written to controvert the position which this book is intended to defend. I have not thought it necessary, for instance, to refer to Wilson's "Bible Wines," since I was replying in particular to such later and more current writings as Chancellor Crosby's "A Calm View of the Temperance Question,” (in "Christ and Modern Thought," Boston Monday Lectures, 1880-81, pp, 141-143;) Professor Bumstead's "The Biblical Sanction for Wine," (in "The Bibliotheca Sacra," January, 1881, pp. 47-116;) Dr. Moore's "The Bible Wine Question," (in "The Presbyterian Review," January, 1881, pp. 80–113,) and his "Sacramental Wine," (in "The Presbyterian Review,' January, 1882, pp. 78-107.) I am under very great obligations, and these only imperfectly acknowledged in the notes, to "The Temperance Bible Commentary," by Dr. F. R. Lees and Rev. Dawson Burns, which, though not beyond criticism as to some of its details, is on the whole the most important contribution ever made to the scriptural phase of the temperance question.

Though this work is intended for scholars, and all its quotations from foreign sources are given in their original tongues, yet it is believed that it will prove equally available for popular use, since the passages in foreign languages are accompanied by translations, and, in the case of the Hebrew, by transliterations as well.

A single word further may be necessary in explanation of the form of the discussion. The work was written in conformity with the original title given to the first article as published in "The Methodist Quarterly Review" for January, 1882, namely, "Was Jesus a Wine-Bibber?" That question, as a startingpoint, determined the course of the argument and the arrangement of the material. But yielding to the counsels of those in whose judgment I place confidence, I have exchanged that title for another, which better describes the broader ground covered by the discussion.

In conclusion I may be permitted to express the hope that this volume will commend itself to the sober judgment and the candid scholarship of its readers, and contribute something toward the spread of scriptural temperance over the land. LEON C. FIELD.

BOSTON, October, 1882.

INTRODUCTION.

IN its hard fight for perfection the race wins but one battle at a time, and that only after long and hard fighting over each skirmish-line, rifle-pit, outpost, redoubt, etc., till finally by grand combinations the citadel is taken. This is true whether the battle be for civil liberty, freedom of conscience, the ballot for women, emancipation of slaves, Christian doctrine and practice in the relation of capital and labor, santification of the home, or temperance.

The positions already won, or partially so, are the scientific demonstration of the non-necessity of alcohol to a man in sickness, and its harmfulness to a man in health; the right of each individual to decline its use without being called a coward; the right of men and women to organize against saloons as a public nuisance; the right of States to regulate or prohibit the manufacture and sale of that which creates paupers, idiots, and criminals for honest labor to support. What centuries of hard fighting these various victories signify!

One of the battles yet raging is whether the wine-bibber and manufacturer can hide themselves behind the example of Christ, the Saviour of the world. As an aid to victory in this fight, this new piece of ordnance has been brought forward. It is of large caliber, well rifled, carefully loaded, and not liable to recoil. I wish it might be every-where trained on the enemy, and made to open fire.

ATLANTA, GA., July 4, 1882.

HENRY W. WARREN.

OINOS:

A DISCUSSION OF THE BIBLE WINE QUESTION.

I. THE QUESTION STATED AND ITS IMPORTANCE NOTED. MORE than eighteen hundred years ago it was said of Jesus Christ, "Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." (Matt. xi, 19; Luke vii, 34.) One particular of that accusation men have continued to repeat until this day. They have said, and they have not ceased to say, Jesus was a drinking man. His enemies have insisted upon it, that they might cast disgrace upon his character and discredit upon his cause. Lovers of strong drink have affirmed it, that they might shelter themselves under the cover of his example. Some of his most candid and conscientious followers have felt themselves compelled to admit the charge, and, without pleading his practice as a precedent, have attempted his defense. Others, perhaps no less conscientious or candid, have frankly avowed that no defense is demanded, but that his course as a moderate drinker is to be copied. It would seem as if this latter class had of late entered into a conspiracy to strengthen their own position by a determined attack on the lines of their opponents. For, at the opening of the present year,* and almost simultaneously, Chancellor Crosby on the platform of the Monday Lectureship, Dr. Moore in the pages of the "Presbyterian Review," and Prof. Bumstead in the pages of the "Bibliotheca Sacra," made vigorous onslaught on those who hold that the Bible does not lend its sanction to the use of intoxicating beverages, and, in particular, on all who quote the example of Christ in favor of total abstinence. "No unbiased reader," Chancellor Crosby declares,t "can for a moment doubt that wine as referred to in the Bible passim is an intoxicating drink, and that such wine was drunk by our Saviour and the early * 1881. "A Calm View of the Temperance Question."

Christians." And again, "It is impossible to condemn all drinking of wine as either sinful or improper without bringing reproach upon the Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles. There has been an immense amount of wriggling by Christian writers on this subject to get away from this alternative, but there it stands impregnable, Jesus did use wine."* Dr. Moore affirms,† "Christ himself drank wine, the wine from which John the Baptist abstained, the wine which is classed with sikera, (Luke i, 15.). Jesus himself drank the common wine of Palestine. . . . He did discriminate between an excessive and a temperate use of wine that could intoxicate." Prof. Bumstead asserts, "The Bible sanctions the use of wine by the example of Christ. The sanction is undeniable and emphatic." And again,§ "The example of Christ is utterly irreconcilable with the theory of those who plead for total abstinence."

These are very serious charges. If they can be substantiated they will prove exceedingly damaging, if not utterly fatal, to the claims of total abstinence. The example of Christ must be regarded as determinative in this matter. If abstinence was his practice it is our duty. If moderation was his rule it may be our custom. To this extent we are in perfect accord with the authors just quoted. If their premises are correct their conclusion is inevitable. It is idle to deny this as many do. It will not do to say that Christ's indulgence in intoxicat. ing drink would not concern us any more than his going barefoot, riding on an ass, or remaining unmarried. For this comparison holds good only in case the former like the latter belongs to the category of things indifferent; that is, such as may, cæteris paribus, be innocently done or left undone. To that sphere many who discountenance their use relegate alcoholic beverages. They regard the question of their use as purely "prudential," and decide it solely on grounds of expediency. But is their procedure valid, or their classification correct? Does the question belong to morals? Is wine-drinking under any circumstances right, or is it a sin per se? We believe

*"A Calm View of the Temperance Question." "Presbyterian Review," January, 1881, p. 88. "Bibliotheca Sacra," Jan., 1881, p. 86.

§ Ibid., p. 109.

Wendell Phillips' Reply to Dr. Crosby in "Moderation vs. Total Abstinence," p. 43.