nial to their tastes and prepossessions; and there would be no reason to censure so severely this use of Scripture, were the reference to it accompanied by a reverential resolve to accept its teachings in their natural sense, and to walk by the light its precepts and principles reflect. It may be observed, however, that when the Bible is resorted to for the defence of theories or customs that are indefensible by other means, the probability is that a serious error of judgment is committed, and that no real honor is done to the Inspired Oracles by this ostentatious profession of respect. Natural law cannot be opposed to the Written law, unless they have different authors, or the one Author be divided against himself. Questions of experience and science are strictly such as natural law is most competent to decide; and, therefore, the appeal to Scripture against natural law is not only a confession of weakness, but is indicative of a wish to take the case into a court whose decisions the appellant may more easily succeed in construing to his supposed advantage. Yet neither his real advantage nor the cause of true religion can be concerned in the result of this effort when most apparently successful; for the ultimate effect can only be to make the Bible-revelation contradict the revelation of God in the laws he has impressed upon the visible works of his hands. Infidelity may exult in the imagined contrariety, but piety must resent the mischievous inference that has produced it. Let it, for example, be proved that total abstinence is better than the use of strong drink for the individual man in all his capacities, and for society in all its relations, and what is done for the Bible, or to increase man's faith in it, by the endeavor to show that the Scriptures either teach two contradictory doctrines, or that its teaching is contrary to the verdict of nature on the subject? No way can be found so sure as this to shake confidence in the inspiration and authority of the volume of heavenly truth. The wise words of Galileo, if The Use and Abuse of Scripture. ΙΟΙ pondered and digested, would avert such evil-meddling : In these [natural sciences] we must not begin with the authority of the Bible, but with the observation of our senses, and the necessary proofs, because Nature and the Bible alike owe their existence to God. . . . Before all things, therefore, we must make sure of facts. To these the Bible cannot be opposed, else would God contradict himself; we must consequently expound their sense accordingly, and the capacity of making such researches is also a gift of God. . . . It is setting the reputation of the Bible on a hazard, to view the matter otherwise; and, as our opponents do, instead of expounding Scripture. according to facts surely proved, rather to farce nature, to deny experiment, to despise the intellect."* Similar is the judgment of the British Quarterly Review: “ In pure science, in physics, in psychology, in medicine, in the several departments of the social economy, jurisprudence, and politics, there are principles and facts for working out the problems with which men, as philosophers, are conversant; and we are content that, in, all such matters, man should be left to the function of analysis, and to the inductions and analogies of practical philosophy." The proper use of Scripture in all such questions is to show, where necessary, how apparent discrepancies can be explained, and to trace how in its narrative and didactic parts Scripture is in accordance with the laws of the natural world. When, therefore, it is objected that-let the verdict of science and experience be what they may—the Bible is on the side of intoxicating drink, we are impelled, from our profound reverence for the Sacred Word, to scrutinize the alleged proofs of this position, and to enquire, in our turn, whether the opposite conclusion may not be * Letter of Galileo to Madame Cristina, Granduchessa Madre. derived from a study of the Old and New Testament writings. I. SCRIPTURE DOES NOT SANCTION THE USE OF ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS. The irrational notion on which some persons appear to proceed, that the bare mention of wine and strong drink is equivocal to a divine sanction, would be ridiculous if it did not border on the profane. Two principles of interpretation must be be followed if unreason and confusion are not to reign supreme: First, allusions to customs and usages, and to the habits of pious men, in ancient times, do not involve a divine sanction of those customs, usages, and habits. The Bible is a storehouse of facts, remarkable for nothing more than for the fidelity with which local lineaments and coloring, and individual characteristics, are represented. But to attach God's sanction to the things and persons so represented is truly absurd, even when men of virtue and renown are the subjects of the portrayal. The wisest and best men in all ages have done many things neither wise nor good, yet things not stamped as unwise or evil in the historic record. Neither