Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadRalph Wardlaw Lectures on Proverbs - Proverbs 20:1 - 20:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
LECTURE LVII.
Pro_20:1.
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."
It is now nearly five years since, in illustrating the "fruits of the Spirit" enumerated by Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, I called your attention, in three discourses, to the subject of temperance. It is by no means my purpose to enter into the subject at so much length at present, or to attempt anything like what might be called a full discussion either of the claims of the total abstinence system, or of the merits, on the one side or the other, of what has now been technically denominated the wine question. All that I intend is, as briefly and as simply as I can, to collect, upon two or three points, the lights of Scripture; and to do this in such a manner as to show that even to ordinary readers of the Bible, there is no difficulty in the matter, if they will only bring to the inquiry the principles of sound and unprejudiced common sense.
The text brings before us three things:
1. Certain articles-" Wine and strong drink:"
2. Certain tendencies ascribed to them:-" Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging:"-and
3. The folly of yielding to these tendencies,-"Whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."
I. We have two articles-"Wine and strong drink:"-and, since the introduction of recent discussions on the abstinence question, the English reader has got so familiar with the original Hebrew terms, that it has ceased to be pedantry, and has become almost necessary, to use them.-The word for wine is yayin:-the word for strong drink shekhar. In not a few of the publications on the subject, we have page after page bedizzened with the characters of Hebrew and Chaldee, and Arabic, and Syriac and Greek-and with the words of these various languages in English letters. We have, at the same time, minute and multiform descriptions of the various processes to which, in ancient times and countries, the juice of the grape was subjected,-of the different articles produced by these processes, and the several modes in which they were respectively used. All this possesses a certain description of interest. It is gratifying to the curiosity both of the critic and the etymologist; of the naturalist, the chemist, and the man of general information. But considered as bearing on the answer to the question-What, in Scripture language, is meant by "wine" and "strong drink,"-especially the former?-it does appear to me to be, to a great extent, a waste of learning. What is a plain man to make of his Bible, if on so seemingly simple a subject as the use and abuse of intoxicating drinks, he finds himself wrapt in a cloud of learned dust about the very meaning of the words in which his duty and his danger are pointed out to him? Further; how useful and desirable soever it may be to trace terms to their etymological origin, it should not be forgotten, that even the clearest ascertainment of this, is very far from being a sure and satisfactory way of determining the meaning of a word:-that depending so much on particular associations at the time when the term is specifically applied, and varying greatly in the progress of every language. It is by usage alone,-and usage undergoing changes far from slight at times, in the history of the language,-that the true sense of any term can be ascertained.
There are different words employed, in the Old Testament, to express, under various modifications, beverages or preparations from the vine. By some, seven are enumerated; by others, even nine or ten. One of them is the second of those in our text-the shekhar. This word, however, is more general, meaning "strong drink" of any description, whether the material from which it is made be the fruit of the vine or any other substance:-and respecting the import of it, as always used for what is intoxicating, there is no dispute. Setting it, therefore, in the meanwhile, aside, there are of all the rest two only which, on the present question, call for any remark. They are the former of the two words in my text-yayin, and the word tirosh.
Yayin is supposed to be derived from the verb which signifies to squeeze or press; an etymology natural and simple,-this being the process by which the juice, which is the material of the wine, is obtained from the fruit. Of tirosh different etymologies are given;-the one, from the verb signifying to possess or take full possession; by which its influence on the man who freely uses it is conceived to be strongly conveyed: it takes possession of him, so that he is no longer himself or under his own control. It has been thought, indeed, that, from this etymology, tirosh may simply mean vineyards, considered as the symbol, by a part for the whole, of a man's possessions, property, or inheritance. But this wont do. Tirosh, beyond all question, means a particular drink. This is its ordinary import. And men do not drink their vineyards any more than they eat their lands. Another derivation of the word is from the term signifying head. And if this were the true etymology, it would seem to me much more likely that the association by which it was suggested was still the influence of the liquor,-its headiness, its effect in unsettling the understanding,-than any resemblance between the head and the berry or cluster. But, as I have said, it is not etymology, but usage that must settle the question. Etymology seems to favour the intoxicating properties of the tirosh as well as of the yayin. In considering the question of usage, I begin with the latter.
Yayin is the word in our text, and there can be no doubt of its intoxicating character in this occurrence of it. It is, I may say, the word for wine in the Old Testament Scriptures. The word for the same thing, in the Greek, the Latin, the German, the Dutch, the English, and other European languages, is a derivative from it,-or rather is the very same term appropriately varied. It occurs about one hundred and forty times in the Hebrew Bible:-and it denotes, almost invariably, the fermented juice of the grape; and of course an intoxicating beverage when taken in excess. I have said "almost invariably." I might suppress the qualifying almost; for the alleged exceptions are on no legitimate principle of criticism to be regarded as such. They are Isa_16:10; Jer_48:33:-"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 treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I have made their vintage-shouting to cease." "Joy and gladness is taken from the plentiful field, and from the land of Moab; and I have caused wine to fail from the wine-presses: none shall tread with shouting; their shouting shall be no shouting." To say that in such passages the yayin signifies the grape-juice while in the process of expression, is incorrect,-proceeding on a principle of strict literality which cannot be admitted. It clearly means the wine anticipated as the result of the process;-on a principle universal in language. The gardeners and vinedressers of Germany are said to call their grapes in the cluster, at this day, their wine. A principle of interpretation so literal would yield curious results; such as, that the Israelites fed on corn without its being baked into bread, because Jehovah says-" I should have fed them with the finest of the wheat;" and that the manna was, in like manner, eaten as it fell, without any culinary process, because it is called bread-God promising to "rain bread from heaven" upon them.
Yayin, then, (the proper word for wine,) signified fermented or intoxicating wine. Yet observe-
This is the wine that was used in the ordinances of ancient ceremonial worship. It was the drink-offering which was enjoined to be presented, in various quantities, with the animal sacrifices. It is invariably-and you are aware how frequent the ceremony was-the yayin.
