certainly are not embodied in the paraphrase of Mr. Sims. Let us, rather, briefly examine the wit of that gentleman himself, in order to see whether it is real or counterfeit. First, then, why are Kings not to drink in ordinary quantity, if the quality tend not to disturb their normal condition? Is there no connection between the nature of the thing prohibited, and the state of mental confusion warned against? Even Mr. Sims will scarcely go so far as to affirm the negative: but if not, what is it for any agent (whether opium, bang, usquebaugh, or wine) to disturb the functions of the brain, but to poison? There are but two things for it-either the effects are normal or abnormal-i. e. healthy or diseased, natural or poisonous. The language of Proverbs, therefore, as absolutely implies what is equivalent to the modern word 'poison,' as Shakspere does when he speaks of 'hot and rebellious liquors' being applied to the blood. Second, Is it not quite possible to abuse, as well as to use, even a poison? May not a poison be 'a curse' considered in one relation, and 'a blessing' in another? Is not 'opium' made into a frightful instrument of evil both in the Eastern and Western hemispheres ?-Yet is it not, as a medicine, one of the greatest of blessings? Third, Mr. Sims seems to think it ridiculous, on our part, to designate 'wine' as a mocker, seeing it was given to the bitter in soul. Well! if this be ridiculous, Solomon must sustain the imputation,—for the language is not ours, but his. He did say, 'Wine is a mocker-shechar is raging'—and yet he also said, 'Give wine to him that is of heavy heart-shechar to him that is ready to perish.' As far as teetotalism is concerned, Mr. Sims may settle his quarrel with Solomon as he pleases-it does not at all concern us. If Mr. Sims have no Divine, he has at least Jewish, authority for the use of wine in affliction—and what also suits him admirably, that of Juliet's Nurse. ༦ 'Give me some aqua vita These griefs, these woes, these sorrows, make me old.' He would sympathize wonderfully with the Old Lady, and with one or two of the tipsy effusions of poor Burns, to whom, as to Campbell and many others, this 'strong-drink' proved the bane' of intellect as of health. Nevertheless, we repudiate the use of wine as the consoler of sorrow, just as distinctly as we repudiate Patriarchal incontinence, Jephthah's barbarity, or Jewish slavery ;--we will follow the Master in this matter of drink also, who, when the drugged and lethean cup was offered to him in his suffering, refused to drink it. In truth, His last act was a sacred assertion of our principle—the refusal of intoxicating wine. 9. Three texts quoted from the Old Testament. (Eccles. x. 17; Zech. ix. 15; Zech. x. 7, 8.) The latter texts do not speak of certain persons using wine-but simply affirm that 'their heart shall rejoice in the Lord as thrö wine.' Mr. Sims blunders once more, and One hundred years ago 'the spiced cup' was offered to criminals on their way to Tyburn. The notion prevailed in the Homeric era, as we learn from the 4th book of the Odyssey : "To warm the soul, Bright Helen mix'd a mirth inspiring bowl Temper'd with drugs of sovereign power, To clear the cloudy front of wrinkled care, Mr. Sims may clearly ascend in his authoritics' from the Nursery to the Throne, and from Tyburn to Troy! Ergo, Mr. Sims is right!! Teetotalers are wrong !!! confounds comparison' with causation. He fancies gladness and mirth are always connected with a species of ginfluenza; we therefore recommend him to peruse, by way of correction, Neh. viii. 4-12, and Judges ix. 27. Eccles. x. 17, has absolutely nothing to do with drinking at all: it simply speaks of EATING FOR STRENGTH, and not for luxury. Elsewhere we have fully illustrated the scriptural use of various words translated drunkenness.' j On the general question, we refer Mr. Sims to Isaiah xliii. 24, marginal reading, for one example out of many, of the unintoxicating sense of drunkenness '-i.e. drenching. As regards Eccl. x. 17, Mr. Sims must not be offended if we tell him that his argument is again based upon a double-blunder, -is an 'ærial edifice' with no solid Hebrew foundation whatever! We hope the facts already stated, and those we are about to adduce, will tend to abate in future the dogmatism and critical arrogance which Mr. Sims has displayed on behalf of himself and his 'enlightened friends'-men who so liberally revile, and so needlessly scorn, a criticism which they seem incompetent to understand. The Hebrew word sh'thee, translated drunkenness,' only occurs eleven times in the whole Bible, and in nine places is translated warp' (opposed to woof). Now, if 'what a word means in one age, it must mean in