and his own law, to administer his own sacraments,† to appoint his own Sabbath, and to resist to the death every human authority which dared to impose on him obedience, a thing which he denied that he ved even to God !§ Our pen has almost unconsciously contracted into a sentence much that we purposed to say, had space remained to us. We subjoin references in proof of the various assertions contained in it. It is needless to go over the chapters in which Milton treats of the Church,|| ministry, sacraments, the Lord's day, (on each of which he taught the wildest radicalism,) also of truth, love, cursing, &c., since we have partly anticipated these points in other portions of our remarks, and it is folly to enter into minute details concerning the light in which a person who advocated the Christian privilege of moral disobedience, viewed ecclesiastical law and sacramental ordinances. But whoever desires to see the sad spectacle of a mighty mind, struggling in the wildest contradictions to which it had been reduced by the logical following out of a false principle, should read Milton's statements on these subjects. And yet he will only see there written what every day is inditing more visibly on the surface, and engrafting into the hearts of society. With firm faith in the ultimate prevalence of good, the present, amid its delusive promises of physical improvement, wealth, aggrandizement, and scientific discovery presents little to the Christian eye, apart from the regenerating influences of the Church, * "Neither is it said to us, whatever is not of the law is sin, but whatever is not of faith in sin; faith consequently, and not the law, is our rule. It follows, therefore, that as faith cannot be made matter of compulsion, so neither can the works of faith."-Ch. Doc., Vol. II, p. 104. The context shows that he is here speaking not of human, but divine compul sion. "The master of a family or any one appointed by him is at liberty to celebrate the Lord's Supper from house to house-if indeed any distribution of the elements by an individual officiator was then, or is now requisite."-Vol. II, p. 135. "Under the Gospel no one day is appointed for Divine Worship in preference to another."-Vol. II, p. 399. There is "no transgression in disregarding the letter of the law, provided that under the direction of the Spirit the end of the institution be attained."-Ch. Doc., Vol. II, p. 100. "Any believer is competent to act as an ordinary minister according as convenience may require, provided only he be endowed with the necessary gifts."— Ch. Doc., Vol. II, p. 153. If, therefore, it be competent to any believer whatever to preach the Gospel provided he be furnished with the requisite gifts, it is also competent to him to administer the rite of baptism."-Ib. p. 157. "With_regard to the Lord's Supper also, it has been shown in the preceding chapter that all are entitled to participate in that rite, but that the privilege of dispensing the elements, is confined to no particular men or order of men.”—Ib. p. 158. save a threatened reduction to the religious and social chaos which Milton theoretically developed. What part his principles have to play in the future, remains yet to be seen. Meanwhile, it is a phenomenon worthy of the most solemn Christian consideration, that the leading mind of Puritanism in the age of its primal activity, arrived at the fearful conclusion, that the legitimate tendency of his system was to establish Pantheism, Materialism, Antinomianism, polygamy, rebellion, hatred, fraud, falsehood, and cursing, as the religion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and that that mind was John Milton's-the so called "noblest and ennobler of mankind." If these words sound harsh to any, let them remember that we speak from the record—and we can assure them we speak in sorrow, not in anger. In conclusion, we would suggest that in any future edition of the Prose Works of Milton, the Treatise on Christian Doctrine should be incorporated, that the public may have presented to them, in one view, the sentiments of this remarkable man, and that Paradise Lost and Regained should also be copiously illustrated from the Theological Treatise. PROF. STUART ON THE WINE QUESTION. ART. II. SCRIptural View oF THE WINE QUESTION, in a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Nott, by M. STUART, Professor in the Theological Seminary at Andover. New York: Leavitt, Trow & Co., 1848. 8vo. 64 pp. C. C. MALL. 66 THE reputation of Professor Stuart as a Hebrew scholar and teacher, the boldness with which he utters opinions, at war alike with Lexicons, facts, and common sense, impel us to a labor which we would much rather avoid. On page 9th of this Essay we read as follows: I take it as an established fact that Alcohol, which is the production of fermentation, and which in itself is substantially the same thing, whenever and wherever it is developed, is of a poisonous nature and tendency." The manner in which alcohol is described, in this and other passages, affords an example of the fallacious conclusions into which people fall when they leave the dictates of moderation and rush to violent extremes. By the same mode of reasoning which is there employed, we should be debarred from the use of fire or hot water; because, if you approach too near to fire, it will burn you up, and, if you plunge into boiling water, it will scald you to death. A moderate degree of heat is healthful and pleasant. And the experience of mankind shows that alcohol may enter into many drinks that are wholesome and agreeable, nay, which are sacramental, and in the habitual use of which men arrive at a vigorous and good old age. There is no end to arguing against the use of a thing from the abuse of it. In the 11th page it is asserted that "In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ya-yin, in