Observe further:-This yayin is, on various occasions, promised as a divine bestowment and blessing;-and the deprivation of it, on the other hand, threatened as a judicial calamity. It is true, that the word tirosh is also used, and it may be even more frequently, in similar connexions. What of that? It is enough that both are used, without discrimination, when the blessing is promised, and when the judgment is denounced.*
* I refer for the use of yayin, in such connexions, to Gen_49:11-12; Psa_104:15; Hos_14:7; Amo_9:14; and Deu_28:39.
Again:-In various instances, when God is giving promises of blessing, both words are used in association with corn and oil, and other articles of sustenance,-whether of necessity or of comfort. It is not the tirosh only that is thus associated and thus promised. The yayin is in the same predicament. It is, therefore, a point of fact, about which there can be no reasonable doubt, that God promises as a good, as a blessing, that which possessed intoxicating qualities. The reason and principle are very plain. He promises that of which the use (for which alone it was given) was a benefit,-but of which the abuse (which was the result not of God's goodness, but of man's perversion of it,) was prejudicial. How few gifts of God are there, of which, on one ground or another, the same thing might not be said t
Again:-The law of the Nazarite laid him under an interdict during the period of his vow, as to the use of wine, and of whatever came of the vine:-but whenever his vow ceased, the same authority gave him liberty to take wine. The restriction neither existed before nor after the time of his vow. Mark too the permission given, in certain specified circumstances,-when any Jews resided at a distance from Jerusalem (Deu_14:24-26.) And mark also the more than permission, (as indeed the language referred to also was,) the encouraging direction given to the pious Israelite, when he complied with divine counsels, under the influence of principles and motives that were well-pleasing in God's sight:-" Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works," Ecc_9:7.
There is no proof whatever that the tirosh was not intoxicating when used to excess, as well as the yayin. We have seen that the etymology rather favours its having been so. And as to the effects actually ascribed to it, one passage alone, were there no other, should be enough to satisfy every unprejudiced mind:-"Whoredom, and wine, and new wine, take away the heart," Hos_4:11. The "new wine" here is tirosh:-and I can imagine nothing more unworthy of all candour,-more an outrage on all fair and honourable criticism,-than the attempt to show that, in such a connexion, tirosh may mean no more than the luxury of syrup of grapes and water, the harmless refreshment of a summer's day!-as if we were to say, when denouncing the vicious causes of alienation from God and moral destruction-"Whoredom, and strong drink, and lemonade!" The truth is, if any distinction is to be made between the yayin and the tirosh, the "wine" and the "new wine"-in such a passage, we must proceed on the principle of climax, and consider the latter as the stronger of the two!
The yayin was also a common beverage in use by the best of men. It was this that Melchisedec the king of Salem brought out to Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings: and on various occasions, "bottles," or skinfuls, "of wine"-of yayin,-form a part of the supplies provided for the sustenance and refreshment of those standing in need of such supplies, when hungry, athirst, and weary.
The example of the Rechabites is a favourite one with our total abstinence brethren; and some of them have even adopted the designation. With what propriety, a glance at the case is enough to show.*-It is not at all, you will observe, their abstinence from wine that is the subject of the divine commendation. We are not even certain whether Jonadab their father was justifiable in laying them under this interdict or not. The ground of commendation is simply their obedience to their father; which Jehovah, justly and pointedly sets in contrast with the ungrateful and unnatural rebellion of His people.-And further, Why do not the admirers and professed imitators of the Rechabites dwell in tents, as well as abstain from wine? There is the very same ground for the one as there is for the other.
* Jer_35:1-10.
It seems to me, then, an utterly vain attempt to make it out that the wine of the Old Testament, under whichsoever designation mentioned, was without intoxicating properties. The question is not at all whether other articles were prepared from grapes, and were in common use. This is granted. That the Hebrews, like certain other peoples, were in the practice of boiling down the juice of grapes to one-third or one-half its quantity, and bringing it to the consistence of a syrup, who cares to question? Be it so. Two things require to be noticed:-first, that in no passage of the Old Testament scriptures do we ever find any allusion whatever to any such practice, or to the use of such syrup as a beverage;-and secondly, that this syrup and water, supposing it in use, was no more the liquor called in the Old Testament wine, than molasses and water would, in the West Indies, be the liquor called rum.
It is at once and freely admitted, that the ordinary wines of Palestine were not so intoxicating as the brandied wines of Europe. What is contended for is, simply the point of fact that they were intoxicating;-and no reader of the scriptures of the Old Testament, who observes with what frequency wine and drunkenness are there associated,-and how often the wine stands in union, and, as it were, identification, with strong drink, in the production, by its abuse, of this monstrous evil of inebriation, can be at any loss as to the conclusion to which he should come. It will not do, first to fill ourselves with a horror of the thing itself, on account of the abuse of it; and thence to conclude that such a thing could not possibly be promised and bestowed as a blessing; and then to set to work an ingenuity, of which the principle and motive may be good, but of which the ultimate tendency is most mischievous, to strain words and force distinctions, to bring the meaning into harmony with our previous conceptions. Our proper business is, to take facts, as they stand plainly before us; and, if these facts cannot be made to harmonize with certain principles which we have adopted respecting good and evil, and the conduct becoming the divine Being, to rest assured that in these principles there is an error. The facts should correct the judgment.
I come now to the language of the New Testament. I might almost say, there is there but one word for wine. It is just the Hebrew word Greecised. In one instance, that word is accompanied with the epithet unmixed; where the epithet evidently means-undiluted-in all its strength. It is where the wine is the emblem of divine wrath:-" The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation," Rev_14:10. In only two instances does another designation for wine itself occur. The first-" Others mocking, said, These men are full of new wine," Act_2:13. In this passage new wine is not the literal nor proper rendering. It should be "sweet wine;" there being then, as now, differences in the mode of preparation, by which some of the wines were rendered sweet and others not. At that time of the year there could not be had what is properly termed "new wine." It is thought to have been a strong sweet spiced wine-with honey and pepper. The only other exception from the use of the common Greek word for wine is in the institution of the Lord's Supper; where Jesus calls it "the fruit" or produce, "of the vine." I call it one instance of exception, because, although it occurs in three of the evangelists, it is only the record by three historians of what was but once said.
