The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1843-04-22

before this time, Strong drink was spo
ken Of in distinction from wine, see Levi
licus X 9. and from that period, down to
the Christian era, embracing the entire
tine IN which the Recliabites existed, thi
Intoxicating liquor was known by the
distinctive appeIalion of strong drink, for
proof &c Deule o lomy XIV. 26, Judges
Samuel--Proverbs-lsaiah- w icha, and
Luke. That this strong drink was high
Is Intoxicating, none will dare to contro-
vert. We are fully aware that commen>
tators d fltr, as To what this liquor was
made Of Some say the term means any
kind Of fermented liquors, whether made
of corn, apples, toney, dates or other
fruits; while others maintain that it was
made from the palm or date tree alone,
and those call it palm or date wine. Be
1t what 1t might, 1t was not included in
the pledge Of tie Rcchabiles, while the
pied ge of Scrutator embraces all that can
intoxicate. The Rechabiles would not
drink wine even in the house of God; this
Sclutator will do The pledge of the
Rechabiles prohibited them from building
houses, planting vineyards, sowing seed,
or. having any of those enjoyments and
luXuries Scrulator will not part with. or
course the venerable example is no en-
ample at all, the original and copy do no.
agree. What then becomes of his decla-
ration, that ''wine was then the only in
toxicating drink" When it. asccrtained
by the foregoing references and others,
which might be cited, that from the year
of the world 25l4. doNn TO the Christian
era strong drink, highly intoxicating
liquor ,cas knorn by hat name as contra
distinguished from uinc2 Was this igno.
rance or desgn2 lie may take elhe,
horn of the dilemma he pleases.
Scrutator adds ''lhis was no unlawful
affairrfor God manifested his approval by
a special promise and blessing. His APP
prevail of whaI2 Surely not of their
drinking no wine, building no houses,
planting no vineyards, sowing no seed
and living all their days in tents. Surely
not for those things in the abstract, bu,
for their filal obedience to a parental
command. Otherwise, Scrulator would
prove too much by his venerable ex-
ample" for according to his exposition,
God does as much dlsapprove of our
building and living in houses, and of our
culllvatlng the earth, as he does of our
drinking wine, brandy or any other intox-
eating liquor. This error like surpenl
would form circle to bite his own tail.
suppose Scrutator should get up society
Tor the suppression of torniration. aud
Ike PhlneIas Of old should thrust every
such offender through with darr; he could
with equal ProPriety justify his course, by
an appeal to this venerable example,
and to the especial promise and bessing''
see Numbers XIV II l3. lie also refers
to the wife of Manoah, to Hannah. Samuel,
and to John the Baptist. But pray what
has those cases TO do with modern tenn
perance societies; has an angel appeared
to any or all Of them announcing the fact.
that they shall bring forth Samuel, a
Sampson, or John the Baptist? Until
1t can be shown that such announcements
have been made, we shall conclude that
those reierances are as irrelevant to the
case, as if he had referred us to Number
xxII ~. Again he says, ".hs cry against
The temper ance reform because il does
no, include all immolailies is a trick of
the devil, to serve his own cause" What
a picture is here exhibited On the one
hand Sclulator regardless of the fact, that
thousands are dying daily, and diving
loaded with the guilt Of many ilnmorali-
lies, conscious TOO, that one sin will damn
as surely as a thousand and with the
aYoWed declaration that his system is
lully competent TO "uproot all immorali-
ties" yet he obs,inately persists with his
project Of attacking the vices singly, and
uprootlng them one at time. On the
other hand is the devil, clamoring for
lull, complete and speedy annihIalion of
all the vices at one blow!n From the
iorgolng facts as set forth by Scrulator
himself, we are compelled to draw one
OF the two following inferances; either
The devil manifests the greatest portion of
behevolence and good will for man, or
else Scruta'or is guilty of gross libel, |
on the character of his Satanic majesty. !
Tie may take either horn of the dilemma
he phases. He also charges us with
attempting to "lasten on them the false |
and sIanderous imputalion of proposing
milk, lamalind water, sc. Sc, as sub.
stltule Tor wine at the sacrameEt;" adding
81 have before me the Enquirer periodi-
cal devoted to the wine question in which
Mr. Delavan says" Sc in reply we say
that we too have now before us this same
book, in which Mr. Deavan (according
to agIeement) publishes in part the adj
dress OF the Editor of the Respondent
another periodical devoted to the advoca-
cy OF vine, in opposition to the chimeras
OF the Enquirer, in which address, this
fact is stated, "of one church using water,
another lamarird water, another milk and !,
water, another molasses and water, and |