make, and therefore, there was only one kind of yayin in exist- ence ; and from intimations given in Scripture it is concluded that // was intoxicating. But the assumption, that there is no allusion to the quality of the yayin to be 1 66 The Bible and Temperance. used in the drink offering, is quite a mistake. In the case of animals, there are a few distinguishing marks laid down, and these are made to govern all the classes of animals, as well as all the individual cases, marking off the clean from the unclean in all. So in the case of meats and drinks, there is one distinguishing mark laid down, and this is made to govern all the meat offerings and drink offerings of the sacrificial service of the chosen people. This distinguishing mark is expressed in the law concerning leaven. This law concerning leaven fixed the quality of the yayin and shechar, that should be used in the sacred service of the Jews, as well as the quantity, and therefore the argument built upon the supposed absence of such a law falls to the ground. " In the Hebrew, we find two distinct words, translated haven in the common version of the Bible. This is unfortunate, for there is the same distinction between sebr and chamets in the Hebrew as between leaven and ferment in the English. The Greek V M appears to comprehend both senses, viz., fermentation in general, whether of a mass or of a liquid. Chemically speaking, the ferment or yeast is the same substance in both cases ; but leaven is more correctly applied to solids, ferments to both liquids and solids. "~ikto seor, the first of these Hebrew words occurs only five times in the Scriptures, in four of which (Ex. xii. 15, 19; xiii. 7 ; Lev. ii. n) it is rendered 'leaven,' and in the fifth, ' leavened bread'' (Deut. xvi. 4). It seems to have denoted originally the remnant of dough left on the preceding baking, which had fermented and turned acid ; hence (according to the Lexicon of Dr. Avenarius, 1588), the German, sauer ; English, sour. Its distinctive meaning therefore \&, fermented or leavened mass." Yayin, in Drink Offerings. 167 "X??n chamets ; Gr. fw/n/, ought not to be rendered ' leaven/ but ferment. It is a more general term than the fo-mer, and is spoken, even in our translation, of both liquids and solids. In Num. vi. 3, it is applied to wine as an adjective, and should there be translated fermented wine, not ' vinegar of wine.' In this last sense it seems to correspond to the Greek oos, a sort of acid wine in very common use among the ancients, called by the Latins posca, vinum pulpatum. This species of wine (and in hot countries, pure wine speedily passes into the acetous state) is spoken of by the Talmudists, who inform us that it was given to persons about to be executed, mingled with drugs, in order to stupefy them. (Matt, xxvii. 34) A sour, fermented drink, used by the Tartars, appears to have derived its name kumiss from the Hebrew chamets. From still another root comes also rniTO malstsah (sweet; without leaven, Lev. x. n), unleavened (not bread, for in several passages 'bread 'and 'cakes 'are also expressed). In Ex. xiii. 7, both seor and chamets occur together, and are evidently distinct ; unleavened things (matstsah) shall be consumed during the seven days, and there shall not be seen with thee fermented things (chamets], and there shall not be seen with thee leavened mass (seor) in all thy borders." " Leaven, and fermented, and even some readily fermentable substances, as honey, were prohibited in many of the typical institutions both of the Jews and Gentiles. The Latin writers use corruptus, as signifying fermented ; Tacitus applies the word to the fermentation of wine ; Plutarch assigns as the reason why the priest of Jupiter was not allowed to touch leaven, 'that it comes out of corruption, and corrupts that with which it is mingled.'" (Cycle. Bib. Lit., vol. 5,/. 308.) 1 68 The Bible and Temperance. This extract from a standard work, puts the subject before us in a very clear light. It is evident, that in Scripture, the term chamets is applied to liquids as well as solids. This is clear from the fact, that wine which had passed into the acetous state, was called chomets from chamets. The term chomets is derived from chamets, or it may be regarded as the same word in a modified form ; and if chomets is applied to wine, when the last stage of fermentation is reached, no one can question the fact of chamets being applied to wine, and therefore to liquids as well as solids. We have an instance of the use of this term chomets in Num. vi. 3, where we find it applied to both yayin and shechar, and where the rendering in our translation is, vinegar of wine, and vinegar of strong drink. It is also important to observe, that when the term chamets is rendered " leavened bread," the word bread is not in the original, and the rendering should be, not "leavened bread," but fermented things. Moreover, we should bear in mind, that it is the chamets or ferment that is prohibited, and not bread and yayin. And if it is the principle Qi fermentation that is condemned, this principle must be equally objectionable whether found in connec- tion with solids or liquids. Both were typical in their character, and an element that would be unlawful in one case would also be unlawful in the other. It is fermenta- tion that is condemned, because it was regarded as a principle of corruption, and therefore such a principle should have no place in the typical worship of the Jews. And as chamets or fermented things, would be a type of moral corruption, this could be no more allowable in the wine than in the bread. Hence, as chamets was not to come upon the Divine altar, this law concerning leaven Yayin, as a Drink Offering. 169 must have prohibited the use of fermented wine as a drink offering. The author of Yayin tells us that yayin was used in the sacred ceremonies ceremonies symbolical of Christ's cross and passion, and typical of both as the great atonement for sin. Now, it was just because these sacred ceremonies were typical of Christ's atonement for sin, that leaven and ferment were so strictly prohibited. For this reason the law regarding leaven applied only to whatever came upon the divine altar ; hence the com- mand, " Burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the Lord made by fire" (Lev. ii. n). In other instances, when the offering was consumed by the priests, and did not come upon the divine altar, and therefore was not typical of Christ's atoning work, leaven might be used, as in the case of the wave loaves, which were made of the firstfruits, and designed merely to express gra- titude (Lev. xxiii. 17). Leaven or ferment was excluded from those sacred ceremonies, which were typical of Christ's atoning work, because it could not be an emblem of anything in the atonement. Leaven is a principle of corruption, and in this sense it is used in the Scriptures as the emblem of moral corruption or evil ; and as there was no evil in Christ's atoning work, leaven could not be used as a typical element. And this typical law would apply to liquids as well as solids. For if leaven, as an emblem of moral corruption, would render solids unfit to be a type of Christ's atoning work, for the same reason, leaven would render liquids unfit to be a type of Christ's work. Either liquids must be excluded from the types altogether; or they must be subject to typical law. The author of Yayin has his choice, and if he says that the drink offering was typical of Christ's atonement, N 170 The Bible and Temperance. leaven must be excluded, and the yayin must be unfermented. However, the ground taken up by our friends on the other side is very different, and very hard to understand. They suppose that the drink offerings, like the meat offerings, were typical of something in Christ's atoning work ; but while no leaven was allowed in the meat offer- ings, leaven was allowed in the drink offerings. In Christ's atonement there was no moral corruption, and therefore leaven, the emblem of moral corruption, should have no place in the offerings that typified the atonement. But in the case of yayin in the drink offering, it is supposed the law was relaxed, and the leaven was allowed; why we are not informed. Our friends who contend for this view are bound to tell us why. They take the ground that the drink offering, like the other offerings, was typical, that leaven was not allowed in the case of the other offerings, but that exception was made in the case of the drink offering. Now, they are bound to tell us why this exception was made. The only reason that we can give for this supposed exception is, that the chosen people might thus be encouraged to drink intoxicating wine. And if God relaxed a special law for their encouragement in drinking, drunkards must be the special favourites of heaven. No such law is relaxed in our favour, and herein our friends on the other side have cause of triumph. Still it is not clear to us that this law concerning leaven has been relaxed in the case of the drink offerings, and so we must hold fast by our opinions. This prohibition of leaven extended to all the offerings that typified the atoning work of Christ, the drink offerings included. Leaven or ferment was excluded from heathen Yayin at the Paschal Feast. 