The question, then, is-What is the meaning of this word-not etymologically, but according to its actual use in the inspired narrative? There is a passage which brings us directly to this point:-" No man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also, having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new; for he saith, The old is better," Luk_5:37-39. I need not say, this is fermented wine. It will not do to say that the putting of it into new and strong skins was to prevent fermentation. There is fermentation; and it is the strong working of the fermentation that renders new bottles necessary, to prevent the loss of both bottles and wine. If any thing further were needed in proof of this, it is to be found in the thirty-ninth verse:-inasmuch as old unfermented must, or wine, could never be better than new:-it is only of fermented wine that the saying could be true. The newer and sweeter the must, the better, if it is unfermented.
To those who know their New Testament I need not say, that its oinos;-its wine-is ever represented as possessing inebriating properties.* In the character of bishops and deacons, mark this particular feature: "Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre," 1Ti_3:3; 1Ti_3:8. And-"For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre," Tit_1:7. Most assuredly, they’re not being given to wine-not given too much wine,-does not mean that they should not use it at all. The expressions imply the use, while they interdict the excess. Compare it with another feature of the same character in the passages just quoted, that they should not be "given to filthy lucre"-"greedy of filthy lucre" (the same word in the original). This does not mean that they never should touch money. So is it with the wine. Moderation in regard to both is the spirit of the injunctions; in opposition, in the one case, to covetousness, or that "love of money which is the root of all evil;" and, in the other, to inebriety and the disturbance of reason, or unnecessary waste.
* Compare, for example, Eph_5:18; 1Pe_4:3.
We are entitled to take what our Lord says of wine, in the passage before quoted, as the key to all the occurrences of wine in the New Testament. We have seen that the key fits in regard to those already referred to. Let us look to another. It relates to the character of Jesus himself:-
"John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But Wisdom is justified of all her children," Luk_7:33-35. Here observe first, There is a contrast between the character of John and the character of Jesus. John was a recluse. He retired from society, and frequented the solitudes of the wilderness, living a life of abstinence from the social gratifications of human intercourse:-whereas Jesus went about among his countrymen, ate and drank with them, and on such occasions as he knew would prove suitable for his own gracious purposes, accepted invitations to be a guest at their tables. In the course pursued by John, he acted in accordance with the charges which had, by the angel of God, been given concerning him, before his birth-"He shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb," Luk_1:15. Secondly, no one will question the perfect rectitude of the character of Jesus. He conformed to ordinary practice in whatever could be done without sin. It follows, therefore, that there was no sin in drinking wine; no more than in eating bread;-the two things being mentioned together in the very same manner. The only question must regard the nature of the wine of which he partook,-which leads me to notice, Thirdly, that while, even were there no further proof, we are entitled to understand it of the wine spoken of by the same name in other parts of the New Testament, which, we have seen, was the ordinary fermented wine,-we have further evidence. It is in this very passage. It is in the fact of his having been slandered-as a "wine bibber." That this was a vile slander we of course assume. It was the misrepresentation of base malignity-the construction of what was perfectly innocent into a charge of evil. But if the wine in ordinary use had not been of an inebriating character, it would not have been such a charge. Had it been true, that the wine was of such a quality, that a man might drink it as freely and copiously, without harm, as he might of "the water of the Ganges,"-then the designation of a wine-bibber would no more have been a reproach than that of a water-bibber. The fact, however, of his having conformed to ordinary practice in the use, not the abuse, of this divinely provided beverage, is to all Christians sufficient proof that there is no sin in it;-that all use is not abuse; and that they who employ strong and unqualified terms of reprobation of the use of wine, pronouncing water "the best and only drink, without question, which nature designed for man;" and exclaiming, in the spirit of indignant renunciation of anything stronger,-"give me the pure water-which the Saviour enjoyed at the well of Jacob!"-would do well to take heed, that they be not in effect bringing afresh against that Saviour the old slander. They surely forget themselves. While they thus extol the water, as the only beverage which nature has provided, and which the God of nature, by so providing it, sanctions, they may well blush at the recollection that the wine, as well as the water, was the drink of Him who was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." Let them think on whom their charges and their taunts alight!
Let us now go to Cana of Galilee. You are all familiar with the facts of the "marriage in Cana of Galilee;" with the innocent festivities of that occasion, and the manner in which Jesus supplied the deficiency in the means of maintaining them. These feasts, as we learn from Old Testament history, were kept up for seven successive days. It is not unlikely that a larger number of guests had, on this occasion, come than had been expected. At what time of the feast we cannot say-but the company ran short of wine; and, by an act of miraculous power, Jesus furnished a supply which, from its extent, even on the most moderate computation, is conceived by many to have been intended to go beyond the limits of the feast, and to form a temporary stock for the newly-married pair.
