III. Teachim/ of the Scriptures in i-espect to the Use of Wine. — 1. As appears from the foregoing examination, tlie Bible makes no distinction between intoxicating and non-intoxicating wines — never refers or alludes to such a distinction. Yet wine, ■j^]|i = oii'oc, is constantly spoken of in precisely the same way that corn and oil and milk are spoken of — namely, as a blessing sent by God for the use of man. It was enjoined to be used in the service of (iod. It is employed as a symbol of the highest spiritual blessings (Isa. Iv, 1, 2). The use of it was common among the Jews, as it is among the people of all wine-producing countries. It was forbid- den to the Nazarites alone, and that only while under their vow. The use of it is in one case distinctly pre- scribed by Paul to Timothy (I Tim. v, 23). Jesus Christ came*'drinking wine" as well as "eating bread" (Luke vii,33, 34), and in one instance miraculously i>ro- duced a supply of wine when it was needed (John ii). We attach great importance, religiously and theologi- cally, to these facts. Jesus was no ascetic. He gave no countenanoe to asceticism. By drinking wine — freely using the blessings of God's jirovidence — he testified against the error, afterwards called Gnostic and jMani- chajan, which would attach impurif}' to that which en- ters the mouth, and vindicated the libertj' of his follow- ers to use "every creature of God" as good and lit for food, and to be received with thanksgiving by them as those who " believe and know the truth" (1 Tim. iv, 3, 4). But tins error repelled, and this liberty asserted, none are obliged to drink wine or to eat meat if they prefer not. There is liberty on this side also. They niaj' abstain if they choose. Paul expressed his readi- ness to abstain from "flesh" and "wine" to secure the good of a brother, or to avoid occasioning him injury (Kom. xiv, 21 ; comp. 1 Cor. viii, 13). The same liberty is ours: and if a great practical good may be attained by abstinence, Christian benevolence calls us in this direction.
But while liberty to use wine, as well as every other earthly blessing, is conceded and niaiiuained in the Bible, yet all abuse of it is solemnly an<l earnestly con- demned. In the book of Proverbs the warnings against such abuse are frequent and severe (xx, 1 ; xxiii. 29- 35; xxxi, 4-7). It is the same in the New Test. (1
Cor. vi, 10; Gal. v, 21). "Be not drunk with wine — not given to much wine." Such are its precepts — pre- cepts which would have little or no force, or even mean- ing, were wine not intoxicating, and were there not some peculiar danger incident to its use. If wine were not intoxicating, the a))ostle might as well have ex- horted them against drinking too much milk or too much water. He takes for granted the right to use; he recognises the danger incident to the use; but in- stead of prohibiting, he cautions and exhorts against excess. Moikration in eating and drinking is the broad Christian law. A hstineiice from some kinds of food may become a duty under |)eculiar circumstances. Self-denial, in relation to things lawful, is often imper- ative. Wine is good; is a gift of God. It may be used with advantage ; it may be abused, but not inno- cently or with impunity. It may be declined in tlie exercise of Christian liberty; it ought to be declined if doing so helps forward tlie cause of humanity, morality, and religion, and promotes the glory of God. In view, however, of the almost impossibility of procuring genu- ine wine in the United States without extravagant cost, and the fact that in order to its preservation it is inva- riably more alcoholic than the light wines of Bible times usually were, and especially in view of the dan- gerous tendency to intoxicating habits involved in the use of wine as a beverage, not only to the drinker, but to his family and friends, it cannot be doubted that the wisest and most Christian course is to abstain wholly from it. This is in accordance with the apostolic pre- cept of self-restraint (1 Cor. viii, 13).
2. There is no positive proof that the fluid used by our Lord in instituting the sacred communion was al- coholic ; it is nowhere ex|iressly called wine, but simply the "fruit of the vine" (Matt, xxvi, 29). That it was wine, properly so called, however, is a fair presumption from the fact that this was the customary liquor of the Jews in the Passover meal, as we learn from tlie definite prescription of the Talmud ("There shall not be less than four cups of wine" [ydi/iii'], Slishna, Pesurh. x, 1). Many modern Jews, it is said, use the liquor of steeped raisins for paschal purposes; but there is no trace of such a custom in ancient times.
Therefore the use of any other fluid in the commun- ion at the present day must be justified, if at all, from prudential considerations growing out of the modern temperance reform; just as we consider ourselves at liberty to vary the kind of bread (originally unleav- ened), the posture of the communicant, and other un- essential details, to suit the convenience of the occasion and the parties. These considerations are undoubtedly of the gravest character, especiallj' the danger of relapse to reformed inebriates partaking or even approaching the communion-table, where the taste or fumes of alco- hol are liable to revive their appetite. If, as it is con- fidently claimed by many, unfermented grape-juice can be procured at a moderate cost and without great in- convenience, and can be preserved with ordinary care a sufficient length of time, and is not offensive to the sense, or otherwise particularly objectionable, there is no reason why ceremonious scruples should be allowed to stand in the way of its employment. Whether in- dividuals not susceptible to such a danger as the above are excusable in withholding themselves from the com- munion where alcoholic wine is used, is quite another question, which it does not lie within the scope of this article to discuss.