Books: Personal Experience of a Physician
J >>
John Ellis >> Personal Experience of a Physician
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 | 10 |
11
Again, all poisons, when taken into the stomach in a sufficient quantity
and length of time, cause specific diseases characteristic of the poison
taken. Healthy food does not do this. You see a man reeling in the streets,
or drunk on the sidewalk, or with rum-blossoms on his face; you know that
he has been drinking fermented wine or some fluid containing its chief
ingredient--alcohol. Now, unfermented wine and other healthy drinks never
cause such specific diseases or symptoms, however freely used.
Here then, in the characteristics given above, is a broad gulf, as broad
and deep as that between Heaven and Hell, between nourishing, life-giving
substances and the poisons named above. Of the one we are to use
temperately, but from the latter we are to totally abstain. "Thou shalt
not" is clearly written.
In all ages fermented wine has been regarded as a poison. In the Bible it
is likened to the poison of dragons and the cruel venom of asps. Solomon
tells us not to look upon it, for at last it biteth like a serpent and
stingeth like an adder. Clement of Alexandria, who lived at the close of
the second century, says: "From its use arise excessive desires and
licentious conduct. The circulation is accelerated, and the body inflames
the soul."--_Divine Law as to Wines._
We know by observation that fermented wine is a fluid which fills man when
he drinks of it as freely as he may of healthy needed drinks with all
manner of uncleanness of both body and soul. How can a clergyman talk of
using such a fluid temperately? Can we steal temperately, bear false
witness temperately, commit adultery temperately, or murder temperately? Is
it right to deliberately do any of these acts temperately? If it is, then
it is right to deliberately drink fermented wine temperately, which we know
endangers health, freedom, reason and life, and leads men to commit crimes
even the most filthy. One glass leads naturally to another, and that to
many; just as stealing pennies leads to stealing dollars, and hundreds and
thousands of dollars. A perverted appetite or passion can never be fully
satisfied, but it leads to sorrow. All such evils must be shunned totally
as sins against God.
It would be difficult to find elsewhere in the English language, in so few
lines, as many statements so absolutely untrue, dogmatically proclaimed, as
in the following from the article in the _Christian Union_:--
"This notion of two wines, one fermented, the other unfermented, must be
dismissed as a pure invention, unsupported by any facts, unsanctioned by
any scholarship. There was but one wine known to the ancients--fermented
grape-juice. This was the wine Christ made, drank, blessed. There was no
other used in His time or known to His day."
First, as to scholarship. Does the writer of the above believe that he is
superior as to scholarship to the following distinguished scholars, all of
whom believe in "this notion of two wines, one fermented and the other
unfermented," several of whom, after a most patient and careful examination
of the question, have written one or more volumes upon the subject, and one
of them has been twice to the Bible lands for the purpose of carefully
investigating the question there and verifying his statements? viz., Moses
Stuart, Eliphalet Nott, Alonzo Potter, George Bush, Albert Barns, William
M. Jacobus, Taylor Lewis, Geo. W. Sampson, Leon C. Field, F. R. Lees,
Norman Kerr, Canon Farrar, Canon Wilberforce, Dawson Burns, Wm. Ritchie,
George Duffield, C. H. Fowler, Wm. Patton, Adam Clarke, J. M. Van Buren, S.
M. Isaacs, Wm. M. Thayer, John J. Owen; Charles Hartwell, and many other
writers I could name, who, after a most critical examination of the
question, have written earnestly in favor of the "notion of two wines, one
fermented and the other unfermented." In view of the opinion of such men as
these, can the above writer say truthfully that the "notion of two wines"
is "unsanctioned by any scholarship"? Have we any more distinguished
scholars than those I have named? Are not scholars who have for years made
a special study of a question like this, in all of its aspects, much more
competent to judge correctly than those who have not? It is certain that
the writer in the _Christian Union_ has never examined both sides of
this question with the slightest care; for if he had done so, as an honest
Christian man, as I trust he is, he could never have made many of the
statements he has made. He says that the "notion of two wines" is
unsupported by any facts, and that "there was but one kind of wine known to
the ancients--fermented grape-juice." Has he never read the Bible--even the
New Testament? I shall first bring the testimony of the Lord Himself
against him. He says:--
"Neither do men put new wine (_oinon neon_) into old bottles; else the
bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish; but they
put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." Matt, ix, 17.