Now here, as in a former case, there is a common way of begging the question. From the character of the Saviour, it is at once inferred, with-I do not call it an affected, but a sincere and well-meant horror at the very supposition of the contrary,-that the wine thus produced could not possibly be wine with inebriating qualities. But this is far from being the fair way to take up such a case. It is assuming, what can never be granted, that to make for legitimate rise an article that was liable to abuse, even although in the particular case there was no abuse of any kind, would have been inconsistent with our Lord's character. The question is still one of fact; and if we can ascertain the fact, we should humbly conclude that it was in harmony with the Saviour's character, and the imitation of it not to be hastily and harshly condemned in the disciples of that Saviour. Look, then, at the case. First, we are quite sure (thus much may with confidence be certainly inferred from the character of our Lord,) that there was not, on the occasion at which he was present,-I do not say intoxication, but any approach to inebriety or indecorum. To nothing of the kind, we may be assured, would He by his presence have given countenance, or the remotest appearance of sanction. And observe, the very language of "the ruler of the feast" respecting "the water that was made wine," shows, that with regard to him at least there was at the time the perfect retention of his discriminating taste; and we have no reason to imagine that there was one in the company of whom the same thing was not true:-for, Secondly, this same language of "the ruler of the feast" clearly refers, not to what had at the time taken place, but only to what was customary, on similar occasions, among the men of the world. And then, thirdly, mark what he says-"Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now," Joh_2:10. It will not be disputed that the designation "good wine" means, in both of its occurrences, wine possessing the same qualities in a similar or superior degree. Now it is very evident, that the setting forth of the inferior wine "after men have well drunk" is to be explained from the inebriating quality of the "good wine" having begun to be so far experienced as to impair that delicacy of taste, and that particular attention to what they were thinking, and so to prevent the change from being observed. "The good wine" therefore, spoken of as usually produced at the beginning of a feast, was fermented, inebriating wine:-and if so, "the good wine" now produced by the Saviour must have been of the same description. If any man shudders at this, he shudders at a shadow-at a phantom of his own imagination. He is weak enough to forget the distinction between use and abuse; between wine as given by God to "make glad the heart of man," and wine as taken in the excesses of sensuality, and to the unsettling of sober reason. The man who feels thus, should not be able to bear the sight of money, seeing nothing can be worse in its results than that which is "the root of all evil;" and yet "money answereth all things"-good ends as well as bad:-the evils arise from its abuse,-whether in the excess of the desire after it, or in the extravagance, the meanness, or the turpitude of its application. All that can be concluded from the incident, as recorded, is, that our divine Lord graced and honoured and blessed with his personal presence the innocent festivities of a connubial party, probably within the circle of his mother's kindred; and that He supplied to the full, by miracle, the means of its enjoyment. This is enough. Had such a thing been wrong in himself, Jesus never would have done it. Had such a thing been wrong in his followers, He never would have given them the countenance of his example, or his countenance in any way, in the doing of it.
There is no light in which the strong language that has been used against the use of wine or of anything that can intoxicate, has shocked and grieved me more, than when I regard it in its bearing upon the character and conduct of my Lord and Master. I take the most lenient and charitable view in my power, when I impute to inconsideration and to hasty zeal for a favourite cause, the terms of unmeasured and undiscriminating censure with which some good men have condemned the use, and especially the social use, of wine; their banishing it from their tables, and from their houses; and their having brought themselves under a solemn pledge not to take, nor give, nor offer, what was taken, and given, and offered, and even miraculously created, for social use, by Him whom they profess to regard as having, in all things, "left them an example, that they should follow his steps!" Surely, surely, fellow-Christians who have taken such a position may well be startled at the presumption involved in it. It is matter of no light concern, to occupy ground that, if just, reflects upon the conduct of the Christian's Lord,-and sets the disciple "above his Master." This is a transcendentalism in morals, at which I should feel it impiety to aim!
There is one other point to which, before closing, I must advert. It was my wish and intention to have finished the whole subject in one discourse:-but the second and third heads are of too great practical importance to be thrust into so narrow a corner as must remain when I have finished the first. The point to which I have alluded is-the question as to the wine used in the institution of the Lord's supper.-Much has of late been made of this question; a great deal more, in my apprehension, than its importance warrants. Why should it be at all necessary to ascertain the precise kind of wine, any more than the precise kind of bread? The wine used was that used in the paschal solemnity; and doubtless this was the ordinary yayin, the fermented wine of the country. Some indeed have fancied that the exclusion of leaven during that solemnity extended to fermented liquors as well as to the "leaven of bread." We have, however, pretty clear proof to the contrary in the fact, that on the morrow after the passover, the quarter-hin of yayin, or fermented wine, was to be the libation, or drinkoffering with the enjoined sacrifice; and that the hin of the same wine was to be offered day by day as usual, during the days of unleavened bread, as at other times. And if it was the ordinary wine of the country, should not that which we use be the same? We properly conform to the custom of the country in other particulars. We sit, because it is our ordinary posture at table, without ever deeming it necessary to conform to theirs, which was reclining. We observe our Sabbath from morning to morning, instead of from evening to evening, because the mode of reckoning the day differs with us from what it was with them. Why, then, any scruple about the use of whatever is the ordinary wine of the country?
But I shall be told, it is not called wine at all:-it is "the fruit of the vine."-I feel it difficult to fancy those in earnest, who gravely found anything on this. If "the fruit of the vine" is to be taken literally, it must be the fruit which the vine bears-that is, grapes. We are very sure, however, that it was not grapes that were the contents of the paschal cup, and consequently of the cup used in the institution of the Lord's supper. What then-considering the fruit of the vine as signifying more generally the produce of the vine,-what was it? One or other of three things-fresh must,-the newly expressed juice of the grape; the inspissated syrup of grape juice, diluted with water; or, fermented win". The first it could not be; for this reason, that the time of the year when the Passover was celebrated, was full five months after the last vintage of the preceding year; so that fresh must, or grape-juice, was out of the question. There are some who, on this subject, seem to forget the seasons altogether, and to have the notion that the fresh juice of the grape might be had at any time. With regard to the second, our friends seem to forget another thing. They speak of the juice or blood of the grape in its natural state:-but they should recollect that the inspissated syrup of grapes is not the juice in its natural state; that it is obtained by an artificial process,-a process much more artificial than that of fermentation; namely, that of slow and repeated boilings; by which it becomes a syrup, but ceases to be the natural unaltered juice of the grape. To the juice of the grape fermentation is, strictly and properly, a natural process. So soon, and so unavoidably, does this process begin,-that there appears to be hardly less evidence that grapes, the fruit of the vine, as given by God to man, were intended to ferment for him, as that they were intended for him at all. They will ferment in spite of him. And, since it is represented, when spoken of as God's gift in the same sense with bread, as "making glad the heart of man," and since it is as a fermented beverage that it especially possesses this cheering or exhilarating property, we seem warranted to regard its fermentation as in the divine purpose in the bestowment of the boon. From these considerations, as well as from the whole tenor of the New Testament respecting wine, as in use among the Jews, we feel ourselves justified in concluding that the cup, in the hands of the Saviour when he instituted the commemoration of his dying love, contained nothing else than the ordinary fermented wines of Judea.
