Newspapers / The Biblical Recorder (Raleigh, … / Oct. 21, 1835, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Biblical Recorder (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
I II II i mi i i. ,. : 1 . - - tmm farl : I1 V IV f - t '-jT-A V X I I I JI fli 1 I - I I l I 3 fc y-----:.-. ,;..:::'!'ui'!K.oMrEuAXcE, r TO com,,: " -J '- '. " t MEREDITH, i : T E It M S. j Tur. I,5inT-ic,vi. hr.corr.n is published 'every j.lVi!ti?siVyr at b-J-W perjanhum, if paid Avithin x- month,; vr Qtfj'-iLjijl subsequently to that ; crit-!. ,. . ? " i . j ' lr,1' : . . ... i , Any person who AViUhecomc responsible for six1 ., vjiies, 'or. who will forward the names of six sub V'Nlier.vliall H Mltd to a sctenth'copy gratis. ' So MibVcripUio.n -will he received for less than .,v,:..;:,rr.-uiles paid in advance and no disc-on-;.!mu'uv wiil.be allowed until arrearage's are paid. . Ter-oiis' wishing to disconthiue:wilibe.expec'ted' Kve' tuiliee to tliut V fleet J peeted mor to the commence- w u'iit of a new year ;. -otherwise they will he eon vn'iiu iiq.un.'iu.i, iiiji mu ensuinr' twelve !l. fHli.il. !lraii!.::iniiicaiiuns except those of agents who! . PK. MMiAtl I I. S I.KTTE , 7.' . 'R':i. Plrtf. Mild?!, of,A'idorer, .1 Albany, iVugiist 21st, 1S33!":1 ,(Iu preaching, ainl especiIy i:) publisliing-; the -f iilxon on the exclusion ofwnie lVoin the J.ord's ':tppor, Avliich lias given occasion-to your letter aclJieed to me. in the last No. tjf- the Tempcr ."' r;:.ce iritejliq-eneen, J , was wefl awjare that I was . . r;ifung: a .step which.; could n,ot escape observation .MKil'u-lrichjnust iifcoure, pe subject to a' severe ;- v:ryttny. , -lJul X had determined to leave tho ser ; r.ion in , the bands of tht public, a;nd let' it take its ' rnancct whether for.pooif ..oij. evilj without ' v'hidi ' .-atiiijj It iVbia any exceptions, or noticing an-v -riv'tures which it mignt call tprth ; and to. this (loti'rmination i slioifld havi adhered, so far as the i?ermon Avas concerned, W-jou jiad hot thought nropcr! to.hoh or me Ayitli a. public letter. I Your riirfit tq acid less me in tliis Avuy, I fully recocrnfse ; .nnJsCspecially, in view: of my having made z (iistiiict a 1 1 vi s To 11 in my sermon, to your Essay iV Ve Temperance fnteiligeiicer of v June, as fur- l.Hsliin.one of the reasons- for bringing the sub-1' ; vjt"bvfire my congregation.1, . I am induced to nplyto your letter, partly pijm'the fespect which I Jcar for your cliaracter, iinll partly from other )iiMt!erations : though I feel conkraihed to say; 'hat I cannot ommit-tnysolfjto n protracted cor-:i-j)0!idence, or even hold myself pledged to re !) to any future-"coirinum nations. ; I make this xplicit statement the ratler, as I infer from an uiiiitjon in your letter, tjluUyou have a goodly fvimbervof puzzling interrpgatoriles- still in store jt ue, when those w hie h.yfju liave already put, !i;jvn tiave tieen disposed ol. !' 1 say then frankly wit 111 y .professional I duties aire too nu me roils and , to nliouj my attentidn to be diverted by a cned discussion of this, subject ; that I am m to see that ;it i? in a way to,be -tlioroughly rxauuneu by oilier men who are more competent b do ii justice, and have moire leisure to discuss ihn i myself and that, in view of these clrcnnv' vances, both voit and the public must expect that tn:s Willi be the firsthand the last of mvcommum calionk -; .: i. ';. ' -. . I will take up the several tfueries suggested in your .letter.- and give to each the best answer that 1 caiv .My limitjS require that 1 should be ! r;of tinder each head, and (sliould omit many !aings xvhicli .gein to me- to jhavb' an ' important ..bearing; on the discussion ; nevertheless I shall state those congixferations Ahicn: I deem most important;' and if those "whicjj I lb. state, have no; Aveight, I freely acknowledge that thbscAvhich' I ! no not state, must pass for nothing. i After quoting from my serinon j the" 6llowrng 'sentences '''fhere is no occasion for Ilebrew iparnjhg, or Arabic learning, jor any'other learn- wt-than plain English,' to Hettle: this question. 