Here we have the fresh, unfermented juice of the grape called wine--"new
wine." It could not be put into old bottles and be preserved, for old
bottles, especially skin bottles, are sure to contain leaven cells, which
would inevitably cause fermentation and burst the bottles, whether they
were of skins, glass, or earthenware. We know that fermented wine can be
preserved in old bottles, and that it is so preserved without bursting the
bottles. Here, then, the fresh, unfermented juice of grapes is called wine
by the Lord. Should not our clergy heed His testimony?
There is no difficulty in preserving the juice of grapes, or new wine,
unfermented by various methods described by ancient writers. Thus
Columella, who lived during the Apostolic days, tells us to fill bottles
with fresh grape-juice and seal or cork them carefully and sink them in a
well of cold water and fermentation will not ensue. I have tried it
successfully; any one can do the same. Next, fill a new or clean bottle
with new wine just pressed from the grapes up to its neck, then pour about
half an inch of sweet oil on the surface of the wine and cork it carefully,
leaving a little space between the cork and oil, and stand the bottle in a
cellar, and it will keep. I have three bottles thus preserved free from
fermentation for over three years; the cork must not be removed and the
bottle must not be shaken. Again, heat the juice to 185 [degrees] Fahr.,
or to the boiling-point if you please, bottle, cork, and seal it, and it
will never ferment.
Now we will turn hastily to the Old Testament. In Isaiah xvi, 10, we read:
"The treaders shall tread out no wine (_yayin_) in their presses."
Here we have the juice of grapes, as it is trodden from grapes, called
wine.
In Jeremiah xl, 10, 12, we read: "But gather ye wine (_yayin_) and
summer fruits and oils," and we read that they "gathered wine and summer
fruits very much." Here we have the juice of grapes called wine, as it is
gathered in with other fruits.
Chapter xlviii, 33: "And I have caused wine (_yayin_) to fail from the
wine-presses."
Dr. Adam Clarke says: "The Hebrew, Greek, and Latin words which are
rendered 'wine' mean simply the expressed juice of the grape."
This juice, like our cider, may be fermented or unfermented, and it is
still called by the same name. Here, then, in both the New and Old
Testaments, we have the unfermented juice of grapes distinctly recognized
as wine, and called wine; and all admit that the fermented juice of grapes
is called wine, consequently there are two wines. And distinguished
scholars say:--
"In all the passages where the good wine is named (in the Bible), there is
no lisp of warning, no intimation of danger, no hint of disapprobation, but
always of decided approval. How bold and strongly marked is the contrast!
"The _one_ the cause of intoxication, of violence, and of woes; "The
_other_ the occasion of comfort and of peace. "The _one_ the
cause of irreligion and of self-destruction; "The _other_ the devout
offering of piety on the altar of God. "The _one_ the symbol of the
divine wrath; "The _other_ the symbol of spiritual blessings. "The
_one_ the emblem of eternal damnation; "The _other_ the emblem of
eternal salvation."--_Bible Wines_.
"The _one_ the cause of intoxication, of violence, and of woes;
"The _other_ the occasion of comfort and of peace.
"The _one_ the cause of irreligion and of self-destruction;
"The _other_ the devout offering of piety on the altar of God.
"The _one_ the symbol of the divine wrath;
"The _other_ the symbol of spiritual blessings.
"The _one_ the emblem of eternal damnation;
"The _other_ the emblem of eternal salvation."--_Bible Wines_.
"The distinction in _quality_ between the good and the bad wine is as
clear as that between good and bad men, or good and bad wives, or good and
bad spirits; for one is the constant subject of warning, designated poison
literally, analogically, and figuratively; while the other is commended as
refreshing and innocent, which no alcoholic wine is."--_Lees'
Appendix_, p. 232.
_Tirosh_ is another Hebrew word that is often used in the Old
Testament for grapes and the juice of grapes, like our word must, but it is
rarely if ever applied to the juice after fermentation has commenced. We
read: "They shall gather together corn and new wine (_tirosh_), they
shall eat together and praise Jehovah, and _they who are gathered
together shall drink it in the courts of my holiness_."--Isaiah lxii, 9.
And again, in regard to _tirosh_, we read: "That thou mayest gather in
thy corn, thy wine (_tirosh_), and thine oil." (Deut. xi, 14.) "Thus
saith the Lord, as the new wine (_tirosh_) is found in the cluster,
and _one_ saith destroy it not, for a blessing is in it." (Isaiah lxv,
8.) "And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God in the place He shall
choose, the tithe of thy corn and wine (_tirosh_)." (Deut. xiv, 22.)