It arises from the cause before alluded to-a morbid horror (the result of undue attachment to a system) of all that is capable of producing intoxication, how innocent soever in itself,-that any man should ask the question-" How could fermented wine, which so generally and so directly leads men into sin, be an emblem of that blood which was shed for the remission of sin?"-with a variety of questions of a similar description, still more strongly and antithetically put.-" To the pure, all things are pure." There is nothing in fermented wine in itself evil, or in the use of it detrimental:-the very reverse. And why should not the two things in nature, which are represented, the one as "making glad the heart of man," and the other as "strengthening man's heart," be appropriate symbols in an ordinance, of which the design is to commemorate the dying love of Him from whose atoning death we derive both our joy and our strength? It is by the remembrance of him,-by musing on his person and his work,-the freeness of his grace, the riches of his love,-that our hearts are gladdened, and we "go on our way rejoicing;"-that our spiritual strength is renewed, so that, "going from strength to strength," we at length expect to "appear before God in the heavenly Zion!"
It is distressing to think of the lengths to which ultra views on this point are carrying individuals and churches. It is like a mania. I had a letter not long since from the pastor of a church in the South, in great perplexity, in consequence of the scruples of some of his members about fermented wine in the supper, and consulting me whether it would be right to allow them, according to their desire, to follow the practice of the priest ridden laity of the Romish Church, and to take the sacrament in one kind,-that is, partaking of the bread only!-Members of churches, I believe, have handed the cup past them; some have withdrawn from communion; and in some, it is said, of the American churches, extraordinary substitutes have been resorted to!
And then, with regard to church-membership,-the virtue which, on this subject, the Bible requires of Christians, is "sobriety"-"moderation"-" temperance." There is no command that goes further than this; no injunction of abstinence. And, all the commands being to temperance, and the very idea of temperance involving that of use,-all the commands proceed upon the assumption of use being lawful. And this, we have seen, accords with the example which we are taught to look up to, as the pattern of sinless excellence. Who, then, is entitled to demand more, as the condition, so far as this one department of duty is concerned, of fellowship in the church of Christ. Or how can the not requiring more ever form a legitimate ground for the withdrawment of any member from a church?-Or how can any church be warrantably constituted on terms of communion that are not to be found in the Bible? It is a very just sentiment of a very sensible and judicious writer on the subject of this morning's discourse:-" To set up a standard of morality which God has not set up, and to forbid that which God has not forbidden, is not the way to ensure the blessing of the Almighty, or the co-operation of his servants; and we shall best promote the interests of the temperance cause, by endeavouring to understand the Scripture argument on the subject, and by confining our requisitions and prohibitions within the limits of Bible morality." *
* Medhurst.
Pro_20:1.
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise."
Last discourse was entirely occupied with the consideration of the two articles here mentioned-" wine and strong drink," and every one who has paid attention to the questions on the subject which of late have been so largely agitated, will be aware how indefinitely it might have been extended. The main drift of that discourse was simply to show,-what it does not require a parade of learned criticism to establish,-that the attempts to make out anything like a uniform and designed distinction between the words used, in the Old Testament Scriptures, for wines that are approved, and wines that are disapproved-the latter as possessing powers of inebriation, and the former not,-have entirely failed:-that the wines of the Old Testament employed in sacrificial libation, promised as a boon, produced from the earth by the power and goodness of God, and in fully warranted use as a common beverage,-were fermented intoxicating wines:-and that such too was the fact with the wine of the New Testament as described by Jesus, used by Jesus, miraculously made by Jesus, and employed by Jesus in the institution of the ordinance of the supper. It was further my object to show that the duty required in the followers of Jesus is temperance; that in His word, and by His example, more is not required; and that they who do require more, in evidence of Christian principle, or in order to Christian communion, are chargeable with going beyond the record.
II. Our second head was-the tendencies ascribed to the articles mentioned:-"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging."
I do not intend to illustrate the two separately,-as if one description of tendency belonged to the "wine," and another to the "strong drink." On the principle of parallelism, and from the frequency with which the two stand associated as conducing to the same results, they may be taken together, and considered as identified. The latter may be more violently exciting than the former, more fiery and more rapid in its operation; but each of the tendencies specified belongs to both, "Wine," when taken in excess, "is raging" as well as "strong drink;" and "strong drink is a mocker," as well as "wine."
Taking the two clauses, then, together, there are four things which may be considered as included in them:-
1. A beguiling tendency;-the tendency, I mean, to entice onward;-one sip leading to another, and one cup or glass to another; and this, especially in social drinking. Whatever opinions I may hold as to the principles of the total abstinence system,-God forbid that I should ever be so unfaithful as to conceal or extenuate the dangers which wait upon the use of whatever possesses inebriating qualities. There is no question on the subject of their seductive tendency,-a tendency which varies in both kind and measure, according to peculiarities of circumstances and of temperament. There is danger,-danger of a man's being led on step by step, especially when inexperienced, from little to more, from one stage to another, till, without any previous purpose, nay even in opposition to such purpose, he is brought under the power of the intoxicating cup,-drawn unawares into the snare,-deceived and cheated into insobriety. That this is one description of the mockery in our text, I have no doubt. It is mockery. One man would surely be said to mock another, when by plausible and subtle arts he drew him into a situation of which he is ashamed himself, and becomes the jest and laughing-stock of others, or-what to many a man is worse-their scorn and pity.