every other,' be a sound canon of criticism —and it is the chief one exemplified by our opponent-his last boastful citation becomes another blunder, and nonsense to boot. The fact, is, the sense and use of the word in the 18th of Leviticus (where it occurs nine times) became obsolete, and we find it afterwards only in Esth. i. 8, and Eccl. x. 17, apparently employed in the general sense of 'banqueting' or 'luxury. In the Greek version of the Bible, the text reads thus:-'Whose Princes shall eat seasonably, for strength, and shall not be ashamed?' Possibly they understood sh'thee, 'warp,' in the metaphorical sense of being drawn out' to excess— lengthened or extended, beyond the just limit of satisfaction.-In a similar way we use the verb 'to warp'-to stretch or twist. 10. The New Testament. (Matt. xi. 18-19.) The reproach of wine-biber, says Mr. Sims, would be pointless if the wine was un-fermented! This does not follow any more than that the charge of being gluttonous was pointless, unless the food were intoxicating. Even teetotalers have been reproached for tipling coffee in Temperance Hotels." An excessive fondness for rich foods and drinks was a well-known vice of the ancients, i. e. simple GLUTTONY and BIBACITY-to which Paul indeed refers when he advises the aged women not to be given to much wine.'k The Jews, also, are reproached for loving flagons of grapes' in our authorized version-literally, 'cakes of grapes.' Says Mr. Sims 6 'If John were to come now, ultra-teetotalers would say He hath an angel.' Mr, Sims is a singular man to suppose that there would be any harm in flatly contradicting the lying Pharisees, who declared that John had a demon, and that the Saviour was a sensualist! While wisdom is justified of her children, it is equally true that folly and prejudice make their besotted disciples known to each other by a common free-masonry of sentiment. j Manx Truth-Seeker, p. 189. 1845. The women of Greece were prohibited altogether the use of intoxicating wine, but allowed the use of the boiled wines. According to Lucian, the Roman ladies were so fond of those wines, that, after drinking greedily, they would take emetics to enable them to repeat their excess.-There were wine-bibbers without intoxication. Hence the Greek yλEνкоπdτns, 'a lover of unfermented-wine' (gleukos, must). Mr. Sims must also be singularly oblivious, not to recollect that John had an angel to precede and announce his birth, and to impose upon him the practice of Teetotalism—even Gabriel,' the power of God;-that John was filled with the spirit,'-was sent from God,'-and was therefore an angel' (i. e. divine messenger) in himself. 11. New wine put into old bottles will burst. (Matt.) Wine which hath no vent, ready to burst, like new bottles.-(Job xxxii. 19.) What wine was this? Whatever you please, Mr. Sims. It is immaterial to our argument whether it was fermented to begin with, or it fermented in the skin-bottles, and was therefore unfermented wine when put in. Your theory will be full of contradictions any way. While fermented wine breaks no bottles, either new or old, fermenting wine will inevitably burst both. Nothing can be clearer than that this 'bursting' was quite an accidental affair, owing to the neglect of some well-known precaution against fermentation-of which the election of fresh skins was one, and the exclusion of fresh air was another. Supposing the liquor was not new wine' when put into the bottles—but already fermented--what then? No one denies the existence of such wine: the only question is, Where has GOD declared it to be good? 12. These are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day? (Acts ii. 15.) This text, says Mr. Sims, furnishes "powerful indirect testimony against the two-wine chimera." How? By showing the existence of one of the two! Mr. Sims thinks Peter's answer strange, if he had held our views. But who contends that Peter, in the first century, did hold views which are the result of the physiological science of the 19th ? Nevertheless, as Mr. Sims's texts themselves prove, the early Christians did suspect intoxicating wine. Paul, quoting the Greek version of Proverbs, says 'Be not drunk with wine, wherein is seduction' (or danger, tending to excess) ;— Timothy, a Christian Bishop, was also a teetotaler ;— and Clement, of Alexandria, compares wine to fire. Even if Peter had possessed an inspired scientific knowlege of the physiological propertics of alcohol,-which is a very absurd assumption,-still we do not think he could have given a better answer. It is based on a well-known fact concerning the soberness of the entire society of Judea-and would therefore be far more credible and conclusive than a statement of any private practice. 