Here we see that _tirosh_ was to be eaten.
The word _tirosh_ occurs thirty-eight times in the Hebrew Bible.
It is translated into Greek, in the Septuagint, by [seventy] distinguished
Hebrew scholars, about three centuries before the Christian era, as
follows: "The LXX renders _tirosh_ in every case but two by
_oinos_ (the Greek word for wine), the generic name for _yayin_."
Now, are we for a moment to suppose that the above seventy distinguished
ancient scholars did not understand as well what was included under the
name of wine in their day, as does the writer in the _Christian Union_
to-day, when they classed the unfermented juice of grapes with wine, and
called it wine? How can the above writer say that "there was but one kind
of wine known to the ancients--fermented grape juice"? Unfermented wine not
known to the ancients, indeed! How utterly contrary to the truth, and to
well-known facts, is such a statement. Just look a moment, gentle reader--
"Aristotle ('Meteorologica,' iv, 9) says of the sweet wine of his day
([Greek Text]), that it did not intoxicate ([Greek Text]). And Athenaeus
('Banquet,' ii, 24) makes a similar statement."--_Oinos_.
"Josephus, the Jewish historian, paraphrasing the dream of Pharaoh's
butler, who dreamed that he took clusters of grapes and pressed them into
Pharaoh's cup, and gave the cup to Pharaoh, repeatedly calls this
grape-juice _wine_. Bishop Lowth, 1778, in his 'Commentary' (Isaiah v,
2) says: 'The fresh juice pressed from the grape' was by Herodotus styled
_oinos ampelinos_, that is, wine of the vine."--_Wine of the
Word_.
The celebrated Opimian wine, which Pliny [born A. D. 23] tells us (xiv, 4)
had in his day, two centuries after it was made, the consistency of honey,
was unquestionably an inspissated article. Such was the Taeniotic wine of
Egypt, which Athenaeus, in his "Banquet" (i, 25), tells us had such a
degree of richness that "it is dissolved little by little when it is mixed
with water, just as the Attic honey is dissolved by the same process."
"There is abundance of evidence," says the Rev. Dr. Patton, "that the
ancients mixed their wines with water; not because they were so strong with
alcohol as to require dilution, but because, being rich syrups, they needed
water to prepare them for drinking. The quantity of water was regulated by
the richness of the wine and the time of year."
"Aristotle (born about B. C. 384) testifies that the _wines of
Arcadia_ were so thick that they dried up in goat-skins, and that it was
the practice to scrape them off and dissolve the scrapings in water."
(Meteorology, iv, 10.)--"Temperance Bible Commentary."
We know very well that these ancient wines, which were called wine in those
days, which did not intoxicate, and others that were as thick as honey,
were not fermented wines; for fermented wines do intoxicate, and wines as
thick as honey cannot be made from fermented wine, for the albuminous and
other substances which make condensed wines thick are cast down or out, or
destroyed by fermentation. I have four samples of such condensed wines, or
grape-juice, which are as thick as honey. One I obtained at Buda-Pesth,
Hungary; one in Cairo, Egypt; one in Damascus, Asia; and the fourth was
condensed and sent to me by a gentleman then residing in California. I have
had these samples now over six years.
Why should the writer in the _Christian Union_ quote from another
writer, and thus try to make it appear that the ancient condensed wines
were nothing but "grape jellies"? Does he not know that they are very
different preparations, and prepared by different methods? Condensed wines
are prepared by crushing and pressing the juice from the pulp, skins, and
seeds, and then boiling or otherwise evaporating the water until the juice
is as thick as honey, so that it can be easily preserved from fermentation?
whereas grape jellies are made by boiling the grapes until they are well
cooked, then rubbing or squeezing all the pulp and skins practicable
through a colander, sieve, or coarsely-woven strainer; and then sugar is
added to sweeten and aid in forming a jelly. Condensed wines will dissolve
in water as we are told the ancient thick wines did, but grape jellies will
do so only very imperfectly, for they are composed largely of the pulp of
the grape.
The writer in the _Christian Union_ tells us, in a passage already
quoted, speaking of fermented wine:--
"This was the wine Christ made, drank, blessed."
And again he says:--
"He (Christ) commenced His public ministry by making, by a miracle, wine in
considerable quantity, and this apparently only to add to the joyous
festivities of a wedding. He apparently used wine customarily, if not
habitually. When He was about to die, He chose wine as the symbol of His
blood, shed for many for the remission of sins, asked His Father's blessing
on a cup containing wine, passed it to His disciples with the direction,
'Drink ye all of it.'"