2. Along with a beguiling, there is a befooling tendency, According to varieties in the constitutional or acquired temperament of different individuals, it produces, in excess, one or another of two effects. It renders the subject of its power either a reckless madman, or a drivelling idiot. I might describe the one, and describe the other; but it is unnecessary. Many of you may have witnessed miserable specimens of both. And in either case, surely the "wine," or the "strong drink, is a mocker." The man under its power ceases to be himself:-he says and does extravagant and mischievous things; or gives utterance, with maudlin look and stuttering and stammering tongue, to the incoherent babblings of folly; or reveals what ought to be secret, and makes himself the easy and unconscious prey of every one who chooses to take advantage of him,-giving away, or allowing to be taken, whatever others like, and coming under obligations of which, in his subsequent sobriety, he may find it no easy matter to shake himself loose. Or, worse still-the understanding gets beclouded and bewildered, and unfitted for the fulfilment of important functions, on which the interests of others as well as his own depend. Thus is often realized the description of the prophet-" They have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment," Isa_28:7.
3. There is the tendency to excite the passions:-"strong drink is raging."-It is true, that in some cases the subject of inebriation is rendered silly and ridiculously good-natured. It is the vacant good-nature of the gaping and laughing idiot,-more pitiable, though more harmless, than when the blood is fired and the passions roused. It is, in the latter case, like a temporary phrenzy. Excited himself, and beyond all power of Self-government, the madman says and does things that excite others,-especially when they are in a state approaching to his own. Thus quarrels, all hot and furious, are originated and fomented;-and many a time they terminate in fighting, and wounds, and blood, and even death. What multitudes of the brawls that end thus miserably and sometimes fatally,-and by which culprits are brought to prison, to the bar, to banishment, or to the scaffold, have this for their origin!-And this inflammatory tendency is ascribed to wine as well as to strong drink:-"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!" Isa_5:11.
4. While there is the excitement of the proud passions, there is produced also the stimulated and heated action of other vicious propensities those "fleshly lusts which war against the soul." Intemperance and incontinence are kindred vices; as the words of the wise man teach us-" Thine eyes shall behold strange women." The one leads on to the other. Fully persuaded as I am of the greatly more extensive prevalence of lewdness than of drunkenness, and believing that for the thousands slain by the latter, the former slays its ten thousands,-yet still, this is quite consistent with the tendency of the latter to excite to the former, and to expose to its temptations. It is, in unnumbered cases, to the influence of intoxicating liquor, that the infamous monster has recourse, to accomplish his purposes of foul seduction.
In these ways, and in others that might be mentioned, "wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging."-The tendencies will come out still more fully, in considering-
III. The folly of yielding to them. When is a man "deceived thereby?" When he takes of either at all? Certainly not. Solomon proceeds on the assumption of the use, and of the use being lawful. But a man is deceived, when he gives way to the tendencies; when he allows himself to be thrown off his guard, to be seduced into excess, to get his foot entangled in the snare, and to incur the risk of the consequences. He "is not wise," when he does this even once, at any time, and in any circumstances:-and far more Unwise is he, when, by repeated instances of such deception and mockery, he allows a habit to be formed, from which recovery may become difficult and hopeless. And what are the consequences, on which the charge of folly rests? They are various, and they are serious. And, as the man is a fool who allows himself to be imposed upon and duped in any way,-the worse the consequences, the greater the folly. I might show you how the acts and habits of intemperance affect the body, operating with deleterious and deadly influence on every department of the animal system;-how it works corresponding ravages on the mind, debilitating and debasing its noble powers;-how it destroys character and reputation;-how it thus deprives of confidence, and ruins interest and estate;-what wretchedness, both in the form of poverty, and of discord, and disease, and vice, it introduces into the domestic circle, eating out the very vitals of all enjoyment, and turning the sweetest of heaven's blessings to the "gall of asps;"-and how, above all, as being a sin in itself, and as producing other sins, it tends to the destruction of the soul and the loss of eternity-the forfeiture of its bliss, and the endurance of its never-ending woe. Yes; it is the enemy of the soul; and, if allowed to get the mastery, must be its death. The indulgence of it is utterly incompatible with spiritual life,-destructive of its principles wherever it finds entrance. The contrariety between the two-(not between wine and the influence of the Spirit, for wine is used as one of the appropriate emblems of the spiritual blessings of the gospel-" Come, buy wine (Yayin) and milk without money and without price:"-and the best and strongest of wine-that which is preserved most carefully in its strength, purity, and flavour-" The Lord God will make unto all people a feast of fat things, of wines on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the lees well refined")-not, therefore, I repeat, between wine and divine influence, but between its excess and such influence-" Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit."*1-And there can be no doubt, in the mind of any one, who believes the Bible to be God's word, that intemperance excludes from heaven; since no terras can be more explicit and peremptory than those in which this sentence of exclusion is affirmed.*2 Ah! then, "not wise" indeed is the man, who is "deceived" by the ensnaring influence of the "wine" and the "strong drink!" He is a fool, for body and soul, for time and for eternity!
*1 Eph_5:18. rr
*2 See, among many passages, 1Co_9:9-11; Gal_5:21.