4'he Master himself hath .scltled if you say, 'U-what,' I. beseech you, are we to understand By thii ? Did the-Master tbeinispeak Eriglisli at i-e institution ofthe ford's Supper .'Did he nake Ufe of our word wine ijnjthe same sense in which w.c'now employ it ? j had always sup posed in a dispute about the proper meaning ofa hvordan the Scriptures, the" orjily ultimate resort ! 'is to the (original Hebrew or -Greek of them. Dd VOU mean to I delVnd tbo dnftrino tbnt citan appeal in a icon ro verted case is unne Andis ita Protestant -e?sary and out of place ? principle that such an appeal should not be . ""tu - j , i . I j. ; - ; Xdmydear Sir, I did not tncan Vdefcndany ?uch .doctrine, and l am sure j-ou have too much - candor and good sense ever to have thought of seriously attributing. me any such intention: I .eant to assume the fact, not (hat the translations 't the .Scrptures were infallible, but that the translation which they have jiven us, is, in this t last,Pcc correct ; aid on thiground I said, and v certamly should, say again, under 5 similar cir-nirnstinces,- that no other learn in cr than nlain" Gaulish Was nfir.pasn r fn cM'tlo t'l.i'o ..w.ct: .- i oil youjrself acknowledge that wine (oinos) was iscd at the onginaHnstitutionof the Supper : then -a orilerto show that our Saviour 'Mrf make use f'four vyofd ?vic'in the same sense, in - which employrit," I have only to show that the wine V;hich was used on that occasion, Avas the iuice rJ .thc grape in a fermented state. The proof of woiiia involve tne ansAVer to- one of your ?aain inquiries, Which must be. reserved for its Tl'ropr.tatc place.- At present 1 assume the fact that it was so; and on it I build the conclusion our Saviour used the word wiacinthe same . Jf?hse in Avhich Ave use it,.an(lof cdurscthat our ranshtion is liable to;no exceptions. If I fail ' 1 the proof in its proper place, my conclusion : -st, of, necessity, be abahdbned. f pt may possibly; think me somewhat of an . ti-orientalist in expressing so much regard for . translation. But I assuf you that it is not ' gji any want of respect tp-3reek or Hebrew 'faTnmg that I do this : I hoi: or those who have . yeyoted themselves to deeb and . lnWinn. search into the original languages of scripture; ina tio one doj l honor rao.re than the man who '.wiven the Jeadjn this department of studv in ! own country. But still I cannot think that e tranSiation ought to be; set aside or even , uea in question, but for good reasons; especial- 7i as the great mass of people are obliged to rely iduu U' ".wnateyer serves to unsettle their . j m me translation, is adapted to' diminish KPiTKD u:l !jfratuuoui , m secure attention, must be post vj.M ,yuerai commence in the Scriptures them selves. .1 know not in how many instances, since the discussion about yayin and irosh) has been ffomg forward, I have heard intelligent men re ni tllat' these tn-ings were so, there. -was no bible for them; as they could read neither Greek nor Hebrew. You will observe that I do " not mention this as a reason for not .mnwilm. . . nuui r...UUOiWuuii me iransiaiion is really wrong' or defective : but onlv as an tor 'hot'- nrtri.ilii.pf . from it MiloooAC.. . n rn-iim cially where, as in your own case, there 'would seem to be a virtual acknou iedgement that it is correct. i ' In your next paragraph you say, "But suppo sing nowrthat you concede'to .us that such an appeal should be made" i. e. ah appeal to the original languages pf scripture ('(which I may presumen-our candor will concede); , then I ask how the fruit of the vine is to be understood? If t lift mere phraseology, or themere English trans lations to decide this, why then wine is out of me question. 