its broadest meaning, designates grape-juice or the liquid which the fruit of the vine yields. This may be new or old, sweet or sour, fermented or unfermented, intoxicating or unintoxicating. The simple idea of grape-juice or vine-liquor is the basis and essence of the word, in whatever connection it may stand. The specific sense which we must often assign to the word, arises not from the word itself, but from the connection in which it stands." This assumption of the writer is the basis upon which the whole of his argument, if it can be so called, is made to rest. And from which is deduced the conclusion, that whenever wine is mentioned in Scripture as allowable, it means an unfermented liquor devoid of any intoxicating power; and that, when unfavorably spoken of, it means a fermented intoxicating drink. How fairly the Professor arrives at this conclusion, we think, may be clearly shown by some specimens of his mode of reasoning. That yayin or wine means the juice of the grape, no one, we take for granted, will deny; but for the assertion that grape-juice or vine-liquors is the basis and essence of the word," we cannot find a shadow of authority besides the writer's own fancy. Nor do we perceive how Furst's Hebrew Concordance, with Professor Stuart's parade about the Greek Digamma, in the 13th page, tends to establish the theory contended for. Furst notices, what everybody else has noticed, that the names for wine, in many different languages, are very similar. And he thinks that the word from which the all derived is veen or ween. And what of all that? He gives no radical meaning to the word, tending to show that it expresses an unfermented liquor. On the other hand, authority does exist to show that fermentation is the radical meaning of the word yayin. In the Hebrew lexicon of Simonis, edited by Eichhorn, yayin is said to be derived from a lost root yavan or yawan, which, by comparison with the Arabic, is supposed to have had the sense "aestuationis et fermentationis.' And yayin is, in that lexicon, translated “vinum (a fermentatione.)" Gesenius also, in Robinson's Edition, makes yayin to be derived from the obsolete root yavan, the radical meaning of which is to boil up, to be in a ferment. The Targums are full of illustrations to the same purpose. The extracts from published letters of the Rev. Eli Smith and the Rev. Daniel Ladd, which are appended to these remarks, should, we think, have satisfied all doubt about this question of fermentation. But they appear to have been totally disregarded by the Professor, and our modern ultraists. From those letters it appears, that in the East, where the customs remain unaltered,* no such thing as unfermented wine is known. And we will venture to say that no such thing ever has been known. The drink called wine in our language, and by very similar names in many other tongues, is a liquor produced by the fermentation of grape or other juice; which is the vinous fermentation, and is the characteristic of wine. And to this agree all the definitions of wine, except the one lately invented, which we have ever seen. Johnson calls it "The fermented juice of the grape." The Edinburgh Dispen * See the Preface to Harmer's "Observations." 66 satory says "Wine is the juice of the grape altered by fermentation." The Encyclopædia Britannica, "Wine, an agreeable spirituous liquor, produced by fermentation from those vegetable substances that contain saccharine matter." The Encyclopædia Americana, "Wine, liquor that has become spirituous by fermentation." Nicholson's Philosophy, "This act of change is called fermentation, and is properly distinguished into three stages, namely, the vinous or spirituous, the acetous, and the putrefactive fermentations." Thompson's Chemistry, "When must is put into the temperature of about 70°, the different ingredients begin to act upon each other, and what is called vinous fermentation commences. In a few days the fermentation ceases, &c., and it has become the liquid well known under the name of wine." Accum's Chemistry," Wine is the product of fermentation." Lavoisier's Chemistry, "When the fermentation is completed, the juice of grapes is changed, from being sweet and full of sugar, into a vinous liquor." These are all the books which we have at hand that treat of wine; but surely they are enough to show that the first fermentation produces what is meant by our word wine. And no one doubts that the corresponding word in every country in Europe means the same thing. The annexed letters of Messrs. Ladd and Smith prove that, in the East, the name given to what corresponds with our wine, is not given to any unfermented liquor. And all the qualities attributed to yayin in the Scriptures, show it to be the same thing as our wine and the present wine of the East; that is, the product by fermentation, of grape juice. Thus every thing tends to prove that there can be no yayin or wine, properly so called, without fermentation; and that if the name yayin or wine be given to any unfermented liquor, it is a misnomer. If people choose to miscall things so as to suit their own views, they do what they can to render language fluctuating and uncertain. What is now wine may, before tomorrow, become currentjelly or raspberry-jam. But we may rest assured that wine has been wine since the flood to this time, when great efforts are made to transmute it into some kind of syrup or molasses. If a general principle may thus be established by mere assertion, any thing may be proved, however absurd or contrary to fact. The first paragraph of p. 14 begins thus: "Thus much for the first generic word used to designate a liquor, which may intoxicate in one state and will not in another, i. e., a word which is used to designate comprehensively all kinds of grapejuice or vinous liquor." The writer of the pamphlet seems |