The advocates of total abstinence may very naturally think I have been making out a good case for them; and they will marvel that I should not instantly and strongly draw the inference, which to their minds seems so clear and immediate that it cannot be resisted. There is one ground, however, on which I can rest contented in being marvelled at by them;-namely, that in marvelling at me, they must marvel at the Bible and its divine Author. While they say,-"If such be the tendencies, and such the consequences of yielding to them, it is best to renounce entirely articles of which the danger is thus great,"-it is nevertheless matter of fact, about which there can be no dispute, that such is not the inference drawn in the Word of God; that there, no such abstinence is, on any such grounds, enjoined. On the contrary, as we have already seen, the "wine that gladdens the heart of man" is as much the gift of God for his use, and for the purpose which it is described as answering, as the "bread which strengthened his heart;" it is numbered amongst promised blessings, and the privation of it among threatened judgments; and our Saviour used it, and countenanced the use of it, and produced it by miracle for the purposes of innocent conviviality. Surely from all this it ought to be admitted, that abstinence is not incumbent. The use, so far from being interdicted, has the clearest and strongest of all possible sanctions;-the gift and promise of God, and the example of Jesus Christ. On all it is incumbent to beware of excess,-of going beyond the bounds of temperate enjoyment. We shall have occasion hereafter to speak more largely of the questions, What is moderation? and What is excess? Meantime I can only offer a single remark on the logic 'which concludes against all use from the danger of abuse, and which infers the propriety and obligation of entire abstinence from the indefiniteness of the terms moderation and excess, and the difficulty (if, indeed, in the present instance, such difficulty there be) of drawing with accurate precision bounding line« between the one and the other. How many of the virtues are there which are, even to a greater degree, in the same predicament with moderation! Who will draw the exact line between covetousness and generosity? Who will define the precise limits of profusion and penuriousness? Are we then to attempt no mean between the extremes? Must we give all away, that we may not be charged with penuriousness, or keep all to ourselves, to avoid the charge of profusion?-Because there is great difficulty in determinately fixing the limits of the precept-"Be not conformed to this world," are we to adopt the course of doing nothing that the world does at all ?-There is such a thing as temperance, for the word of God commands it:-and there is a possibility of ascertaining, sufficiently for all practical and salutary purposes, the legitimate limits of the virtue; for the word of God does not enjoin impossibilities. We have admitted, however, the dangers; and it is the duty of every individual to be on his guard against them; and the duty of every public teacher and guardian of religion and morals, to put others on their guard against them; and to accommodate their warnings to the various peculiarities of temptation. I would, first of all, warn of his danger the man who sees none; for in this and some other things, the danger is seldom greater than when there is no sense of it, but a feeling of careless security. I would warn the man, and especially the youth, who is fond of company, to beware of the enticements which arise from that source to the free use of the exhilarating glass, and to the habit of associating the two together, and of the hazard of thus contracting the same fondness for the one as for the other,-for the glass as for the company. I would warn those who, by any kind of regular custom of taking a certain quantity, however small, (in general a bad practice) feel themselves beginning to contract a liking for it, and a craving sensation that they cannot do without it, to break off the habit ere it obtains a single day's further mastery. I would warn those who are tempted to have recourse to the wine or the spirit cup, for the purpose of banishing or suppressing the morbid horror of low spirits and nervous and hysterical affections, to beware of purchasing a temporary relief at the fearful expense of the formation of a permanent habit, a thousand times worse than the evil it is intended to abate; and which, while it may abate for the time, it in the end most miserably augments. I would warn the man who, by his very hatred and scorn of tee-totalism, is in danger, for the very sake of showing how heartily he does hate and scorn it, of taking what he should not take, and flying to the contrary extreme.
But both the general and the special warnings may be sounded, while the liberty of use is maintained, and the obligation to entire abstinence denied. There are certain points respecting which we are all agreed, and our agreement about which ought never to be lost sight of. They are such as these. We are all of one mind as to the sinfulness and guilt of intemperance in itself:-we are all of one mind as to the vastness of the variety and amount of crime and misery to which this sin gives prolific and fatal birth;-the many streams of bitterness and pollution that flow from this foul and noxious spring:-we are all of one mind as to the extreme desirableness of having this enormous aggregate of crime and misery diminished, and, as far as within the limits of possibility, removed. For an equally deep conviction and heartfelt sense of these things, we are all entitled to claim equal credit: and he who is disposed to question it in his neighbour, only shows that there is one virtue at least which his system has failed to teach him,-the precious virtue of charity.-We contend, that it is possible to hold all such convictions, and cherish all such feelings, in the most perfect sincerity, without coming to the conclusion of its being a duty to have recourse to total abstinence. And the ground we take up in maintaining this, is,-that although, in the word of God, the moral turpitude of the sin of intemperance is, in the very strongest terms, affirmed; although its sentence of condemnation is, in all its fearfulness, pronounced, and the denouncing admonitions of Heaven are everywhere pointed against it; although all the varieties of trespass and of woe to which it leads in time, and the "worm that dieth not, and the fire that never shall be quenched" in which its course must close, are fully known, and estimated, in all their extent, by the God who has given us the Bible,-there is not, from the beginning to the end of that Bible, any interdiction of the things themselves from the existence and abuse of which the evils arise,-any injunction whatever to abstain from them; but promises of them as benefits, and liberty to use them, provided the abuse of them were avoided.
For my own part, I recur to one of the points alluded to in last discourse. I take my stand on the example of my Master. That example every Christian admits to have been without spot or blemish. "He did no sin." "He fulfilled all righteousness." Every step of his life was on the very centre line of virtue, in undeviating harmony with that law which was "within his heart," and which was "holy, and just, and good." Yet this pattern of sinless excellence used wine. The condemnation of drunkenness,-the description of its effects,-the denunciations of Jehovah against it,-His warnings to flee from it,-and the judgments, in this world and the world to come, thundered forth as its inevitable reward;-these were all in the Old Testament Scriptures:-the very words of our text were there, and the other words quoted from a subsequent chapter. It was amongst the sins of Judah, which were preparing for them those heavy woes which drew from his eyes the tears of pity over their devoted city. Yet He does not set the example of abstinence:-He does not feel it incumbent upon him to mark his abhorrence of the abuse, by the entire abandonment of the use; or to induce others to have recourse to such abandonment as the only effectual means of putting an end to the sin of drunkenness. His example was that, not of abstinence, but of temperance. Now we are certain that the example He set was both positively and negatively perfect,-perfect in what he did, and perfect in what he did not do; that he neither did what he ought not to have done, nor failed to do what he ought to have done. Are the disciples, then, deserving of blame, for not doing what the Master did not do?-Here, I repeat, I take my stand; and I feel my footing firm. I do not plead for exemption from an act of self-denial. I should be ashamed to call it such, did either the command or the example of my Master lay it upon me;-and I feel that we are uncharitably maligned when our principles and practice are imputed to an unwillingness to relinquish a sensual indulgence. But I plead for the sinlessness of my Saviour's example; for the sacredness from all impeachment, direct or implied, of my Saviour's character; for liberty to act, without subjecting myself to any charge of failure in duty, as my Saviour acted. I tremble, when I hear a charge heedlessly brought against the disciple, that rests on a principle such as must necessarily carry it back to the disciple's Lord.