1 13. Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess.' (Eph. v. 18.) Mr. Inwards has mistaken the sense of this one text, as certainly as Mr. Sims has that of the twenty other texts. In fact, both have mistaken it-one has misapprehended, the other perverted it. Mr. Sims transposes its words, and alters it thus:- "Be not drunk with an excess of wine"! whereas the antithetical warning of the apostle is-" Be not drunk (or filled) with wine, WHEREIN IS DISSOLUTENESS"-leading to riot and lechery (so Clement, Wickliffe, and others understood it)—“ but be filled with the (Divine) Spirit,” wherein is no tendency to evil or excess, as with 'the Spirit of Wine.' 1 "Acts. ii. 15. Third hour] That which answers to our nine o'clock in the morning, and was the ordinary time for their morning Sacrifice and Prayer, before which time they did not eat or drink anything; nay, 'tis thought, on Festival days, it was usual with them not to eat or drink until the sixth hour, i.e. noon-time, that they might be more intent upon, and fit for, the services of the day. How little soever (to our shame) such an argument would be of proof now, it was in their sober times very conclusive.' (Poole's Commentary. Lond. 1683.) Mr. Sims asks-'Why is there no injunction against excess in 'fruits,' 'water,' and other natural productions? We thought there had been a good many. We have a not very dim recollection of certain warnings against the love of the flesh-pots of Egyptof the Jews looking after strange Gods, and loving 'flagons of grapes'—of some advice of Solomon, that much honey is not good,'-of 'putting a restraint' on our appetites when at table—of eating for strength,' not for sensuality—and we have not quite forgotten Gideon's test concerning 'water-drinking.' After all, we do not expect warnings against 'excess of good things' to be so frequent as against the use of bad ones. 14. One is hungry, and another is drunken.' (1 Cor. xi. 21.) Eight-tenths of all the ancient and modern critics and translators,-of all sects and schools,―render the verse thus:-'One is hungry, and another is full, Clement, Augustine, Calvin, Hall, Hammond, Wesley, Boothroyd, Clarke, Benson, Bloomfield, Taylor, Stuart, and fifty others, all agree in this matter: and if they did not, it would not weaken our argument one jot, since, in the Greek, the original word is applied to drenching with water, soaking in oil, etc. m Paul, says Mr. Sims, does not say, Why do you drink the bane of the church? butWhy don't you eat and drink at home? Had Paul really been speaking of 'intoxication,' this would have been strange language! for it clearly implies that what the Corinthians had been wrongly doing at the lovefcast (eating and drinking), they might rightly have done at home. 'It is' not 'incredible,' therefore, that Paul should be silent' about the nature of a wine, of the use of which on that occasion there is no proof whatever. 15. Use a little wine for thy stomach's sake.' (1 Tim. iii. 8.) Mr. Sims re-echoes his old argument given under the 8th head: we need not repeat our answer at length. Opium is 'a curse' when used for sensualism: yet a 'blessing' when . m"I take our translation of the word μelves to be very hard and uncharitable. Hard, because the word doth not necessarily so signify, or drinking beyond what is strictly necessary, and our translators themselves, John ii. 10, render it well drunk.' Uncharitably, because it certainly must be very uncharitably presumed of this Church of Corinth, that they should suffer persons, at that time actually drunk, to come to the Lord's Table." (Poole's Commentary, 1683.) Since the preceding was in type, Mr. Spec. alias Sims, has discretely abandoned fourteen out of fifteen of his criticisms, tho he has still the bad taste to nickname opinions which he cannot confute. Tho we had clearly convicted this man of inexcusable ignorance, and of gross misrepresentation of teetotal opinions, he answers with the coolest and most 'pious' air of assumption imaginable-"He is no opponent to tectotalism; only to the vagaries of its supporters, whose zeal hurries them out of the paths of discretion and truth"! Mr. Sims says "I am still content to rest the case on 1 Corinthians, xi. 21." "The passage is wrongly translated, of course! this is invariably alleged when people get a text too strong for them!" Was this text, then, too strong for Clement, Calvin, and the other fifty people' we referred to? Were they teetotalers? How a honest man can thus pervert an argument, and tamper with the truth for the sake of saying something, we for one, cannot conceive. Mr. Sims quotes a writer of no authority in Greek, to show that, in his opinion, the Corinthians "indulged to excess," and then says, that "Methui literally means, I drink pure-wine; I am soaked." 