Now, intelligent Christian reader, what are we to think of the above
statements? Let us look at these statements in the light of reason, common
sense, science, and revelation. Is it probable, is it possible, that at
that wedding feast, after the guests had drank freely of an intoxicating
wine, that our blessed Lord, guided by love and wisdom, would create a
large quantity more of an intoxicating wine for them to drink? It is not
possible; and the assumption is flatly contradicted by the Governor of the
feast, who pronounced the wine created as the "best wine." Place to the
lips of a child of parents who do not use intoxicating drinks, or to a man
or woman who never drinks such drinks, two glasses, one containing a
well-fermented wine, and the other containing the sweet, delicious juice of
good ripe grapes, and there is not the slightest doubt as to which would be
chosen and pronounced "best" every time--try it.
Then again, is it possible that, on that occasion, a kind of wine was made
of which the Lord has never created a single drop in the fruit of the vine?
Fermented wine is a product of leaven or ferment and of man's ingenuity;
and its chief and essential constituent, alcohol, for which men drink it,
is an effete product, and holds a similar relation to the leaven that urine
does to the animal body. As Pasteur says, "ferment eats, as it were," or
consumes the nourishing and useful ingredients in the juice of the grapes,
decomposes them, and casts out excretions, as man does when he eats grapes.
Consequently, fermented wine is an utterly unclean fluid, and it fills man,
when he drinks it, with all manner of uncleanness, mentally and physically,
from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, as we well know. It is
preeminently a leavened substance, for it is never purified by heat, as is
leavened bread. We have an abundance of testimony, which the reverend
writer of the article ignores, that the Orthodox Jews have regarded, in all
ages, and do to-day as a rule regard, fermented wine as coming under the
restrictions placed upon leavened things.
The celebrated Jewish Rabbi, S. M. Isaacs, said in 1869: "The Jews do not
use in their feasts for sacred purposes fermented drinks of any kind. The
marriage feast is a sacrament with us."
In a recent work (1879) written by a Jewish Rabbi, the Rev. E. M. Myers,
entitled "The Jews, their Customs and Ceremonies, with a full account of
all their Religious Observances from the Cradle to the Grave," we read that
among the strictly orthodox Jews, "During the entire festival (of the
Passover) no leavened food nor fermented liquors are permitted to be used,
in accordance with Scriptural injunctions." (Ex. xii, 15, 19, 20; Deut.
xvii, 3, 4.) This, we think, settles the question so far as the Orthodox
Jews are concerned; and their customs, without much question, represent
those prevailing at the time of our Lord's advent.
The editor of the London _Methodist Times_ lately witnessed the
celebration of the Jewish Passover in that city, and at the close of the
services said to the Rabbi: "May I ask with what _kind_ of wine you
have celebrated the Passover this evening?" The answer promptly given
was:--
"With a non-intoxicating wine. Jews never use fermented wine in their
synagogue services, and must not use it on the Passover, either for
synagogue or home purposes. Fermented liquor of any kind comes under the
category of 'leaven,' which is proscribed in so many well-known places in
the Old Testament. * * * I have recently read the passage in Matthew in
which the Paschal Supper is described. There can be no doubt whatever that
the wine used upon that occasion was unfermented. Jesus, as an observant
Jew, would not only not have drunk fermented wine on the Passover, but
would not have celebrated the Passover in any house from which everything
fermented had not been removed. I may mention that the wine I use in the
service at the synagogue is an infusion of raisins. You will allow me,
perhaps, to express my surprise that Christians, who profess to be
followers of Jesus of Nazareth, can take what He could not possibly have
taken as a Jew--intoxicating wine--at so sacred a service as the Sacrament
of the Lord's Supper."
[Transcriber's Note: the asterisks in the preceding paragraph
are thus in the book.]
It is utterly impossible that Jesus Christ could have used fermented wine
as a symbol of His blood, for in its essential constituents, which are
alcohol, vinegar, etc., it bears not the slightest resemblance to blood;
whereas unfermented wine, in its essential constituents, which are albumen,
sugar, etc., bears the greatest resemblance to blood. This simple fact
ought to satisfy every intelligent man.