To any man who would lay sin to my charge for drinking wine, I say at once, "I am not careful to answer thee in this matter"-He who "did no sin" drank wine;-and, diffident as I might be of rectitude in myself, in this or in any thing else, had I not his example before me, I feel contented and at ease under an imputation in which I stand associated with the "wine-bibber" of Nazareth! When one hears the charge, that the temperate-they who use intoxicating liquors in moderation-are the causes of all the drunkenness in the country, the feeling that takes possession of the mind is one of mingled amazement and grief-amazement at the absurdity, grief at the uncharitableness of such a charge. True enough it is, that, were there no drinking at all, there would be no intemperance, just as, were there no eating at all, there would be neither epicurism nor gluttony,-and were there no credit at all, there would be no "accommodation bills," and none of the reckless and ruinous speculations which are encouraged and maintained by means of them,-and, as in many other analogous cases, were the thing itself not existing, the evils arising from its abuse would be at an end:-but that those who take the use of God's gifts which He has himself permitted, that they should be loaded with all the guilt and misery arising from the abuse of them by others,-that they who do what God allows should be charged with causing, by their example, the crimes and guilt and punishment of those who do what God forbids!-has something in it so utterly unreasonable, that the simple statement of it should be its refutation in every soundly and soberly thinking mind: but I am relieved at once from the necessity of all such reasonings, by the same example. The charge cannot be just; because, if it were, the example of the "holy, harmless, and undefiled"-"the man Christ Jesus"-would come in for its share of the blame, as a part of the cause of all the intemperance in the land of Judea! If such admonitions and commands are quoted to me as-"Touch not the unclean thing;" "Be not conformed to this world;" "Be filled with the Spirit;" "Be not partakers of other men's sins;" "Do all to the glory of God;" "Let not your good be evil spoken of;" "Abstain from all appearance of evil;" "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God;" and others of a similar character, (and there are those who do quote them, as if they really thought they had application,) I meet them all with the same answer-Did Jesus "touch the unclean thing?" Was Jesus "conformed to this world?" Did Jesus "grieve that Holy Spirit which was not given by measure unto him?" Was Jesus, whom "the world hated because he testified of it that its works were evil," "a partaker in other men's sins?" Did Jesus do anything otherwise than "to the glory of God?" Was it not His "good" that was "evil spoken of," when He was called "a wine-bibber?" Was there anything in Him that could justly be charged with even the "appearance of evil?" If all these questions must be answered in one way-then what becomes of the application of the texts to those who only imitate His example? It proceeds altogether on a principle, which that example, as well as the reason of the thing, has stamped with falsehood, that the use by one is rendered sinful by the abuse on the part of others. But assuredly, no fellow-Christian is entitled to require in another the relinquishment of what he has the sanction of his Master's example for doing. We are surely safe when we are doing as Christ did. And with deliberate seriousness I say it-They who separate from their brethren because they cannot feel it their duty to adopt abstinence principles, and who, consequently, require such abstinence as a term of communion, proceed upon a principle, which, if consistently followed out, would lead them to pronounce a sentence of excommunication, from His own church, of that church's Saviour and Lord! And what else do they than require abstinence as a term of fellowship, who placard "the British churches" as "bulwarks of intemperance?"* Did they mean by this, that in so far as such churches fail in their discipline by retaining in their communion the drunkard and the tippler, they were the "bulwarks of intemperance,"-it would be a truth. But this is not the ground of their quarrel with the churches, nor of their separation from them. And in so far as they mean that the churches are "the bulwarks of intemperance," by retaining in their fellowship those who use God's gifts in moderation, and by not collectively adopting and acting upon the principles of total abstinence,-I am borne out by the example and by all the precepts of the Saviour in pronouncing the imputation wholesale slander.
* This refers to a large placard put up at the time throughout all the streets of Glasgow, in which the language quoted was used.
By this remark I am naturally led to another-namely, that the collective as well as individual example of God's people ought to be one of the influential means of discountenancing and putting down this and all other vices in the world. "It is a lamentation, and shall be for a lamentation," that by the amalgamation to such an extent of the church with the world, and the admission and retention of so many, in the former, of persons chargeable with the abuse of God's gifts in intemperance and other sins, the power of this example has been so sadly weakened, and even turned in the opposite direction. Were the church purified of its corruption,-were "the wicked shaken out of it,"-were the line of demarcation more boldly defined, by the church's "coming out and being separate,"-were the world thus deprived of every ground for pointing with the finger of scorn at tippling saints and godly drunkards, and saying "What do ye more than others?"-were there, in the personal and collective character of the people of God, a constant, faithful, consistent testimony, like that of their Lord, borne to the world "that the deeds thereof are evil;"-this would be, so far as example goes, what the Lord requires of his people; and it would just be-conformity to his own. And I am strongly inclined to think-and demand credit from my total abstinence brethren for my sincerity in saying so, how much soever they may question the soundness of the sentiment,-that Christian example ought to be an example of the influence of Christian principle. The apostle says-" The grace of God which bringeth salvation teacheth us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world," Tit_2:11-12. I mean, then, that the more distinctly manifest it is to the world that the sobriety of Christians is the result of their having received the grace of God,-of their faith of the doctrine of "grace reigning through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord