Chapter X: Final Appeal to the Clergy (1)

I again appeal to you, as Christian men, to lay aside prejudice and preconceived ideas, if you are troubled with any that have come down to you from darker ages, and to patiently examine the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.

If you desire and are prepared to read with open eyes and a willing heart, you can but see that the fig-tree is putting forth its leaves, and that we are living in the dawning light and warmth of a new summer. Look at the radical changes which have taken place within the last one hundred and thirty-five years, and are taking place to-day with increasing rapidity, in every department of science, arts, mechanics, medicine, and even in the religious sentiments of the people and in theology, and in civil and ecclesiastical governments, and you may rest assured, that as certain as the Word of the Lord is true, so sure it is that we are now seeing but the beginning of the changes which are yet to be witnessed; for the sure word of prophecy is, "Behold, I make all things new"--New Heavens and a New Earth--old things are to pass away, and we can see that they are passing away.

Swedenborg assures us that he was permitted by the Lord to witness the Last Judgment in 1757, which, like all general judgments, took place in the spiritual world. The Lord when on earth declared, "Now is the judgment of this world, now is the prince of this world cast out." Swedenborg tells us that between the Lord's first coming and His second coming vast societies were organized in the world of spirits, which is intermediate between heaven and hell, from among those who were not fully prepared for either heaven or hell; and they were associated with those of like affections and persuasions in this world. As the First Christian Church became gradually perverted by false doctrines and evils of life, and as its members increased in the spiritual world, their influence was more and more felt among the religious societies in this world, interfering with the inflowing of good and truth from the Lord and His Word into the minds of men, and threatening their ability to see and obey the truth. The judgment consisted in a new influx of Divine truth into such societies, the effects of which were such that those who were really good were received into heaven, and those who were evil joined their like in hell, glad to escape from the new inflowing of heavenly light and life. In this way they were separated from men on the earth and human freedom reestablished. The effects of that judgment are to-day gradually being manifested here on earth.

Swedenborg tells us that he witnessed the downfall of Babylon the great in the spiritual world. By Babylon is meant those who are in the love of spiritual dominion over the souls of men. And also he witnessed the casting down of the Dragon. By the Dragon is meant those who are in the doctrine of salvation by faith and ceremonials alone.

As the above vast organizations in the spiritual world were then removed from contact with men, I will let Swedenborg speak of some of the results which followed that judgment in the spiritual world, and of those which are following and which must follow in the Church on earth.

"After the Last Judgment (in 1757) a new heaven was formed from among Christians, only from those, however, who acknowledged the Lord to be the God of heaven and earth, and also repented in the world of their evil works. From this heaven the New Church on earth, which is the New Jerusalem, descends, and will continue to descend.... And the New Church on earth makes one with the New Heaven." (Preface to A.R.)

"In this new Christian heaven are all those who, from the first formation of the Christian Church, worshiped the Lord and lived according to His commandments in the Word, and were therefore in charity and faith from the Lord through the Word." (A.R. 876.)

Swedenborg tells us that "the slavery and captivity in which the man of the Church was formerly" were removed by the Last Judgment; so that "he can now, from restored liberty, more easily perceive interior truths if he has a desire for them." (L.J. 74.) And again he tells us that, as a result of the Last Judgment, the people of Christendom "would be in a more free state of thinking on matters of faith, that is, on spiritual things which relate to heaven, because spiritual liberty has been restored to them" (L.J. 73); and that consequently "the state of the world and of the Church before the Last Judgment," compared with what it was, or was to be after, "was as evening and night compared with morning and day." (Contin. L. J.)

Now can we not all see that the very changes anticipated in the above quotations are rapidly taking place in the Christian world all around us? Men and women are beginning to cease to be willing to be led blindly by clergymen and creeds, with their understandings under subjection to dogma. Many of our clergy, we see, are not willing to be thus led. Swedenborg tells us that in this New Dispensation men are to be led in freedom according to reason, and that professing to believe doctrines which they neither understand nor perceive to be true is of very little use to men.

As false doctrines are passing away, is it not of vast moment that true and rational doctrines should take their place, that our houses and churches be not left desolate? Somewhat extensively among the clergy, and far more extensively among scientists and intelligent people, is the Divine origin of the Sacred Scriptures being called in question. In the writings of Swedenborg, as has already been stated, you will find this question clearly and distinctly settled, for you are there shown that they are written according to the law of correspondence between natural and spiritual things, and therefore that they contain a connected spiritual sense which causes them to differ from all merely human writings, and demonstrates their Divine origin to all who are willing to examine and to see the truth. The day is not far distant when, in the Christian Church, the Sacred Scriptures will be reverenced as they have never been before; for the coming of the Son of Man in the Clouds of Heaven, or in the literal sense of the Word, is with power and great glory.