171 worship, as being the emblem of corruption; and if from heathen worship, how much more from the pure symbolic worship of the Jews ! " The meat offering, as to its materials, consisted principally of a certain portion of flour or cakes, with which it would seem there was always connected a suitable quantity of wine for a drink offering. This meat offering was not to be prepared with leaven or honey, but always with salt, oil, and frankincense. Leaven or yeast is a substance in a state of putrefaction, the atoms of which are in a continual motion; hence, it very naturally became an image of moral corruption. Plutarch assigns as the reason why the priest of Jupiter was not allowed to touch leaven, that ' it comes out of corruption, and corrupts that with which it is mingled ! The New Testament leaves no room to doubt, that by the leaven was spiritually meant all manner of malice and wickedness ' " (Fairbairris Typology, vol. ii, 365.) Yayin at the Paschal Feast. The arguments now advanced apply to both yayin and shechar, whenever used in the symbolic worship of the Jews, and prove them to have been unfermented and therefore unintoxicating. They apply particularly to the Jewish Passover, as in the case of this feast, the law with respect to leaven was peculiarly stringent. Hence the yayin used at the paschal feast, as well as in the drink offering, must have been unfermented. A principle that would be unlawful in meat would be unlawful in drink. If the Jews were to eat unleavened bread, they could not drink leavened wine. If leaven, as a typical element, was not permitted in the bread, it could not 172 The Bible and Temperance. be permitted in the wine. The fact of leaven being in a liquid, instead of a solid, could not change a Divine precept, and render it null and void. To say it would, is to refine and make void the law, after the manner of the Scribes and Pharisees in the time of Christ. At this point we are again brought into contact with our old friend the reviewer, who has constructed across our path a strong territorial argument. The materials are brought from afar, and much labour has been ex- pended, but the foundation is bad, and it has been daubed with untempered mortar. The argument built up by the reviewer is so elaborate and learned, that we have some difficulty in finding a passage sufficiently concise and simple to transfer to our pages. It is to the effect, that leaven or seor and chamets, could not apply to liquids, since they were to be banished from all their quarters. He contends that the Hebrew word Gebul, rendered " quarters, borders, coasts," denoted the boundaries of the Holy Land ; and if the command applied to yayin, it should have to be removed from the land altogether, which could not have been done un- less by its destruction, and this God could not enjoin. Then the inference is drawn, that the law concerning leaven could not apply to yayin, or to liquids. He says, "Fairly interpreted, then, the proscription of chamatz and seor was absolute. Nothing made from seor, and nothing which proceeded from chamatz, was to be eaten, or even seen in the land during the days of the feast. This, of course, is conclusive against that theory which regards the proscription as including yayin ; for if yayin was to be banished from the land during the feast, it is manifest that, so far as Israel was concerned, there was an end to the use of yayin for that season. Yayin at the Paschal Feast. 173 Seor or ch.imj.tz might be destroyed without any such absolute deprivation, for both could be reproduced from existing materials ; but once yayin was banished, there could be no fresh supply until the following vintage." (Brit, and For. Evan. Review, p. 43.) It is rather surprising, that the writer should be ignorant of the fallacy underlying this reasoning. He limits the use of both seor and chamets to solids, and then applies to both this Gebul argument. Now we have shown, and any one professing acquaintance with the Hebrew Bible may see, that while seor is applied only to solids, chamets is applied to both solids and liquids. But though so evident, yet this critic and reviewer appears unable to perceive it. Moreover, there is a marked distinction made between seor and chamets, in the command given with respect to them in connection with the paschal feast, which he has failed to note. During the paschal festival seor was not to be seen with the Jews in all their quarters, but this language is never used with reference to chamets, and therefore chamets does not come under the authority of this Gebul argument. This Hebrew term ^Q3 Gebul signifies " bound, limit, border," and hence the space or territory so defined. The term itself gives no intimation of the extent of the space defined, this must depend upon other circumstances. It is sometimes applied to a mountain range, as the boundary of a country, and at other times to the ancient landmark that divided the inheritance of the people. Hence the meaning of the term depends upon