the drunkenness of Noah nor the deceit of Jacob is expressly condemned; and these extreme cases will show how necessary is the rule just laid down. It might be, or not, that holy men of old used intoxicating drink; yet it would not follow, as some imagine, that the practice was rendered holy, or was a proof of their holiness, or was other than a remnant of the imperfection adhering to them. Secondly, Divine permission is not to be regarded as equivalent to divine sanction. It was not God's pleasure (for reasons sufficient to his wisdom) to lay down minute injunctions providing against all wrong doing, even when he designed to prepare the enslaved race of Israel as a people for himself. Practices were toierated consistent with the moral per Rules of Biblical Interpretation. 103 fection neither of individuals nor the nation; and some of these permissions take the form of distinct arrangements and regulations. Slavery, polygamy, facility of divorce, a visible monarchy, together with much ignorance of the more spiritual elements of religion, were permitted, age after age; and what was said of one question was true, doubtless, of the rest, that this was done on account of "the hardness of their hearts." It need not surprise us, therefore, that they were also permitted to use intoxicating drinks, nor are we warranted on account of this permission to infer a divine sanction from the imputation of which every one would shrink in the other cases. As this point will afterwards recur, in regard to New Testament times, we shall proceed to consider those marks of divine sanction which are supposed to be conferred in Scripture upon the use of intoxicating drinks. One remark it is necessary to premise--that the words "wine" and "strong drink," which occur so frequently in the English version of the Bible, and which have certain fixed significations in our common speech, must not be considered as necessarily conveying the proper sense of the original terms. Excellent as is the current translation, it cannot possess the authority of the original Hebrew and Greek; and the present movement in the highest quarters for a revision of this version is a sufficient rejoinder to those who quote it, on this question, with a confidence that could not be surpassed if they held in their hands the autographs of the sacred writers. The argument, as we shall sketch it, is not an elaborate one, and with a little candor and patience it can be mastered by those who have never been trained in Oriental or classical erudition. 1. A sanction is claimed for intoxicating drink because wine and strong drink are associated in Scripture with the temporal blessings promised to the Jews in their possession of the land of Canaan. So Isaac's prophecy concerning Jacob (Gen. xxvii. 28) of “plenty of corn and wine"; so Jacob's prediction of Judah (Gen. xlix. 11, 12) as to washing his garments in wine, his eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk "; so the promise of a bountiful vintage (Lev. xxvi. 5); so the blessing of the "corn, the wine, and the oil" (Deut. vii. 13, xi. 14); so the prospect of drinking "the pure blood 'the pure blood of the grape (Deut. xxxii. 14); and so numerous passages in the prophets, where the corn and the wine are associated as natural blessings of great value, and their loss deplored as a national calamity. All this is true, and in a footnote* we subjoin references to all the passages where wine," and new wine," and 'sweet wine,” are associated with temporal good; but in doing this we also name the Hebrew words which are so rendered in the English translation. What, then, are the facts patent to every careful reader? (1) When YAYIN— the generic term for expressed juice of the grape-is described as a blessing, it is never represented as having an intoxicating quality, but as the liquid (in one place, Jer. * YAYIN.-Gen. xlix. 11, 12; Deut. xiv. 26, xxviii. 39; Ps. civ. 15; Prov. ix. 2,5; Eccl. ix. 7; Cant. v. 1, vii. 9, viii. 2; Is. lv. 1; Jer. xl. 10-12, xlviii. 33; Amos ix. 14; Micah vi. 15; Zeph. i. 13: Hag. ii. 12; Zech. x. 7. xii. 17, TIROSH.-Gen. xxvii. 28, 37; Num. xviii. 12; Deut. vii. 13, xi. 14, xiv. 23, xviii. 4, xxviii. 51, xxxiii 28; Judges ix. 13; 2 Kings xviii. 32; 2. Chron. xxxi. 5, xxxii. 28; Neh. v. 11, X. 37, 39. xiii. 5, 12; Ps. iv. 7; Prov. iii. 10; Is. xxiv. 7, xxxvi. 17, lxii. 8, lxv. 8; Jer. xxxi. 12; Hos. ii. 8, 9, 22, iv. 11, vii. 14, ix. 2: Joel i. 10, ii. 19, 24; Micah vi. 15; Hag. i. 11: Zech. ix. 17. SOVEH.-Is. i. 22; Hos. iv. 18. SHEMARIM.—Is. xxv. 6. KHEMER.-Deut. xxxii. 14; Is. xxvii. 2. AHSIS.-Cant. viii. 2; Joel i. 5, iii. 18; Amos ix. 13. SHAKAR.-Deut. xiv. 25. The above are not references to all the texts in which the several Hebrew terms are translated "wine" or "strong drink," but they comprise all the principal passages in which an idea of utility is connected with the substances indicated by the original words. For a complete list of all the passages, and elucidation of them, the reader is referred to the "Temperance Bible Commentary." |