The Marietta journal. [volume] (Marietta, Ga.) 1866-1909, 1899-05-18
SOME MORE VIEWS ON THE MAX.
ING AND DRINKING OF WIAE.

good may follow. 1t is high time
for discussion, if nothing more.
I fear, however, that they are
shooting at long range. II lis a
live question, not a dead one, and
it can't be solved by modern die
tionaries of long-ago dead lam
guages. Did Christ make intox-
icating wines ? | don't know,
but unless reports are far from
true, modern wines are decidedly
Intoxicating.
What are we to understand
from the drift of this discussion
SO far ? Is it argued that Christ
by precept, or example, taught
the use of Intoxicating wines as d
beverage I? Did He advocate or
encourage drunkenness ? Have
your correspondents discovered
anything in His life or character
to warrant such an inference ? If
He made sixty gallons of intoxi-
eating wines for.one wedding feast,
was He not encouraging, yea
promoting, drunkenness A? What
is there in the record of this
miracle to indicate that the wine
was Intoxicating Nothing but
the use OF the word wine. This is
too narrow basis to build such
an argument upon. Never before
nor since was wine made like this.
1t was not distilled from grapes,
and SO you cannot compare it
with our modern products and
argue that like causes produces
like effects. There is no evidence
that any one at this feast became
intoxicated. If it had been so,
John would likely have told us.
Unlike many other books, the
Bible discloses the weaknesses of
men as we'll as their strong points.
Good old Noah drank too much,
and the sin was recorded against
him. The Governor of this feast
did not become intoxicated, or he
would not have known whether
the new wine was good or bad.
Let's not do ourselves violence by
thinking to find blemishes in the
one perfect character. The sun
has it's spots, but not SO the life
of Christ.
Is it argued that the miracle of
Cana is authority for the general
use of Intoxicating wines :? And
forsthat reason they re to be
commended /? If so, why close
mp the barrooms ? Why not at
least HAYS a few dispensaries
with many the big sounding
name will remove most of the OBJ
Ejections). If it is commendable to
drink Intoxicating wines, how can
nogs, mint-juleps and tom and
Jerrys,'' and all the gamut of
|other drinks, be seriously con-
demned ? Is not the difference
one of degree only? Wine will
make a sot-can brandy or whis-
l<y do more ? Is a drunk on wine
more decent or respectable than
one on plain corn juice? Do we
defend the one and outlaw the
other !? Are we to crush the rat.
tier and fondle the adder because,
forsooth, the latter will not kill
SO quickly? The Bible for it,
drinking wine prepares men fol
whatever is worse.
Are our boys and young men to
be taught that the use of intoxi-
eating wines is the proper thing
No vice is so dangerous as that
gilded with responsibility. And
the more prominent the defend.
ers, the more disastrous the con.
se9Aspces. Teach our young men
t L a. 10 drink is irreparable dis.
re, and intoxicants will have
ITO. Reverse their convictions
eat a you will sow a crop of drunk.
ards. Teach them to drink wines
and they will learn the others by
themselves. 1t is a step in the
wrong direction.
Speculation in most fields is
dangerous; especially when it eff.
fects the welfare of others There
is no occasion for us to fall in the
ditch here. Some thirty centuries
ago there lived a man, wise above
all other men, whose observations
have been the experience of man.
kind in all generations. They are
entirely safe to guide us at the
close of this nineteenth century
"Who hath woe? Who haiti
sorrows Who hath contentious!
Who hath babblings 4? Who hath
wounds without cause Who hath
redness of the eye p, They that
tarry long at the wine !. they that
r1 - ooc1-t ..... 4