and freed from the ungodly nations of the world, can be renewed and become the seat of eternal life." The new heaven and the new earth, and the new human race. -From the old creation a new, pure one is to proceed-a new heaven and a new earth-luminous and pure, in which there will be no sinner. This new earth will be perfect and harmonious, and will afford the conditions of an existence free from trouble. There will be no destruction and death, neither will there be strife in the animal world, nor will the peace between men and the animal world ever be disturbed. Upon the earth dwells a new humanity, whose moral renovation is effected by the eradication of the y, (wicked inclination,) from the heart and the implanting of a new heart. The Olam Habba, (future world.)—The future world belongs to Israel to the exclusion of the nations of the world. To this every Israelite has an expectancy, unless he has lost it by apostasy. Respecting the form of life in the future world there. are two different views-the one spiritual, according to which, in the eternal life, none of the functions belonging to the sensual body will any longer exist. In opposition to this, a more materialistic view is given in Tanchuma, Chayzé Sara, 8: In this world the righteous beget good and bad, but in that world all (their children) will be good. And we further find in passages the repast of the righteous praised, which must be understood literally, as the food consists of the flesh of the Leviathan. But whatever may be thought to be the forms of existence in the future world, one thing is fixed: that this existence is a happy and glorious one, because it is a life in full communion with God. This happiness and glory of the righteous are in their nature one and the same, but of different degrees. ART. IV. THE WINES OF THE BIBLE.* [SECOND ARTICLE.] WE must now enlarge the sphere of our inquiry, and examine the grounds on which, at this day, the sanction of Christ is claimed for the use of alcoholic beverages. What are the alleged facts in support of which testimony is offered? Careful analysis reduces the specifications to three: (1) Jesus Christ made fermented wine; (2) Jesus Christ commended fermented wine; (3) Jesus Christ used fermented wine. Before we enter upon the detailed examination of these several charges, some III. PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION will be necessary concerning an assumption which is common to them all, and which, if it be conceded, settles the whole question at once and affirmatively. It is the assumption that there was and is but one kind of wine, and that fermented, and, when taken in sufficient quantities, intoxicating. Chancellor Crosby says, "There is not a chemist or a classical scholar in the world who would dare risk his reputation on the assertion that there was ever an unfermented wine in common use, knowing well, that must preserved from fermentation is called wine only by a kind of courtesy (as the lump of unbaked dough might be called 'bread,') and that this could never, in the nature of things be a common drink." Prof. Bumstead makes similar assertions ; declaring that the theory "of an unfermented wine has failed to commend itself to the scholarship of the world." And Dr. Moore remarks, "The history of the doctrine of unfermented Bible wine cannot be carried back beyond a few decades; and this fact furnishes a préjugé légitime against it." As to the argument from scholarship, it is sufficient to say, there are many and eminent authorities, inferior to none and superior to most in scholarship, who do un*In order to give the entire argument we have allowed this Article to greatly exceed our usual maximum of twenty pages.-ED. "A Calm View of the Temperance Question." § Ibid., p. 115. hesitatingly affirm the existence and use of unfermented wine in Bible lands and times. They have as complete access to the evidence in the case, and are as competent judges of its validity and bearing, as either of the authors we have quoted or as any of the authorities whom they have cited. We need only mention Moses Stuart,* Eliphalet Nott,† Alonzo Potter, George Bush, Albert Barnes, § William M. Jacobus, Tayler Lewis,¶ George W. Samson,** F. R. Lees, ++ Norman Kerr,‡‡ and Canon Farrar.§§ As to the préjugé légitime, this is not the first instance in which it has been appealed to for the sanction of error. There has rarely ever been a bad cause in whose support it was not invoked. The almost universal interpretation of the Bible in defense of the doctrine of passive obedience was pronounced a préjugé légitime against the right of resistance to tyrants in Charles the Second's day. That interpretation, however, has gone for very little since the Revolution of 1688. The almost universal interpretation of the Bible in support of the system of human slavery was deemed a préjugé légitime against the right and duty of abolition, a quarter of a century ago. That interpretation, also, has been worth very little since the crisis of civil war and the act of emancipation. But the principle upon which the non-jurors argued the divine obligation of passive obedience, and the slaveholders defended the divine authority of human chattelism, "It was a very common thing to preserve wine in an unfermented state, and when thus preserved it was regarded as of a higher aud better quality than any other."-Letter to Dr. Nott, New York, 1848, p. 44. "That unintoxicating wines existed from remote antiquity, and were held in high esteem by the wise and the good, there can be no reasonable doubt. The evidence is unequivocal and plenary."