circumstances, and must be sought for in the context. Accordingly, the reviewer bestowes superfluous labour The Bible and Temperance. upon the term itself apart from its surroundings. He gives the Greek and Latin equivalents, quotes the Sep- tuagint, the Vulgate, and the Talmud, and expends much learning to no purpose, all to prove what no one denies, namely, that the term Gebul in some places denotes the boundary of the land. In this way the point at issue is evaded, and a cloud of marshlight is raised to dazzle and bewilder us. The point at issue is, Does this term Gebul apply to chamets ? The reviewer is to show that the command, " shall not be seen with thee in all thy borders," applies to chamets or fermented things, as well as to seor. This he has failed to do, and yet his whole argument turns upon this point. The law respecting seor and chamets, to be observed during the time of the paschal feast, is very explicit, and in this law a distinction is made between the two terms. " Matstsah, or unleavened things, shall be consumed during the seven days, and there shall not be seen with thee chamets ; and there shall not be seen with thee seor in all thy borders " (Ex. xiii. 7). It will be observed that in this command there is a distinction made between chamets and seor. Chamets is not to be seen with the people during the feast, while seor is not to be seen with them in all their borders. A parallel passage says : " Thou shalt not eat with it chamets; seven days shalt thou eat with it matstsah, the bread of affliction ; for thou earnest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste; that thou mayest remember the day when thou earnest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life. And there shall be no seor seen with thee in all thy coasts seven days" (Deut. xvi. 3, 4). In this passage there is the same distinction made between chamets and seor, and these two are the only passages Yayin at the Feast of Weeks. 175 in which the law appears banishing leaven from all their coasts. In both of these passages chamets is not to be seen with the people, while seor is not to be seen with them in all their coasts. This term chamets occurs some sixteen times, and in no single instance is it commanded that chamets should be banished from all their coasts. Now, chamets or fermented things included fermented wine, and as chamets was not commanded to be banished from their coast, so neither was fermented wine ; thus this grand Gebul argument becomes cloud- land, a rather favourite place with our reviewer, and where he often puts forth his energy in drawing imaginary boundaries. Yayin at the Feast of Weeks. The feast of weeks followed that of the Passover at the end of fifty days, hence called the feast of Pentecost. It was the second of the three great annual festivals of the Jews, on which all the males were required to appear before the Lord in the national sanctuary. It is also called " the Feast of Harvest," because it was only kept at the dose of the whole harvest, of wheat as well as barley, the interval between it and the Passover forming the season of harvest (Ex. xxiii. 16). It is further called " The Feast of Firstfruits," because it was the occasion on which the Israelites were to present to God the firstfruits of their crop, as now gathered in and laid up in store (Ex. xxiii. 16 ; Num. xxviii. 26). As the grain harvest closed, the fruit harvest commenced, and as they were enjoined to give "the first of all the fruit of the earth to the Lord," it was ordered that at this feast they should bring these firstfruits along with them. 1/6 The Bible and Temperance. Besides the two loaves with their accompanying sacri- fices, and the special festival sacrifices which were offered for the whole nation, each individual who came to the sanctuary was expected to bring, on this festival, as on the Passover, a free-will offering according to his circumstances. A portion of this offering was given to the priests and Levites, and the rest was eaten by the respective families, who invited the poor and the strangers to share in the feast. Hence this festival was of a more free and hospitable character than that of the Passover, which was a kind of family gathering (Deut. xvi. 10-12). In coming up from the distant parts of the land to the place where the Divine name was recorded, it would have been a very difficult matter for the Jews to bring with them the firstfruits of all their increase. Accord- ingly, God, who is never unreasonable in His requirements, made an important concession in their favour. They were permitted to turn the tithe or firstfruits into money, bring this money in their hand, and on their arrival at the holy place, purchase with it the same class of things, and eat them there before the Lord. " And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set His name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee; then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose ; and thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen or for sheep, or for yayin, or for shechar, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth ; and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thine household " (Deut. xiv. 24-26). Yayin at the Feast of Weeks. 177 It is assumed ihatyayi'n and shechar, here rendered wine and strong drink, were intoxicating, and then it is inferred that God gave His sanction to the free use of these intoxicants at " the feast of Weeks." The design of this feast is said to be "that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always " (ver. 23), and in order that this design might be accomplished, it is supposed that God gave the people full liberty to indulge in in- toxicating drinks. Such an explanation of the passage refutes itself. God never gave permission to His people to indulge in intoxicants, in order that they might learn to fear His name. Indulgence in drink never taught men to fear the name of the Lord ; it has always had the very opposite effect ; and we cannot suppose God to be ignorant of the fact, and of the effect that drink has on the bodies and souls of men. If we regard God as able to trace cause and effect, able to understand the workings of the laws He has stamped on nature, we cannot regard Him as giving His sanction to indulgence in intoxicants, in order that His people might learn to fear His name. Hence, as this interpretation of the passage imputes ignorance to God, and does violence to His character, we must reject it. We are bound to reject this interpretation of the passage for another reason. It has invariably been found, that indulgence in intoxicating drinks, on festival occasions, leads to excess with its attendant evils. This is more particularly the case when the numbers are large, as then there will be many present who are not accustomed to put restraint upon themselves, or to regulate their conduct by the rules of propriety. We have an instance of this in the case of the church at 178 The Bible and Temperance. Corinth even in apostolic times, though we have no evidence that the wine used there was intoxicating. There abuses sprang up at their feasts of charity, which required apostolic authority to correct. And if the law of charity, and religious feeling, was broken at a feast of charity where there were no intoxicating drinks, what evils might we expect where indulgence in such drinks were encouraged ? It would be almost impossible to hold large festivals, with indulgence in intoxicants, with- out having excess and its consequent evils. Now, in the annual gatherings of the Jews, there must have been large numbers prone to excess, and if they had been allowed to drink freely of inebriating liquors, such annual gatherings would have become scenes of riot and im- morality. And the fact that there is no instance recorded of any excess, or evil effect, resulting from the free use of yayin and shechar, at the feast of weeks, is a conclusive proof that, in this case, yayin and shechar were not intoxicating. The character of the feast itself will sustain the views now given. This feast of weeks was the feast of first- fruits. This feast was held at the close of the grain harvest, and the beginning of the fruit harvest. Only the very earliest fruits were then ripe, and therefore no grape juice could have been fermented, and intoxicating wine manufactured. Old wine, or the wine of the pre- ceding year, could not be used, seeing it was a feast of firstfruits. Now, if only the firstfruits of the season could be used at this feast, and if only the very earliest of the fruits were then ripe, and the full vintage time had not yet come, have we not a right to conclude, that the yayin and the shechar used at the feast were not intoxicating? This would account for the Divine per- Yayin at the Feast of Weeks. 179 mission to drink of them freely, and also for the fact, that the feast itself was never disgraced with scenes of drunkenness and riot. The position we have now taken is fully corroborated by a careful examination of the passage itself. If we compare the twenty-third verse with the twenty-sixth, we will find that yayin in the latter is another name for tirosh in the former. Now tirosh in the former is associated with corn and oil, and must either mean vintage fruit, or the unfermented juice of the grape, and therefore the corresponding term yayin in the latter, must mean the same thing. And if yayin means the fresh juice of the grape in this passage, the associated term shechar must denote the fresh juice of the date or palm tree. If the Jews residing at a distance were to buy, on their arrival at the holy place, things exactly corresponding to the firstfruits sold at home, the yayin and shechar mentioned here could not have been of an intoxicating character. There was no time to press the grapes and dates, and ferment the juice, even if the means of doing so had been at their disposal, which was anything but likely. The yayin corresponded with the tithe of tirosh, and the shechar to the tithe of dates, and these tithes were not intoxicating. It was tirosh that was appointed to be used at this festival. " And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which He shall choose to place His name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy tirosh, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always " (Deut. xiv. 23). We do not here enter upon the question, whether tirosh was a solid or a liquid. The important point with I So TJie Bible and Temperance. us is that, whether solid or liquid, it was unintoxicating. If a liquid, it was designed by God to be drunk by His people in their rejoicings at this feast of firstfruits. It was therefore an appropriate beverage to use in times of religious rejoicing. In modern times, mere grape juice is lightly esteemed, and intoxicating beverages are supposed to be absolutely necessary in times of rejoicing ; but modern rejoicings are not religious in their character, and this, no doubt, makes all the difference. We have shown that God designed His people to drink unfer- mehted wine, under the poetic name of " the blood of grapes;" and here we find that God designed them to drink unfermented wine, under the name of " tirosh." Now, as God designed His people to drink unfermented wine, when they are to drink yayin, we may infer // was unftrmented. The language of Isaiah further shows what God's purpose was in reference to this matter. " Surely I will no more give corn to be rrfeat for thine enemies ; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy tirosh, for the which thou hast laboured : but they that have gathered it shall eat it, and praise the Lord ; and they that have brought it together shall drink it in the courts of My holiness" (Isa. Ixii. 8, 9). Before passing from this subject, we may notice a statement in the article on wine, in the last edition of Kitto's Biblical Cydopcedia. The writer assumes that the yayin used in the worship of the Jews was intoxi- cating; and proceeds to say, "yayin was used in the sacred service of Jehovah, being poured out in the drink offering to Him. Hence it not only makes glad the heart of man, but also cheereth both God and man ; its cheering effects being symbolically transferred to the Divine Being." The New Testament. 181 In the parable of Jotham, tirosh is said to " cheer God and man," but this is never said of yayin. This writer, therefore, confounds tirosh with yayin, and attri- butes to the latter, the good qualities of the former. Such is the accuracy of this writer on sacred literature ; and such is characteristic of the several statements made by him in this article on Bible wine. And his zeal for intoxicating wine is so ardent, that he presumes to affirm that the cheering effects of intoxicating wine are symbolically transferred to the Divine Being; thus associating the God of heaven with the wine-loving Bacchus of Greece and Rome. When a Christian minister can use such language as this, we need not wonder at the progress of intemperance. But he is not alone, seeing that those who hold that the "feast of Weeks " was celebrated with unrestrained indulgence, in intoxicating wine and strong drink, suppose that the God of Israel might be worshipped as Bacchus was. The New Testament. In the New Testament, we find four Greek terms requiring more or less attention in connection with the present discussion. Two of these Greek terms are rendered wine, one, strong drink, and one, vinegar. The phrase " strong drink " is the rendering of ert'cepa, and this word is merely the Greek form of the Hebrew word shechar, which has been already fully considered, and requires no further notice here. This Greek form of the Hebrew word shechar occurs only once in the New Testament (Luke i. 15). cifoc, OXOS. Oxos is used in the Septuagint as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word chomets ; which is another form of 1 82 TJie Bible and Temperance. chamets, or fermented things. Chomets appears to be a distinctive term, descriptive of the last stage of fer- mentation, and a designation of fermented yayin or shechar that has become sour. The term is only applied to a liquid, and being a form of chamets, it proves that chamets, rendered " leaven," is applied to liquids as well as solids. Chomets occurs six times in the Old Testa- ment, and the uniform rendering is "vinegar," in our English Bible. According to Gesenius, the rendering of chomets in the older versions is omphax, " unripe grape ; sour ; harsh ; " and this is defended by Michaelis ; but the common rendering is not unsuitable to any of the pas- sages. Oxos comes from dfvc, " sharp, acute, acid : " it was a weak, sour, unintoxicating wine, and hence it is rendered vinegar. Now vinegar is not intoxicating, and the sour yayin or shechar rendered vinegar was not intoxicating ; as the alcohol had been oxydized during the process of acetous fermentation, and had therefore changed into an acid. Oxos occurs seven times in the New Testament. Oxos, vinegar; sour wine, posea, i.e., cheap sour wine, which, being mixed with water, constituted the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers. It was often mixed with bitter herbs and drugs, to impart to it inebriating qualities, and thus given to condemned criminals, in order to stupefy them, and lessen their suffering (Matt. xxvii. 34). Greenfield, vinegar; when the vinous fermentation is not well regulated, it is apt to be renewed, in which case a fresh chemical change takes place, and the wine is converted into vinegar (dfos, acetum) ; and this acid, The New Testament. 183 again, if exposed to 'the air, loses its properties, and becomes perfectly insipid, in which form it was called vappa by the Romans. (Smith's Gr. & Rom. Antiq.) Oxos, the juice of the grape when expressed, under- goes what is termed vinous fermentation, and so becomes converted into wine, but very soon if great care is not taken, it passes into a different kind of fermentation called the acetic ; its spirit then becomes changed into acid. (Beckmanris His. Inv.} Oxos, variable quantities of decomposed gluten in solution, give the wine the property of becoming spon- taneously converted into vinegar, when the access of air is not prevented. For it absorbs oxygen and becomes insoluble ; and its oxidation is communicated to the alcohol, which is converted into acetic acid. (Liebig's Chem. Agr., p. 315.) According to the authorities now quoted, it is evident that the " vinegar " mentioned in the Scriptures, was not intoxicating, seeing that the alcohol had been con- verted into an add by the acetic fermentation. When mixed with water it became a cheap and cooling drink, and as such it was used by Roman soldiers to quench thirst, and not for the purpose of intoxication. Though not intoxicating in itself, it was sometimes made intoxi- cating or stupefying by being mixed with drugs, and then given to criminals in order to lessen their sufferings. The author of The Wines of the Bible contends that chomets, or oxos, was both fermented and alcoholic. When it has lost its alcohol by the acetic fermentation, it could neither be alcoholic nor intoxicating, unless drugged for the purpose. We admit it was fermented, 184 The Bible and Temperance. but the fermentation having reached the last stage, it was as if it had never been fermented, so far as a spirit of intoxication was concerned. The vinous fermentation produced alcohol, and the acetous fermentation changed this alcohol into an acid, therefore the acetic fermentation undid the vinous, so far as to render the liquid unalcoholic and unintoxicating. Hence the arguments built upon the fermentation of oxos or vinegar by the author of TJie Wines of the Bible, rest upon a misapprehension, and they are of no force whatever. rXeuk-os, Gleukos. Gleukos properly denoted the unfermented juice of the grape, must or sweet wine. It comes from *{\VKVS, "new, fresh, sweet, agreeable." Gleukos, therefore, being the sweet unfermented juice of the grape, could not be intoxicating. This term occurs once in the Septuagint ; and it occurs only once in the New Testament, where it is rendered " new wine " (Acts ii. 13). Gleukos, the unfermented juice of grapes, must ; hence sweet wane. Greenfield. Gleukos, from 'yXv/cu?, sweet, sweet wine. The ety- mologist explains gleukos as that which distils of its own accord from the grapes, which is the sweetest and smoothest ; and to the same purpose Hesychius, the juice of the grape before it is trodden. Parkhurst. Gleukos, Latin mustum, must, /. e., sweet new wine ; from yXujfus, sweet to the taste, sweet, fresh. Liddell and Scott. Gleukos, new unfermented wine, must ; glukus, sweet, agreeable to the taste. Donnegan. Gleukos. 185 Gleukos, the sweet unfermented juice of the grape was termed ^/AtD/coe by the Greeks, and mustum by the Romans; the latter word being properly an adjective, signifying ne?v or fresh. Of this there were several kinds, distinguished according to the manner in which each was originally obtained and subsequently treated. Smith's Gr.