1 ne fruit of the vine in its-plain est. njost obvious and literal senses means neither morMior less ' than ' grapes. Grapes then and bread Sire to be the elements ofthe Lord's Sup per, ; in vain do we seek for the exnlicit derla. ration that wine was drank there by the Saviour But it is said explicitly that they drank the fruit ofthe vine ; and1 did" you a ever hear of an individual drinking grapes? The truth is that this passage net only admits the construction that thp fruit; of the vine was the juice of the grape;?, but it admits of no other; and hence I cannot isee why you should have suggested it to me iii the form of a difficulty ; or how it bears more unfa vorably upon my doctrine than yours. Youi fo on to add, "But you will say, " T lis is to be jfg urativelyconstructed. You put your construc tion upon it, ana make it mean 'tine, i. c. the Greek oin'qs." -I do" indeed put my construction upon it; but it so happens that in doing so, I put yours upon it also; for in the very next sentence you proceed to sajv "I will not complain iioaa- of the liberty which you here take with the words, fruit ofthe vine I also, believe that wine, i.: e! oinos, was" drank at' the sacrament in its oriirin ; because I cannot see -why .the cup should be ha' med,and drinking bespoken ofu iless sucii was t he case." Here then we arc brought to a very happy issue of this part of the controversy ; that is, precisely to tjie same point. I only complain that you should have gravely put me to the proof of that of which you yourself had no doubt, ! in other words, that you should have imposed upon' me the necessity of showing that men donotdrink grapes, when, in the very next paragraph, .you intended generously to concede what you hadcal--led upon me to prove. 1 f'." i After admonishing me that "the matter is not yet at an end," and mentioning the various He brew AA-ords which the JeAvs employed to. desig nate different kinds of 'wine, you preceed" as fol lows : "Now here Ave have at least five different names in' Hebrew, two of them for must or new wine, and three for different sorts or qualities of fermented Avi ne, and al l these are rendered by the Septuagint translators, by one andthe same Greek word obws; whichc Iso istheNeAvTe'stament word to designate all sorts of wine. Instead then of its being ascertained by the English New Testa ment, .whaprwe means; Ave are not definitely in formed by the original Greek itself, Wlfich of all the five kinds of wine, or rather of "the fruit of the vine," was, exhibited at the table of our Lord. If the word -oinos itself had been use.d, i. c. Avine instead ofthe fruit of the vine, it would Have still left us in the same condition, viz. lurjcertain Avhe ther the first, second, third, fourth or fifth kind; of AA'ine, AA-as used by our Saviour and his disciples. Will you show us, my dear sir, ho w this question is to be Jelermined? We may then hafc?e a stand point, from which' we can take a new survey; of the subject. Until then -we. may' well suppose that "the fruit of the vine" may be either of the five kinds of wine above noted,"inasmuch as the Saviour has not been particular in his designation. You will allow us to insist on some specific proof here, before wc can take it for granted that your positron is certain. We wih to know how "the Master has settled it," and Avhat U the proof that he has decided that such AA'ine as we now employ was used by him at the sacramental table." ! " " My. first remark under this head is that, not Avithstandingyou have given us five words to de signate as many different kinds of wine, the only distinction with wh ch Ave are concerned, so far as I can see, is that which exists between fer mentcd. wine and te uri fermented juice ofthe grape; for no position which I .halve taken in my sermon requires meto show what' particular kind of fermented wine was used : as Ave admit that that is an unimportant matter now ; ' that Port n;TJ:' t :xr r t oh- , i ! niauc-iiu, i euuuue, xxaiaga, ec. may. be used with equal propriety. Without expressing any opinion then as to the question whether the unfer- niented juice of the grape may. not be used in the L oupper iu mis aay, l am going to attempt ta prove that it was not used at its original insti tution ; and.that, in the example of Christ and his Apostles, Ave have our Avarrant for using oh that occasion fermented wine. .- - ' ; ily -first argument is draAvn from the fact that yaym, which you say means fermented wine, was not only allowed as a drink, but A-as spoken of as a blessing, under the old Testament dispensation. I shall not dwell much on the proof of this, as it has just been presented at length, and Avith great ability, by a correspondent, (J. M.) of the New York Observer, I Avill only say that it was yayin which the Nazarite had an express permission to drink when the days of separation were ended. (Num. vi. 19, 20.) It Avas . - Avhich the Psalmist, in enumerating' some of the blessings oi rroviqence, menuoneu in immeoiwe connex ion with bread and oir. (Psalm cix. 1 4, 15A It was yaym which God by the prophet -Amos, pro mised to thb people of Israel, atnong various oth er blessings, on their being restored from captivi ty. ( Amos ix. 14.) It was yayin by which the Holy Ghost was pleased to represent the bless- nigaoi ine view voTenant, Avnicn an were mvi ted to accept without money and without price (Isaiah ir, 1.) I might multiply quotations al NEWBEHjV, n. C. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21 . , i , - - ' - i in. i most indefinitely to the same point, but the para ges to which I have already referred are enough to Show not only that fermented wine was actu ally used under the ancient dispensation, but that it; was regarded both by Go'dand man as a bles ing. If this be so, may 1 not at least ask Avhere is fhe improbability that it Ayas.used at the time of pur Saviour, and in the sacramental supper - U was exclusively yayin. or fermented Avine which was prescribed by divine, authority t0 be "sd in the service of the temple. (Ex. xxix 40; and iimb. xxvii. 7.) Now I ask, if it was' no a sin to use it, for religious purposes under the ancient dispensation, if the use of it was even expressly enjoined by God himself, where is the evidence that it is Avrongto use it for similar pur poses under the present dispensation? Nay does. notthe fact that God prescribed it(' for the service of the temple, infer the probability that Christ used it in the institution of the supper unless you have something to show to the con trary? , That' it had been' used fnrfirrnc in tli j dauy ofie;rings of the temple, you certainly will uuii4ueauon : mat it Avas used in those services at. the time of our Saviour's ad-ent, I can see no reason to doubt : and as the Passover was kept in Jerusalem, there is every ground for believ ing that the same kind of wine was used as in thejordmary service of the tern pie. At any rate, Avhoever asserts the contrary, is most unquestion ably bound to proAe it. 3 My next argument is drawn from thpn-ln K,, . - .... .v . Y-O , ,- l- - I . t . i I - ...... uiunu v.ti-1- ui 11 11; 1 1 1 1 1 n ri nr i .-nr.ii - - i. - "niui ' " m.v v,uuhi 111 im? ictner pari oi trie elev- i I I' PI'- enth chapter of the first enistletoth, r.,;,,!,; I ii is reaany conceded mat there is nothing in the language Avhich our Saviour used at the original; institution of .the supper, from which it can be tlormiriol 'ttrlif C .... r i Ti ' " I .11. t t 1 " v. - 1 . v - VI HIUIKtlJJ v4vv v v. "nui.u 11 was lermemcd wine, or the Juniermented juice of the grape, which was or j useo. on mat occasion ; as "the fruit of the vine" may legitimately mean c ither. But within a few years after ouf Lord's ascension, there was a church- established throughhe instrumentality ofthe apostle Ppul in the city of Corinth. ' Paul mpst have understood perfectly the proper man- Tie T Of I'P Clir.1 IJlfr tin nrf innnnn . for' he expressl declares that he i T"e wiuuiuilic Ul IIIL supper; received it of thr Lorcr Ahd it Avcre-a reflrrtinn unnn Ji character as a rjiinister and an apostle, "to suppose that, he should not have made the Corinthians ac qjjainted vitii e'ery thing essential to the rig'ht nKsprvnncp nfif - nnrl tint if C . . j ofthe grape were the article to be used a he sl q'ukfno! have,distinctly tojd them so. But it is certain that tlie Corinthians drank intoxicatin acMmlly becamej "drunken" Perhaps it may be sad that this proves nothing more than that they perverted the-ordinance by the use of an impro per beverage, j I reply that the whole strain of the Apostle's remarks pnwes the contrary, lltr reproves them for drunkenness and irregularity, but not an intimation does he give that they have: fallen into any error iq respect to the article to: be used in the service. If their error had really consisted in. drinking fermented wine, is it not passing strange, that the apostle when hp set him self formally to rebuke them on the' occasion, did not even advert to that Avhich, on the: principle 1 am opposing, must have constituted the root of the Avhole evil? Especially is not this a most unaccbuntable omission, when it is remembered, that he Avrote under divine inspiration, and for the benefit of the church in all coming ages? Is it to be supposed for a moment that an apostle, and especially the Holy Ghost who inspired him, shbuld have vvitnessed such a dangerous innova tion, Avithbut setting up a barrier against its pro gress, by a plain and pungent rebuke? Suppose it AA-ere a uni'ersally conceded point noAV that the Linfermcnted juice of the grape was the only au thorised beverage to be used in the communion and some church, in imitation of th n nvfi mnlp of mY uuuna.., t.e so wr io deviate from the right AVay. as to Sllbst tntn fnrmontn,l ,,! getdHmk upon it: Avhat kind ofa rohnlshonld .' ' . . "--"vinvu iuv uuu any of us be disposed to administer, especially what kind ofa rebuke would a temperance man administer for such an irregularity ? I Would he be satisfied Avith reproving the drunkenness, or avould hejnot look farther, to the cause of it? .Wpiild he not say, "You have made an unhallow ed jnA-asion of the ordinance by scttino- aside the article which' the Saviour prescribed, and which has been universally used in the church and sub- stitutingan intoxicatingdrink;andit isno wonder that you ha-e fallen into suchcriminal excesses ?" ! Under such circumstances, this certainly would have been a natural rebuke; such as the occasion would obviously call for. But no such rebuke came from the Apostle. Could the occasion for it then have existed ? Or was he not a temper ance man ? ; i 4- I appeal to ecclesiastical historvan sunnort of my position. I ha'e neA-er seen an intimation in the history of the christian church, nor heard j of an individual that had, that the unfermented juice ofthe grape yas ever used in the sacrament oi tfte scupper. At,any rate it has not been Used in our day, nor in the days of our fathers, or our forefathers, to any period of antiquity to which we can go back. Now I.ask whether this is not a most speaking silence in ecclesiastical History, in favor ofthe conclusion tkat it was never used atalT If it had been the beAcrage Avith which. Christ instituted the ordinance, and especially if it had been wrong. to use any other, is it not mar vellous indeed that fermented wine should have been introduced, and yet no record remain ofthe unhallowed innovation Various other innova tions in reference to this ordinance are distinctly marked, but to this no author, that I have heard of even alludes. Could this have been so, ifsuch an innovation had ever occurred And if it did not occur, was dot fermented Avine originally us ed in the communion ? nave Yet another authority to urge in proof of my doctrine which ji hope you will not be dis posed to gainsay, a3 it is one for Avhich I have been accustomed to entertain a high respect : Pardon me for saying it is the authority of Pro fessor Stuart himself. In your Essay pub lished in the Temperance Intelligencer of June, 1835, two months before the publication of your ). letter to me. vou havp thi h-dl..:' j- i pertinent hnd judicious remarks : "But here iuiiutiiii I'XrI'Pii n fr I t again , it win probably be said that the argument st aldohohe drink? of all kinds mnt rmv against too much, because it will prove that Jesus and his disciples A ho drank wine, did partake of drink which Avas injurious, and which therefore should be prohibi ed in case, the principle that lam de fending U allowed. The reader will observe however, hat my argument has all alono- and throughout been directed against the frequent and common use of alcoholic drinks. To say now that because such a use must bo injurious, and therefore should be prohibited, is nuiten tWOUrf position frpm saying that an occasional use of w ,ne ana urink Jess strong 13 altogether prohibit ed. Again: "it is indeed onlv on sacramental occasions that a thorough disciple of Temperance iujt piiii ume, Avm i;el disposed to taste of any liquor 01 tins-nature:" (including fermented wine.) "Here the example of Christ and his dis ciples, AAould seem to give a sanction to the use of wine, which may justly remove all scruples re specting it." " ' Now I insist upon it, if I have not proved my position, Professor Stuart is no authority. But ream, niv nrnr ir r 11 ."1 - ..t iuuui uAprrss an inc sur-; prise that fee), that you should have raised up ! this second man of straw forme to contend with i when in your Essay published but two short) months before, you had conUI ii,., ror,.i,;,J iu . . . im 11 un nun i. .in n in inn fn nri,. i II IV 1 1. , 1 - - - niv. 1 11 j unii" 1 I .-. I' .,vijhvi 11 llliuui tlllV 1 tirrin I t ,-.., K .. . : 1 .. ... . . J inai you might take it v i -"j'luiuus sutii'ur rou mi'jht take it for frmnf.J ,;.i, X JLW. r1,ncu new W '0uld it t.o oe.uorenatemal that you should endeavor I to impart it b me, and let me into the secret of our conversion from the error which you held two months;ago. than that you should feavo me to grope in ;the fog from which vou have iu,t ; emerged, aijd even challenge ine to a defeure of ; your recent err,or. If your views have undergone ; no change within this short period, then I must : 1 """'luiaiauimiir W1C question you nave proposed, and the earnestness with which i you call lor an answer, to claim you as a fellow worker! with me in proving that fermented wine vas used at the communion ; and in ihis rase i submit it to you whether the public should not'do us the justicp to acknowledge that Ave have to gether made) out "a stand point from which we can take a new survey ofthe subject.3' - I am led next by the con. -so of your remarks tlT !ilutlZ nc at the And h7 1 am h?m 10 hat j the questions proposed in your letter are entire iv consistent with the views contained in your Essay. j 'You say, lIow can it be taken f r granted that theAvine Avas drank unmixed with, water, Avhen all the sobermcn of surrounding heathen'nations, ookcdon such a practice as belonging only to drunkards or lovers ofthe cup? The remarks you makeup this subject seem to imply, that if a j jnan Avere ;ttj mix water with his Avine at the sil crament,it Avould be a profanation of thatordi-i nance. Is it to be sunnosed thnn tbnt'fin tial parto c dm memo rating the. Lord's death con-. j l l ....... wvMftAVk'ft'VII sistsin swjallowinga given nortion of unililotpf! i alcohol in wine? Is it can it be this which i gives euicacy to such an ordinance, or is it ration al to suppose that pious Hebrews, like temperate Greeks and Romans, diluted their wine, Vixen they drank ft?" i Now admitting the fact that it rathe custom I of surrounding heathen nations to drink thnir! j wine mixed (With water, .and without stopping to I wiijuiiy wneiner the reason of this might ,not. be! that it would give.them an opportunity of enjoy-i intrlUii.im.t,. I -.1 . . .''( "a "fvu woiuv.- louder wniioui intoxication, 1 am constrained to say that your conclusion from this fact.seems to me entirely unwarranted.' What! Is: the fact that '"temperate Greeks and Romans" diluted their wine, to be tal con ns evi dence that the Hebrews did the sanie, when there ;s nnf ,i10 Qi,Ur!rt. r 0,.u . f r ... rr. -;' "1UU ... any 01 1 GCrr , , I ...... vinni uuin, viuui ivvv I CMiilllf lllf it in UT1 lntreni hnr ntthnU Mn. AT.'r . Especially, (fan avc infer from any usare of the heathen on this subject, anything in respect to the mode in which Hebrews drank Avine in their religious festival si I see not why you might not with equal reason select any other indifferent custom of the heathen world, and infer that it prevailed among the Jews, though the supposi tion should not be sustained by the least particle of evidence. In respect to the. question