Even now in the dawning light old false doctrines are rapidly passing away. Look! What congregation would be willing to sit quietly and hear the doctrine of infant damnation proclaimed? Who is satisfied with the doctrine of election and predestination as taught but a few years ago? That favorite doctrine of my childhood's days, the vicarious atonement as taught then, is trembling in the balance, for it is being found not to accord with the Word of the Lord, nor does it appeal to human reason. The doctrine of a trinity of Divine Persons will soon follow. How few even now believe in the resurrection of the material body! Our church members are rapidly coming to believe with St. Paul that there is a natural body and there is a spiritual body, and that the spiritual body is raised at death, and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. The doctrine of a literal hell of fire and brimstone, as taught but a few years ago, is rarely taught to-day.

And now, Christian ministers, as these old doctrines are departing, what have you to substitute for them? You know very well that when extreme views are given up, there is great danger that opposite extreme views will be substituted.

Troublesome questions are arising to-day before the clergy and in our churches, which require to be handled with care by intelligent and wise men, if the Lord and His Word are to be reverenced in our churches as they should be, and men are to be led to live heavenly lives.

The question of probation after death is troubling many clergymen and laymen at this day. They see that men and women often leave this world in a very uncertain state of life, so far as they can judge, ill prepared for either heaven or hell; what is to-become of them is the question. Are they all to put away their false doctrines and evils of life and go to heaven, as some believe; or are some of them to go through purgatory and finally, after being purified, to enter heaven, and the rest go to hell, as others believe? Or again, has a man the same chance of choosing and the same ability to choose between truth and falsehood and good and evil, and of shaping his life there, as he has here?

Upon these questions the New Revelations made by the Lord through Emanuel Swedenborg throw a flood of rational light. They show us that heaven is not a place into which a man can be let as a matter of favor; but that, for a man to enter heaven, heaven must be within him. Heaven consists in loving supremely the Lord and the neighbor, or obedience to the Divine Commandments. Hell consists in loving self, money, vain show, ruling over others without regard to use, or sensual gratifications supremely. Before a man can become a resident of hell, hell must be within him. Men enter the other world in much the same state as they leave this world; death does not change their essential characters. Good angels appointed by the Lord strive to teach heavenly truths to all, and to lead all into heavenly affections and societies who are willing to be led. But as the Lord respects the freedom of all men in this world and compels no man to love Him, his neighbor, or obedience to the Divine Commandments supremely, He compels no man there. The Lord casts no one into hell, but when our material bodies are put off and we appear among the inhabitants of the spiritual world, our thoughts and intentions can be seen more clearly than in this world; consequently the good and evil necessarily separate; and finally every one sooner or later associates with his like, the good forming heavenly societies and the evil, infernal societies.

It is evident that those who are guided in all they think and do by either love of the Lord, the neighbor, or of obeying the Divine Commandments, need no penal laws or punishments. It is equally evident that men who are actuated by the supreme love of self, vain show, or sensual gratifications must be restrained, in that world as in this, by penal laws and punishments. But we are told that the Lord governs the hells as well as the heavens through His angels, and does not permit vindictive or unjust punishments. All punishments in that world are reformatory, or for the purpose of restraining spirits from evil doing, and protecting others, as all punishments should be in this world. The Lord's tender mercies are around all His creatures in that world as well as in this, and He strives to make all happy. Even the evil man is permitted to enjoy his delight so long as he does not interfere with or harm others or himself.

Here in this state of probation good and evil men dwell together in the same society, so that the evil have good instruction and good examples, and every chance for repentance and reformation; but in hell they dwell among their like, and it would seem that they are not so favorably circumstanced for changing their life's love there as in this world. In the world of spirits into which we enter at death, all who are not fully prepared by their lives here for heaven or hell tarry until their characters are fully developed, when each one goes to his own congenial society either in heaven or hell, according to his ruling love.

Swedenborg, so far as he was permitted, describes what he saw in the spiritual world; but he did not claim to be a prophet--the future, he tells us, is known to the Lord alone, not even to the angels. Some of the readers of his writings, from certain passages contained therein, have come to think that the Lord in His loving kindness may yet so change the inhabitants of hell that they may be received into heavenly societies, as some have drawn from the letter of the Sacred Scriptures a similar conclusion; while a majority of readers, in both cases, have come to a different conclusion. But the future is known to the Lord alone, and He is love itself, and in His hands we may safely leave the inhabitants of hell; especially as our belief one way or the other will not change the final destiny of a single individual one iota; therefore it is not a practical question.

PREVAILING EVILS OF LIFE.

We are living in the midst of prevailing evils of life which should command the special attention of every clergyman and every Christian. Even infants and children are dying on all sides, and those that survive are being contaminated often even in our churches by the example of clergymen and prominent members.

