Litchfield enquirer., 1871-03-23

''lack of nourisher;" as "bsnging to cui tivated land;" as "wasted wp it" as ''dried up," etc. Itis never spon of as in bottle or cup, or as poure out, but fre- ouentlv as gathered, as eaped up and trodden. It is said to be fen but never to be drank. In one insbce our version reads ''The sons of the stpger shall not drink thy wine (1frosh)pr which thou
 hast laboured," but sever Hebrew man.
 uscripts have the phrase Ihall eat it." or,
 if we retain that which o, translators ac-
 cepted, it may be render ''to suck, in
 accordance with the Edish Prayer Book
 version of Ps. 75, 8. StFt. Barnes, Lew
 is and others, however, hBlate the word,
 as does our version in seral instances
 (e. Q. Prov. 3:1O; Is. 65:8; 3ch. SID, "new
 wine." In either view ikives no sanc-
 ton to the use of an intoxating beverage.
 On the contrary the oppos is very clear
 ly marked by the prophet schariah where,
 referring to Zion's enemil ''thy Sons. o
 Greece" he says in chaprs 9:15 'They
 shall drink and make nse, as through
 yain;" but to "thy sons Gion," he says.
 s'How great is His goodns! Corn shall
 make the young men cheful and tirosh
 the maids" The third ebrew word is
 Shakar. This occurs taty-three times,
 and is rendered in our ibles generally ''strong drink" but most ites agree that
 it should Shave been ''swt drink" and
 that it denotes liquor ma from palms,
 dates. and other fruits eept the grape.
 Whatever it was I need ndinger to con-
 sider it, because it is almoinvariably con-
 demned in the Scriptures.
 My object in this examition has been to show that the o. T., in 8 references to ything there denominad in our En- glish version ''wine," do not counten. ance it as beverage, exec in it's non-in- toxicating forms. lam sisfed to leave the argument as thus state
 In regard to the N. T.. will not attempt similar discussion of thareek words en- ployed. It is unnecess'rj All that is re-
 quired is to notice the irtances in which the use of wine has oft.n been referred to as authority for our useo it. In doing so as concisely as possibb + would ask that they may be consideredn the light of the facts presented in my It article
 Our Lord made wintat the marriage feast. Certainly. The nly question is {; what kind The languae of the ruler of the feast implies that the uests had already "well drunk" or exhaustl good supply. Jesus then produces abtt one hundred gallons more. The lowesestimate is sixty, the highest one hundred!nd fifty. If this were an intoxicating bevrage it would ill., accord with the views those who advo- cate only moderate driking who, when their visitors have pdtaken copiously, would hardly venture tempt them by lavishingly replenisAig the table with something yet more atractive. But if it were the refreshing grae syrup the super would only hevidence of gen. erous hospitality from 7hch no harm could flow. Which is the mGe probable suppo- sition as we contemplal the "holy. harm less, undefiled" Saviors It was pronounc. ed emphatically "the god wine." have before shown what the people of that day considered the best, an the dissenting judgment of those who's taste has been trained to prefer the shap stimulants is no against the his bric fact. Again our Lord was called a [" 1ne.bibber." Yes: and in what sense or hdv far true Just as he was also ''glutonous man,"t. e. |" He came eating and drinking" in the way, which thei chose to exagge- rate and pervert Johl abstainsd from every comfort or luxury in clothing and food. Christ did not, lut partook of or dinary, innocent viand. Where wine which all considered godl abounded, there is no more evidence thatHe partook of the 'ad because some of the corrupt people did 50, than that He ate bad meat or pork, be. cause perhaps some of he degraded Pub licans or some of the 9ntiles with whom He associated did so. The whole point oi the charge is that He vas not an ascetic. Again: Christ gave wind at His own table and so instituted the Lotd's supper. Yes but we must remember hat this was at the Passover, and 1t is mostuniversally stated by expositors that at that time nothing was allowed. All classes of phi ologists, Jew and Christian, agree that the Hebrew word khahmals means s any fer. mented substance. Accordingly the strict Jews and the Oriental Christians have al- ways used either the boiled juice of raisins pr some form of unfernented wine at the Passover or the Supper and such, I have no doubt. Christ gave to His disciples, calling it ''the fruit of ths vine." Bat did did not the Corinthian church adopt diff Ferent practice How slse could some of them have been drunken? If they did. 1t was Corinthian corruption. to which they were enticed by surrounding proaiga. sy, and the result does not encourage the practice where there are weak, easily tenn. ted brethren. Ruk Panl's rarroof 5oo. o .,