6 What then? Homer uses the word for being soaked in 'oil,'-the Greek Septuagint, in Psalm lxiv (Eng. 65) twice applies it to water,' and in Hag. i. 6, to being satisfied' by way of blessing, which intoxication certainly is not; and in John ii. 10, it is simply translated well-drunk.' These are facts, not opinions, and sufficiently settle the matter. In reply Mr. Sims urges, that in Acts ii. 15, and 1 Thess. v. 7, the word must signify D medically used: so might alcoholic wine be esteemed by Paul, as by Clement, who calls it 'a medicament.' Nevertheless, no one knows that Paul intended, or Timothy took, alcoholic wine. If Mr. Sims will peruse Columella, Pliny, Sir Edward Barry, etc., on the Wines of the Ancients, he will discover that many sorts of medicated syrup wines were in constant use. Mr. Sims 'thinks' that Timothy's stomach complaint would be aggravated by ‘a treacley, cloying syrup.' This 'think,' however, does not agree with fact. Dr. Russell, in his 'Natural History of Aleppo,' and other travelers, distinctly declare that the Orientals use the sapa vini-(the sobhe, or boiled wine of the Bible)-as a restorative article of diet in dyspepsia and other disorders of the asthenic type. We are glad to learn from Mr. Sims's letter, that the 'dogmas' he is opposing, have found disciples amongst the body of abstainers in Lancashire-" so large a portion as threatens soon to bring all the rest to its own way of thinking." We have no doubt of it-we long since predicted it. Years ago, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Osborne, Dr. Campbell, and others, tried to settle' both us and the 'wine-question' together-but while they have themselves 'settled down' in peace, our cause has risen up triumphant. We, at least, make no 'one-sided statement'; the columns of the TRUTH-SEEKER have been open to opponents, and are still; while on the platform we always invite discussion. We have long wanted a candid and competent opponent-free alike from gross ignorance, and grosser invective— a calm and logical disputant-and we still want such an one. Mr. Sims, we perceive, is the author of 'Hours of Solitude.' As this is the first time we ever heard, either of the work or the author, we cannot speak critically of their pretensions. But as we do not expect anything very logically Rational from the genus Rhymer, we have not been disappointed in the criticisms before us. One thing, however, we do expect in all true Poets, whether of the calibre of Burns or of Bloomfield-'true gentleness,' not weakness or softness. Mr. Sims, however, does not here figure as one of the 'Gentle Craft ’– generous, just, and sympathizing-but as a coarse and intolerant sciolist. We have the craft without the gentleness. Far from ascribing these effusions to a subject of Divine Poësy, they seem to us more characteristic of the temper and attainments of a sub-editor of some pot-house Newspaper, where philosophy is no more recognized than courtesy and candor are required. Teetotal arguments are represented as 'wretched evasions !-Teetotalers reviled as 'ignorant, prejudiced, and untaught crowds '!!-who 'tell lies for God'-utter 'twaddle and fanatical moonshine'-' wrest, and twist, and distort scripture '—and 'set themselves up as counsellors to the Lord, and of higher moral character than He who knew no sin'!!! Having replied to Mr. Sims's reasoning, we now quote these samples of his rant, in order to show, that while we are quite willing to discuss the subject, we might fairly be excused from noticing a scribbler who has so little respect for himself, for his townsmen, or for truth, as to indulge in a strain of epithet so vicious, and of invective so vile. drunken in an evil sense. Again, what then? In Gen. viii. 1, it is said-'God made a wind to pass over the earth.' Now, the very next time this word (ruahh) occurs is Gen. xxvi. 35. Are we there to read-'A grief of wind unto Isaac '? or, because the word signifies, the breath of the nostrils,' in Psalm xviii. 15 (16), must we translate Psalm xxxiv. 18 (19) thus:-'Such as be of a contrite wind'? We Finally, Mr. Sims attempts to fortify his position by a quotation from Tertullian, implying that the Romish Christians used an intoxicating wine in the third century. Again, what then? The question concerns a Greek custom in the first century. already know that the Man of Sin'-the principle of corruption in the Church-was at work. By and bye, the Council of Braga attempted to enforce the intoxicating cup upon the teetotalers of that age, who, as Cyprian testifies, "used no other wine than such as they prest out of the clusters of grapes.” |