[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

that 'the sun of righteousness' has arisen. Teetotalism is no more a part of God's revealed will, than the declared immorality of American slavery, or the guilty traffic in the poison opium. Yet we should have precisely the same hard thoughts of a Christian Church which trafficked in that demoralizing drug, as of American Baptist-churches that traffic in human flesh and blood. What Mr. Daniell says for alcohol, they say for slavery. 'Is it in the bible? Does the bible contain an express precept declarative of its iniquity ?'

The changes are rung upon 'the use and abuse fallacy.' It is not the rule of holy scripture to forbid the legitimate use of a thing because others abuse it."

Neither is it our rule. We do not, as our author remarks, abstain from food to cure gluttony. Food is not the cause of gluttony: its tendency is to satisfy the appetite. But we do abstain from intoxicating drinks in order to cure drunkenness, and for this obvious reason—the use of those stimulants is the physical cause of intemperance. In gluttony, it is the man who abuses the food, but in drunkenness, it is the drink which abuses the man.

The drunkard is not only a sinner, but a victim, sinned against. Nay, tho our lecturer now feebly and foolishly attempts to ridicule the doctrine under one of its aspects, his pamphlet is pregnant with statements of the principle. “A drunkard,' says he, 'if he would cure himself of drunkenness, must abstain from all intoxicating liquors.' Thus, Mr. Daniell himself is compelled to make a distinction between gluttony and drunkenness—the cases are not parallel. What he recommends as a cure to the drunkard, we recommend as a preventive to the sober. The only effect of the physical ‘use' of the drunkard's drink, is to generate the drunkard's appetite—and such an ‘use' is itself a criminal abuse.' In all his special pleadings for strong drink, our author proceeds upon the petitio principii fallacy. The ‘legitimate use’ of alcohol, in any form or disguise, no more consists in its use as a beverage, than the ‘legitimate use’ of tobacco or opium consists in the pernicious habit of chewing or smoking them. To use a known poison otherwise than as a medicine, is itself an unnatural and guilty abuse. The cry of ‘legitimate use applied to a poisonous beverage, is a mockery of reason--an insult to common sense: it is a parrot cry learnt in the nursery, which adheres still to the intellectual driveler of maturer age. It is an apology for sensuality and sin, which may suit the latitude of Constantinople and Canton, and palliate the practices of a turbaned Turk or a silly Celestial—but it is a disgrace to all manly thought and christian feeling.

We must now proceed rapidly to the dismissal of this feebly-argued tract: we say feebly. argued, for it rarely rises higher in logical dignity and intellectual power than the conversation of a boarding-school Miss.

“Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving."

This either is applied to arsenic and alcohol, or it is not. If it be, it is a perversion of scripture, which, in that place, speaks only of every creature good for food. Now, were alcohol really contained in the natural creation, it would nevertheless be as unfit for food or drink as natural poisons. If the text is applied to alcohol, it has no point: and if not, it has no pertinence.

“Let your moderation, not total abstinence, be known unto all men.” Phil. iv. 5.

It would have been highly curious if the apostle had said 'abstinence.' The Greek word ÈTTLELKNS, translated 'moderation,' refers not to a certain quantity of meat or drink, but to self-government, the due regulation of the passions, which not cor in abstinence from their exercise. The apostle is speaking of moderation of temper, not of sipping wine. Thus do the ignorant or dishonest pervert the bible. As Cowper says

* The self-same word that bids our lusts obey,

Is misapplied to sanctify their sway! We now arrive at the preacher's fourth and last 'capital' position. “HOLY SCRIPTURE ALLOWS THE MODERATE USE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS."

As we have just explained, the moderate use, is the right use, of a thing. But the little vse of intoxicating substances as diet, is not the right use. This proposition, therefore, in itself, is a very harmless sort of thing: and we hardly feel inclined to dispute it, tho its language is justly exposed to critical censure. All that is in the bible is not 'holy,' for much is the record of deeds dark and deadly: and we challenge the world to produce, from the truly holy and inspired portion, a single express allowance of intoxicating wine. But we take our stand upon a broader principle—the principle that PERMISSION is not SANCTION. This unquestionable dictinction shatters Mr. Daniell's arguments into a thousand fragments, and renders the great bulk of his passages, ‘at one fell swoop,' null, void, and inconclusive. Every argument urged for intoxicating wine, drawn from permission, is urged to this hour, tho with tenfold force, by the 'christian ' slaveholder, in support of his insulting iniquity. It is with weapons drawn from this armoury that the slavery of strong drink in England, and the slavery of the oppressed African in America, are worthily defended by hircling ministers ;—but a day of liberation is advancing, whenin spite of interest, fallacy, and fashion—the spirit of indignant and injured humanity shall arise and break the miserable fetters which an accommodating theology has forged and fastened upon the intellect of mental slaves, in support of the slaveries both of avarice and appetite!

We are glad to discover in the literary wilderness of this tract, any thing worthy of approbation. It is as refreshing to the soul, as the discovery of some sweet scented flower in the descrt is to the senses of the tired traveler. Referring to the prohibition in Leviticus x. 8, Mr. Daniell remarks with unusual judiciousness

“Nor would any judicious minister, however languid and feeble, engage in his spiritual labors, seeking energy from such a stimulus !"

And can our understanding be too clear, our judgment too correct, our feelings too pure, at OTHER times than when engaged in the sanctuary? It is surely our duty to keep these in the highest perfection at all times. At the Ramsgate discussion we expressed our astonishment that a wine which imparted a 'false excitement'—such a stimulus' as was confessedly improper on ordinary occasions of 'spiritual labor? -was yet deemed pre-eminently fit on one the most solemn and sacred—the affecting and impressive ordinance of the christian passover ? What a miserable evasion was the reply:-'I object

it as I would to eating a meal just before entering the pulpit!' Thus in the process of retractiog and evading his first honest, but now inconvenient admissions, the soul-be-clouding wine, prohibited because of its false excitement’-the emphatic property of such a stimulus' -becomes suddenly transformed into no stimulus at all, but into what resembles ordinary food and an oppressive meal !

“The prohibition itself is an inferential proof, that, at other seasons, Aaron and his sons were allowed to take wine.”

Undoubtedly. Nay, more; their being “allowed to take wine’ is an 'inferential proof that they were allowed to get drunk; and contrariwise, their being allowed' to get druuk, an ‘inferential proof' that they were allowed' to drink wine! In fact, Isaiah records that what they were allowed to do, they did—they drank and became drunken—the Priest and the Prophet erred thrö winc: they went out of the way thrö sweet drink. Is their


being allowed' to get drunk, an 'inferential proof' that drnnkenness was sanctioned ?

The next quotation is another specimen of the might be, ergo right to be, theory'-a new form of the old “permission’ fallacy.

“To attempt to prove it is binding upon others to vow the Nazarite's vow, while the scripture affirms he may drink wine; is truly inconsistent.”

Inconsistent with what? There is, however, one obvious inconsistency in this passage: the insinuation that teetotalers attempt to prove it binding upon any one to vow the Nazarite's vow, or indeed to vow at all-—-which is inconsistent with truth; and the truth a christian preacher ought at all times to preserve inviolate. The best excuse for the false ascription of such sentiments to the teetotaler, is the refusal to gather our opinions from more authentic sources than common report--and this excuse is a bad one.

The Nazarite, argues Mr. Daniell, might drink intoxicating wine after his vow, therefore his doing so was right! There is only one other argument that can parallel this, and, strange coincidence, it too came from a Baptist Preacher--a defender of American slavery ! Hear it Englishmen, and give ear, 0 slaves! "The Lord not only said to the Jew of old, that he might take the stranger and the heathen for his SLAVE; but Ile said thou shalt: therefore slavery is both permitted and commanded !! Now, we must confess, that the man of cant and slavery, has a decided advantage over the man of Kent and sophistry!

“Melchizedek (Gen. xiv. 18) brought forth bread and wine.”

There is not even an apology for a proof that this yayin was intoxicating. King Pharoah. is represented drinking the unfermented wine; why should not Melchizedek? The probability is, looking at the customs of the primitive ages and the facts of ancient history, that bread and grapes were here offered. Yayin was originally applied both to the newly expressed juice of the grape and to the grape itself, and even many ages afterwards the same phraseology was in use, 'They gathered yayin and summer fruits very much.' We must have better authority than Mr. Daniell's unscholarlike dictum, before we can allow the text to be interpolated with the word 'intoxicating.'

Mr. Daniell alleges that St. Paul tells the Corinthians 'not to keep company' with 'a drunkard'-and insists, emphatically, that he does not say a wine-drinker, but a drunkard! No, indeed, St. Paul goes further than either recommendation, for he declares that Bishops must not even keep company with WINE. Where? In that very passage-be not given to wine'-which, as he asserts, carries a palpable permission to take some.' But is not that a prohibition merely against 'too much? No--for when the Apostle desires to warn against much wine-good wine-his specific object is marked by a change of phraseology, and it is expressly added 'Be not given TO MUCH wine.' If ‘be not given without much,' means 'be not given to much, then ‘be not givenwith 'much, must signify 'be not given to much MUCH wine'-or in other words, to suit the wine-drinker's theory, ministers will not hesitate to make an apostle give utterance to verbiage and nonsense ! The original, however, is even clearer than our translation." "Not given to wine'-me paroinon, literally not near, by, or in the company of, wine. Hence, we are not only to shun the drunkard, but the drunkard's drink. The same, simple negative is applied both to 'wine' and 'striking'-and means no more that he shall drink a little, than that he shall strike a little!

When the apostle prohibits drunkenness, he says-Be not DRUNK with wine’: when he warns against excess of good wine, he says "Be not given to MUCH wine’: and when he warns against what may “occasion excess’-against that kind of wine, wherein is excess '-he adopts a third form, and says 'Be not near WINE.' All these various forms of phraseology the Bibblers would amalgamate-'excess ! excess!! excess !!!' is their

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

continnal cry.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Lastly, we deny that a warning against excess implies approbation on any lesser use. Teetotalers warn against 'drunkenness,' yet do not approve of ‘drinking.' St. Paul only prohibited cruelty to slaves, not slavery itself-does God therefore approve of slavery in the abstract ? Is a mild, or moderated, slavery at all right? St. Peter speaks of the same excess of riot'-is a less riot therefore approved ?

“In 2 Sam. vi. 19, David dealt among all the people, women and men, to every one a cake of bread, and a good peice of flesh, and a flagon of wine.”

Unless Mr. Daniell is both more ignorant and inattentive than the generality of Sundayschool scholars, he must know that he is here advancing the words of the translators for the words of scripture! The words of wine' are italicised in the translation, to signify that we have no corresponding words in the original text. Yet they are quoted as being of equal authority with the text! This is either a shameful ignorance, or a sad concealment, of the truth! Our opponent may repose on which horn of the dilemma he likes. But what can be made of the flagon' without the 'wine'? Our translators put ‘wine' to the 'flagon, but did David put any wine in ? Where, we might ask, could all the 'flagons' or small jars suddenly come from, to supply the vast multitude? It so happens, however, that the original word, eshishah, does not signify a flagon at all. The Septuagint translation has laganon, 'a cake of grapes.' In our own translation, Hosea iii. 1., it is rendered 'flagons' only, and is connected, not with wine, but the Hebrew word for grapes, as the marginal reading states. This sets the matter at rest, for if eshishah' were properly translated 'flagons,' it might still, as this passage shows, be a 'vessel of grapes.' It appears, however, to have been some solid viands prepared by fire. The context refers to the fields of Heshbon and the vine of Sibmah'-and to 'the treaders' that 'shall tread out no wine in their vats.' The substance indicated is therefore some preparation of grapes -not wine, for then yayin would have been used.

“If it be said, the wine in the East differed from the wine in the West; or that there was a wine that did not intoxicate,-I reply, we have too many instances in the scripture of drunken persons, to allow this assertion any weight!”

The scriptures and other ancient histories give ample evidence of the existence of various kinds of wine, from the simple juice of the grape to that juice in various states and combinations; wine pure and impure, unfermented as well as intoxicating, some thin and acetous or slightly alcoholic, others thick and inspissated, and sometimes drugged and spiced; some cheering and others stupefying; some which it was death for a Roman female to drink, others which they regularly drank, as the ancient defrutum, hepsema, and sapa (the sobhe of the Bible),— lastly, existing facts and processes, as testified by modern travelers, completely confirm the records of history, (for example, they tell us of the boiled wines common in the East, which must differ very widely from ours, and of the sweet drink,' the saccar or palm wine of the Arabs, the shechar of the Hebrews ;)—but all these varied facts and evidences are but mere 'assertions' in the eyes of this 'excellent young man'-and he cannot allow' them'any' the least 'weight'!

