Personal Experience of a Physician

by John Ellis

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!