Then again, our Lord, when He took the cup and blessed and said, "Drink ye
all of it," knowing that fermented wine was included under the name of
wine, and as if foreseeing that His followers might mistake and use
intoxicating wine, carefully avoided the use of the word wine at all, and
called it the "fruit of the vine," which unfermented wine is and fermented
wine is not. It does seem that these facts should satisfy every
intelligent, Christian man. Can there be, my Christian brethren, a greater
profanation of a holy ordinance than the use of the drunkard's cup as a
communion wine, instead of the fruit of the vine? By the use of fermented
wine as a communion wine many a man who was struggling to reform his life
has been led back to drunkenness and death. I have known of some sad
instances.
It might be well for some of our clergy to hear and heed the warning voice
of the Sacred Scriptures:--
"'It is not for kings to drink wine, nor princes strong drink, lest they
drink and forget the law and pervert the judgment of the afflicted.' Here
is abstinence enjoined, and the reason for it plainly given. Again (Lev. x,
8-11), _it is required of the priests_: 'And the Lord spake unto Aaron,
saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee,
when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall
be a statute for ever throughout your generations: That ye may put a
difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean; and that
ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath
spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.'"
"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived
thereby is not wise."--Prov. xx, i.
No one questions that the wine referred to above as unholy and a mocker and
unclean, is fermented wine, and no one supposes for a moment that it is
unfermented wine. "But they also have erred through wine, and through
strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred
through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the
way through strong drink, they err in vision, they stumble in judgment. For
all tables are full of vomit and filthiness, so that there is no place
clean." (Isa. xxviii, 7,8.)
How correctly and literally do the above words represent the effects of
drinking fermented wine and strong drinks, seen today as of old. O
gentlemen of the clergy! beware! beware! "Woe to him that giveth his
neighbor drink; that putteth thy bottle to him." (Hab. ii, 5,15.) You have
young and inexperienced men and women and even boys under your charge. May
the Lord protect them!
CANON WILBERFORCE ON SACRAMENTAL WINES.
Canon Wilberforce is reported by the London _Temperance Record_ as
saying at a recent meeting in England: "He believed if people desired to go
back literally and absolutely to the days of the institution of the
Sacrament, it would be a most difficult thing, if not impossible, to prove
that the particular cup which their Master took in His hand in that solemn
crisis of His life when He instituted the Holy Eucharist was fermented at
all. There was abundant testimony to prove it was not. Some went back to
primitive authorities. He should like to read one or two which might have
weight with them. Take for example the testimony of St. Cyprian, who wrote
in A. D. 230:--
"'When the Lord gives the name of His body to bread, composed of the union
of many particles, He indicates that our people, whose sins He bore, are
united. And when He calls wine squeezed out from bunches of grapes His
blood, He intimates that our flocks are similarly joined by the varied
admixture of a united multitude."
"This distinctly implied, for all he knew, squeezing bunches of grapes. But
there was more important testimony from one man who was considered by a
certain party in the Church of great value--St. Thomas Aquinas, a great
father of the 13th century. He said:--
"'The juice of ripe grapes, on the other hand, has already the form of
wine; for its sweet taste evidences a mellowing change, which is its
completion by natural heat (as it is said in the "Meteorologica," iv, 3,
not far from the beginning), and for that reason this Sacrament can be
fulfilled by the juice of grapes.'"
While in Egypt in 1884 I visited the American missionaries, and asked them
what kind of wine they used as a communion wine in their churches. They
told me that almost all of their members were from among the Copts, who are
the descendants from the early Christians of Egypt, who have been
comparatively isolated and separated from the Christian world for many
centuries, and when they told them that the Western Christians used
fermented wine, or "shop wine," as they called it, they were horrified at
the idea, and would not partake of it; so they steeped or soaked raisins in
water, and then pressed the juice from them and used that, as has been done
by the Orthodox Jews when they could not obtain pure unfermented wine. I
visited the Grand Patriarch of the Coptic Church, and through an
interpreter he told me that he did the same, and that it was suitable for
use the moment that it was pressed from the raisins. The day is not far
distant when the members of the Western Christian churches will be as much
horrified at the idea of using fermented wine as a sacramental wine as are
the unperverted Christians of Egypt, and this will occur when our clergy
and laity cease to be controlled by either strong confirmations or
preconceived ideas or by sensual appetites, and can study the Sacred
Scriptures and ancient history, and science and well-established facts, in
the light of reason and common sense, instead of assuming everything which
accords with their desires, and ignoring everything which conflicts
therewith.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 | 10 |
11