“In the East they were as familiar with drunkenness as we are."

In our own day we can hardly pass along our streets without being annoyed with some exhibition of drunkenness :--but so infrequent does this vice appear to have been in the time and country of the Saviour, that, notwithstanding the great variety of characters he was in the habit of addressing, and by whom he was so often interrogated, we find no record of his contact even with a single drunkard. Nay, it is recorded as a fact, that no body got drunk until the later hours of the day.

The comparative infrequency of the vice can be accounted for only in one way—that the most ordinary wines of the ancient Jews were very different from ours, with respect to

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]

the intoxicating qualities; and, indeed, there is every reason to suppose, that neither their drugged or drunkard's wine, nor their boiled or newly expressed wincs, formed their common beverage :—this seems to have been water. d In fact, to suppose wine and drinks so inebriating and so frequently used as ours, unaccompanied by a vast proportion of positive intemperance, would be to suppose the existence of a miracle. The law of stimulantsa law impressed by God-must be first counteracted, before we can expect the physical consequence of their use to be arrested: supernatural power alone can destroy natural laws, or prevent their operation. The constant use of alcohol, like the constant use of opium, will naturally generate the appetite for its repeated and enlarged use in MANYin proportion to its quantity and the frequency of its use, and must physically tend to do so in ALL, tho of course it may be partially checked or modified by habit, constitution, or character. In the East, where hot liquors produce a more violent effect than here, an exception to this rule is even more than commonly improbable.

“If it had been sinful to drink wine, the Almighty would not have left his creatures there without an interdict."

This position rests upon the monstrous assumption, that whatever is sinful is expressly interdicted! Facts from every age and country rise up in judgment against the assertion. Were divorce and polygamy interdicted to the Jews ? Yet 'from the beginning' they were evil things, permitted for the hardness of their hearts. Where have the Jewish or the Christian scriptures met the essentially iniquitous and unnatural institution of slavery with a verbal ‘interdict'?

Were Mr. Daniell and his Double less dogmatic in their use (or rather detrimental abuse) of scripture—they would shun such rash statements. It is generally presumptuous, often dangerous, to lay down, a priori, what the Lord would or would not do. “Ilis ways are not as our ways: nor his thoughts as onr thoughts.' Alas! some characters will

'Rush in where angels fear to tread.' What these indiscrete theologians affirm of alcohol, the curse of the West-may with equal truth be affirmed of benj or opium, the bane of the East. These were no doubt ingredients in the drugged wines of the Hebrews: and are now abused in the East as a luxury, instead of being used as a medicine solely,—just as alcohol is dietetically abused here. We search the bible in vain for any express 'interdict. Is it therefore right in us to chew opium, or swallow benj, for our sensual gratification ?

But who affirms that it was 'sinful' in the Jews to take even intoxicating wine? This is one of those mis-statements (they deserve a harsher name) which the apologists for the use of alcoholic beverages think themselves privileged to advance. Sin is a matter relating to the conscience. If they believed intoxicating wine to be good, they did morally right to drink it—tho, at the same time, it was physically wrong. We say, indeed, that the use of poisons in health, and for the mere sake of sensual stimulation, is wrong :-it is our opponent's who blunder in drawing the inference that therefore it is ‘sinful.' We know, and all might know, that these stimulants are bad ;-to us, therefore, their use would be sinful, because whatever is not of faith is sin’-sin being the transgression of the moral law—but to those who do not know the law, its violation is morally innocent, tho physically noxious. It would be well if those who thus encumber and overlay our Scriptural sentiments with their own illogical inferences, would study for a while the first elements of ethics.

"If a minister, or church-member, can give scripture precept and precedent for all he does, he will not do much amiss."


d No doubt the influence of the Nazarites, the Hessenes, Therapeutæ, and other teetotal communities, had done much to purify society in this matter.

« VorigeDoorgaan »