wheth it is "to be supposed that an essential part of commemorating the Lord's death, consists in swallowing a given portion of undiluted alco hoi in wine," I frankly confess that I do not comprehend your meaning. I Avill boAA'ever undertakej loansAA er the question, if not in pub lic, yet in private,, when you will show me that alcohol e-er did, or ever can, exist undiluted in wine. . You proceed Avith your question "Is it pre posterous to call a man a brand'-drinkcr. or a spirit-drinker, jwho mingles half or two-thirds AA-ater Avith his-brandy? Is not this almost ex clusively the method in which these drinks arc used i et common parlance never makes a man a brandy-drinker any the less, because he dilutes-with Avater. Hov then are vou n-oinrr to show us that Christ' and his disciples did not tale their Avirie at the last supper diluted ? And now can it be shoAvn that this Avas not drinkin wine?" ! ' This argument from "common narlanceV has! certainly some plausibility ; but I am greatly deceived if it; will bear an examination. I ad ... i l mit that it is not "preposterous to call a man a brandy-drinker or spirit drinker, who mingles half or two-thirds, Avaler with hisWndy:" but I beg you to observe that this proposition is not analagous to the pne iu Avhich the use of Avine is spoken of in the institution ofthe supper. Christ says not a word about Avine drinkers, hut h says, "I Avill not drink henceforth ofthe fruit of the vine," &q. He had the cup then before him, perhaps in1 his hand, and he speaks of it as "the fruit of the vine." Noav while t admit that "common parlance" allows a man to be- called "a brandv-drinker, or a spirit-drinker, Avho min gles halfor tAVO-thirds Avater Avit his brandy," or if you please, ' alloAvs a man to be called a wine drinker, who mingle? half or two-thirds wa- NO. 42 er -limm TT lh ra' drsir, wheth er common plrlance would justify vou in tak ing into your hands a cup of brandy'and water or AVne and water, and speaking of it in he same definite manner as our Saviour did, on y as brandy or Avine? I confess this would not accord wrih any usage that 1 havt? accus tomed to observe. AndinviewofitI am con strained to attach as little importance to the argu inen from the. practice of the heathen. 1 hose are the only arguments which I find in your letter to justify the practice of iilutingAvim-: or rather the only difficulties which yoi? have hocn pleased to propound for me to depose of I take it for granted you mean by the questions you have put to me. virtually to assert the opin ion that the wine used in thelrds Supper tva diluted. I cannot but think, my dear Sir, that it yet devolves upon you to prove it. There is net an intimatipn in the bible that this Avas the cao and the arguments you have already advanced are, I am sure, to say the least, altogether incon clusive Paidpn me then for saying to vou on this subject as you have said to me in regard to iermentcd winq ; thai it "is a question 6n which we expect you1 to throw more light ; for more is needed.' . I But I will not o'iMnijs this subject here You snail have my reasons for believing that the Avine used in the original institution ofthe supppr was not diluted, and that it cvght not to bc diUtccl at the present jday. 1.. Thenj is not the least intimation' inl scrip ture that the wine used in the temple sVrvie, and by the priests, Avas diluted. If it AAasiriU to use it undiluted for sacred purposes finder the Jewish dispensation, can it be wrong- fo vn it in a similar manner, and for similar piloses under the Christian dispensation? If itVa actually ur-vd undiluted in :the former cases i. it not n-asoinble to presume, unless there h some evidence to the contrary, that it was origi nally us;-d m the same Avay, in the latter ? If our u ilurnr Ji:i(l made a changeand o5pecially i' he had considered that change important, wluld h' not have distinct!y marked it, so that th chnrch might be effectually guarded a-ain mistake? . D 2. In the only instance which I have Lorn able to. find in the scriptures inwhich the mix ing of wine Avith Avati-r occurs, it is spoken of as a judgement. ' Thy silver is become dross thy wine mixed with wafer.'' '(Isaiah" i 2 ) Is it likely that Jesus Christ Avould have enjoin- ed that as part of his own ordinances, which God had inflicted as a judgement upon a guilty na tion, and which is not even mentioned in scrin ture in any other connexion? 