But yesterday, as I was speaking to a very intelligent, well-known citizen of New York, he expressed to me the opinion that gambling and a desire to obtain money or valuables without returning a due equivalent, by purchasing lottery or chance tickets and stock gambling, is a greater evil than selling and drinking intoxicating drinks; and he most earnestly blamed many of our clergy and churches for the prevalence of this great evil; for, as is well known, it is at church fairs that the young and even children frequently take their first lessons, enticed thereto by the hope that they may be able to obtain an article of much value for a trifling sum. In this the work of demoralization commences, and leads naturally to gambling for money, betting on games, horse-racing, buying lottery tickets, and stock gambling, stimulated by the hope of making fortunes by risking small amounts, not stopping to think that what they gain, if successful, others must lose who are probably no better able to lose than they are. How much short of stealing is this? Look at the sad results which follow the practice started in so many of our churches--the poverty, the thieving, the failures, the breaches of trust, the disgrace and loss of character, and the poor wretches in prison, and others who merit punishment. Christian ministers, is not this a most fearful evil which you, if guilty of encouraging it, should put away from your own lives and teach your people to shun as a sin against God?

Again, it is the duty of husbands and wives to reproduce their species or to multiply and replenish the earth, and this is the most important use of life. Yet a vast multitude of women, by tight dressing to gratify vanity, impair health and their ability to bear healthy, well-formed children, and even their ability to nurse such as are born to them; and such deformed women walk into and out of our churches as examples to young girls, without one word of admonition. And some church members deliberately shirk the responsibility of rearing families of children, either because it is not fashionable to have large families, or because children would interfere with their selfish or sensual enjoyment; and this is not the worst which could be said of some.

Now, although it is equally the duty of all husbands and wives to multiply and replenish the earth, yet church members who, either for the want of ability or inclination, have no children, and bachelors and maidens who do not marry, will stand idly by and see the husbands and wives, however poor they may be, who are willing to do their duty, take the entire care of their children until they reach adult age; they deliberately leave the entire responsibility upon the parents of caring for and raising the money required for the support of the children, who are to be the men and women of the next generation. Is this right? It is true that public schools have been established, for all feel that it will not be safe for the children, who are to rule our country a few years hence to grow up in ignorance.

Men and women will roll in their thousands and hundreds of thousands and even millions, and see the toiling, struggling, hard-working brothers and sisters, sometimes even in the same church organization, striving to do faithfully their part in the care of the children who are to people and replenish the earth, without feeling that they have any responsibility or duty to perform in the way of giving a helping hand in this most important work of life. Now I ask you, brethren of the Christian Church, are such things in accordance with the grand and noble precepts of Christianity, in which we profess to believe--thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself? Of course, husbands and wives who are able are but too glad to take care of their own children; but there are multitudes who need help. If wealthy husbands and wives are not willing or able to have children, or if bachelors and maidens are not willing to marry and have children, have they no duty to perform toward aiding, even financially, and by their own hands if such help is needed, those who do this most important work, and thus add to the number of intelligent and Christian inhabitants of our country? for the want of whom our country is being flooded by multitudes of the most ignorant of other nations, who have comparatively no knowledge of our free institutions and of religious freedom.

It is true that our poorhouses are established at the expense of the public, to which parents who are without means or employment or adequate wages to support their children can go with their children to avoid starvation; but what parents desire to take their children to such institutions? And we have also charitable institutions to which children can be sent to prevent their starving and going naked; but what father or mother likes to part with their children? It is not charity that such need, but the kind, helping hands of Christian brothers and sisters. All things are to be made new. As the light and especially the heat or love of the New Jerusalem descend into the minds of men, hard-hearted selfishness will disappear, and true Christians will love and strive to help one another and all men as they may need.

And now, in conclusion, I appeal to you, Christian ministers, one and all, to diligently read the Revelations made by the Lord at His second coming through His chosen servant, Emanuel Swedenborg, for they will give you new light and, if you are willing, new life. The light is spreading from the East even unto the West, and the day is not far distant when a clergyman, to be acceptable to an intelligent Christian congregation, must be familiar with the grand and rational doctrines and precepts revealed by the Lord for the benefit of the men of our day and the Church of the future.

It must be evident to you even now that many of the clergy and intelligent laymen are steadily drifting in one of two directions; either to a distinct recognition of the Supreme Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, of the holiness and Divinity of the Sacred Scriptures and of the life of charity or of obedience to the Divine Commandments as the only way of salvation; or to an ignoring the existence of a personal God, and of course of all revelation from God. There is no middle ground. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

Below you will find a notice of a work on the Science of Correspondences, the science in accordance with which all material things were created and the Sacred Scriptures were written. Send for it. It will give you new light.

[Advertisement Page]

ADDENDUM.

A REVIEW OF AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "CHRIST AND THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION" IN "THE CHRISTIAN UNION."

In the _Christian Union_ for July 11, 1891, will be found an article written by a clergyman which should not be allowed to go unnoticed. The reverend gentleman assumes in that article that "the life and teaching of Jesus Christ constitute a Divine standard for all His followers." And so do I most unequivocally; but I also claim that we should not be blinded by either strong confirmations or sensual appetites in favor of false views and evil habits, so that, having eyes, we see not the truth and consequently cannot lead a life in accordance with the truth. The writer truly says: "Christ is not to be blindly, but intelligently, followed." In other words, I would say the light afforded by science, by well-known facts and ancient history, must be allowed to shine upon such an important question as the one under consideration. Then again, the testimony of distinguished scholars who have devoted years to a careful consideration of the wine question in the light of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, of ancient history and science, should not be ignored, and statements made which have repeatedly been shown to have no foundation in truth, but which are contradicted by facts which at this day should be known by every man who attempts to write upon such an important question.

In the consideration of this question the above writer appears to utterly confound good and truth with the evil and false, which, it is manifest, should never be done. His whole argument is based upon assumptions which we shall find, the more carefully we examine them, have no foundation in truth. He assumes that fermented wine is a good and useful article to be used as a beverage, and, after admitting that he thinks the law of Christian love requires a general abstinence at the present day, he says:--

"But I trust that this necessity belongs simply to the present epoch, and I am not without hope that we shall yet come to a time--though not in my day--when a pure wine can be used by society with no more seriously evil results than now are produced by the use of tea and coffee."

By pure wine he means fermented wine. He apparently thinks that tea and coffee are harmless drinks. Of this more hereafter. Again he says:--

"Any permanent temperance reform, however great emphasis it may lay on a Christian duty of total abstinence, must draw sharply and maintain stoutly the distinction between total abstinence and temperance, between drunkenness and drinking. It must recognize drunkenness to be everywhere and always a sin, drinking to be made so only by the circumstances; temperance to be always and everywhere a duty, total abstinence to be only a means now to be employed for promoting temperance."

Now let us examine this assumption in the light of science, facts, and history.

First. It is known that all the drunkenness in the world up to the sixth century--and history and even the Bible shows us that there was plenty of it, and this the above writer admits--was caused by drinking fermented wine and other fermented drinks, for the art of distillation was unknown. And almost all of the drunkenness in our country at this day results either directly from men and boys drinking wine, beer, or other fermented drinks, or from the appetite thus formed leading them on to the use of distilled liquors; for it is rarely that they commence by using such liquors. There has never been an age in the world's history when the drinking of fermented wine did not lead large numbers of those who drank it to drunkenness, and it is safe to say that in no age of the world has there ever been more drunkenness among those who drink at all than there is at this day.

As to temperance: That old philosopher, Aristotle, tells us that temperance consists in the moderate use of things good and useful, and total abstinence from things injurious.

Second. Fermented wine is either one of the good gifts of God, to be used as a drink to build up and supply the wants of the human body, and may be used freely as we may use milk, the unfermented juice of grapes, and water, or it is not. Let us examine this question carefully for a few moments. We all know that there are animal, vegetable, and mineral substances which act as poisons when taken into the stomach, and that to thus use them is to violate the laws of health and life and to seriously endanger health, reason, and life; and not a few are destroyed by their use. The Divine commandment in regard to all such we know is, "Thou shall not" use them if they kill or endanger life when used. We know that there are other substances which are useful and necessary to nourish and build up the body and give it strength and health. How are we to distinguish these two classes of substances? By their effects on the body we may distinguish between good and useful substances and poisons. There is a natural appetite for wholesome food, which is satisfied by the usual quantity, and the middle-aged and old do not require any more nor even as much as the young man. But for poisons, unless they are made sweet by other substances, there is no natural appetite, but it has to be cultivated by using the poison; but when the appetite is once developed no other substance in nature will satisfy the appetite for it, and the appetite demands that the quantity taken shall be steadily increased to relieve the craving and diseased symptoms which the poison has caused; and if the natural inclination to increase the quantity or frequency is followed, unrestrained by caution or conscience, the individual comes at last to be able to take a quantity with impunity which would kill more than one person not addicted to its use. We all know that this is notably true in regard to fermented wine and other alcoholic drinks, opium and tobacco.

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.

Again, the writer of the article I am reviewing says:--

"Drunkenness is always and everywhere a sin; whether drinking is a sin depends upon circumstances; and whether the circumstances are such as to make drinking sinful, each individual must decide for himself, and answer for his decision, not to a priesthood, a society, or a newspaper press, but to his own conscience and his God."