-"Lecture on Temperance," London edition, p. 85. The language of both of these distinguished men to E. C. Delevan, Esq., on the subject was, "You have the whole ground."-" The Enquirer," Aug., 1869. "The wine of Judea was the pure juice of the grape without any mixture of alcohol, and commonly weak and harmless."-"Commentary on John ii, 10." "All who know of the wines then used, will understand the unfermented juice of the grape.' -" Commentary on John ii, 10." Wine "simply meant the liquid that came from pressing the grape. It was not fermenting fluid, but grape juice.”—"The Advance," Dec. 24, 1874. **"Divine Law as to Wines," passim. "Wines, Ancient and Modern," passim. "Unfermented Wine a Fact." $$ "Wine means primarily the juice, and often, as I believe, the unfermented juice, of the grape.-" Talks on Temperance," p. 41. FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXIV.-19 is precisely the same as that now employed in upholding the theory of a divine sanction for intoxicating wine. The old lesson must once more be learned, that a traditional interpretation of Scripture is not conclusive proof of any doctrine, but is often an obscuration of the truth of God. It is needful, therefore, to "pray against that bias which, by importing its own foregone conclusions into the word of Scripture, and, by refusing to acknowledge what makes against its own prejudices, has proved the greatest hinderance to all fair interpretation, and has tended, more than anything else in the world, to check the free course of divine truth."* In every age the Lord has some new light to break forth out of his Holy Word,t and in the next generation we may look to see it break as clearly on the duty of total abstinence as we have seen it shine in the generation just passing on the right of human freedom. Without attempting any further appeal to authority in this case, we will proceed to examine as carefully and candidly as possible the evidence we have of 1. The existence and use of unfermented wine in ancient times. (1.) And the first is found in the references both of Greek and Roman writers to wine which they declared would not intoxicate. For example, Aristotle ("Meteorologica,” iv, 9,) says of the sweet wine of his day, (oivos ỏ yλvkús) that it did not intoxicate, (oỶ μedúokεi). And Athenæus ("Banquet," ii, 24,) makes a similar statement. Prof. Bumstead says that this wine was fermented and called sweet only "from the presence of considerable untransformed sugar.' Dr. William Smith says S that it signified "wine positively sweet." It may have included wine which had undergone some degree of fermentation, but in general it was free from intoxicating properties, as the authorities just quoted indicate. This was probably true of the vinum dulce of the Romans, described by Columella, ("De Re Rustica," xii, 27.) The same author ("De Re Rustica," iii, 2,) and Pliny also, ("Natural History," xiv, 2,) mention a wine made from the grape, inerticula, (literally, “that *Bishop Ellicott in "Aids to Faith," p. 421. + Robinson's "Address to Pilgrim Fathers." $ "Bibliotheca Sacra," Jan., 1881, p. 62. "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," art. "Vinum." * produces no effect,") which Pliny says did not cause intoxication-temulentiam non facit. Dr. Moore attempts to break the force of this testimony by saying that "it is not of the wine, but the grape, that Pliny says it alone does not cause intoxication. And it is not of the wine, but of the grape, that he tells us that we ought to call it sober (sobriam)." But any lexicon would tell him that these terms were applied to the grape because they describe the qualities of the wine made from it. So Columella distinctly states, (iii, 2,) unde etiam nomen traxit. Still, Dr. Moore insists † that the wine made from this grape "was certainly fermented," because, forsooth, "Pliny tells us that it could grow old, which must or unfermented grape juice could not." This is simply not so, as we shall see. Against both these statements of Aristotle and Pliny, and all similar ones, the objection is brought that it is only in "the comparative sense, and not absolutely," that their testimony as to the non-intoxicating character of certain wines is to be taken. Prof. Bumstead compares them § "with similar statements in regard to lager beer and other beverages, which, it is well known, contain alcohol and can intoxicate if a sufficient quantity be taken. Such statements are popular and not scientific." The standard of comparison in this case, however, is the distilled and fortified liquors of modern times. But a very different standard was in the minds of the ancient authors whom we quote. They knew nothing of these stronger drinks. Distillation was not discovered until the eleventh or twelfth century of the Christian era, and the wines of antiquity were, in general, of small alcoholic power. In fact all wines, until within the last hundred years, were comparatively weak. The analyses of Neumann in the last century have determined this point. They show that the very strongest of mediæval wines contained only about twelve per cent. of spirit, and the average scarcely more than six. The distilled and fortified drinks of to-day average from twenty-five to fifty per cent. of alcohol. A wine which, in comparison with the ordinary standards of antiquity was pronounced weak, must have been devoid of any intoxicating power. "Presbyterian Review," Jan., 1881, p. 105. + Ibid. S" "Bibliotheca Sacra," Jan., 1881, p. 61. |