1 :i The example, as the Corinthian is r.s much to my purpose in this case as in the other 011 expressly say in your Essay "It is hi-hlv probablethey drank undiluted wine. f,r into'- tanon co.ijd scarcely ! produced in most per sons by drinkmgancicr.t wine diluted by half er two-th.rds water." If h is highly probable that wi. v U.....U i.ijuiiu.ca -.vine, then 1 maintain tlmt. as they received the ordinance from the Apostle who had received if "from the Lord" himself, i is reasonable to conclude that ununited wine was used at us original institution. And W sides, on any other principle, the failure of th Apostle to rebuke them for having profaned tk ordinance by using an improper element be comes utterly unaccountable. It supposes zr in the other case, that he undertook, to reprove them, and actually did reprove them with 50m degroe of severity, and did not even allude, to that which primarily constituted! their rJ' fence- ! 4. I derive an argument under this head al?.. fromthe history of the church. I am well awarr and I think 1 have alluded to the fact in m-' sermon that a sect arose before the close of the second ntury, who" contended for dilutin miuo at the communion1. But what else is ilf jhan evidence that it was originally drank undi luted ? iiat gives the authority of the earlv agesits: importance in these matters, is their nearness to the period of the introduction of Christianity ; and the" nearer Ae can trace any practice to the time ofthe Apostles, provided we cannot fix its date, other things being equal, the greater t ie probability that it Avas .nctually an apostolic'pracfice.' Hut if we arc able distinctly to date the origin of any custom al a period sub sequent to (he apostolic timesr it were aisurd to claim fof it any divine authority on thq . ground that it arose only in the second century T for :r real corruption iu the second century "i.s'no bet ter than the same corruption hi the "nineteenth I say then that the fact that the second century is appealed to on this subject shows that, the fir cannot be : for as the authority ofthe first i bet ter than that ofthe second, so no man Avould 1 v satisfied to stop at the latter, who was not con scions that the former was against him. 54 The nature ofthe ordinance furnishes ano ther argument in my favor. It is nor designed as a repast for the purpose of sustenance but as a ceremony for religious instruction. Wine as useclin this pcrvicc is merely a symbol of 'the blood of Christ, shed for the sins of men : and of course the smallest quantity of it is suff icient t answer the end ofthe institution. If it had been designed that it should be used on this occasion as in a common meal, for the sake of quenching thirst orgratifying appetite, there .might have been some show of. reason-in its being i dilated, with. a view to prevent intoxication. The Corin thians indeed actually fell into this error ;"bnt I am not aware thn.t the history of the" christian church furnishes another example of it , . G. it the wine in the sacramental supjjcr is to he diluted, AA-ho shall prescribe the measure? One individual may be satisfied with having half water ; another may require three fourth ah oth -'er five-sixths; and. another still; perhaps mav think that the cause of Temperance requircsihat the smallest possible quantity of wine shoulcj be used, and that a drop of wine to a gallon of Arater will fairly come up to the spirit of the Master s injunction; while vet another, more scrupulous . for the cause of Temperance, and less scrupulous forth authority of .Christ, than the preceding, concludes that that single dret
The Biblical Recorder (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Oct. 21, 1835, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75