MIT SUICIDE as truly as blowing out his brains with a loaded pistol! If this be anything but rant, it of course means, that the doctor's knowlege of the vital necessity of this single and wonderful potion, is as infallible as the evidence of our senses as to the effect of a pistol bullet!-which he had just proved was not the case.

We do not believe, and the experience of teetotal, hydropathic, and homœopathic practitioners shows that we need not believe, the ultra doctrine that alcohol is the only stimulant which can save a life! The wise Creator of Nature, we think with the author of the book of Genesis, made Creation 'very good,' and in providing such an ample variety of substances both for Food and for Physic, could not forget an ESSENTIAL! For our part, therefore, we prefer to ascribe folly to the physician, rather than defect to the Deity. 'God is true, tho every Man be proved a liar.'

Viewing alcohol strictly as a medicinal agent, it is an undoubted fact that little unanimity or certainty has hitherto existed concerning its action. This is strikingly exemplified in the records of a discussion which took place amongst a number of intelligent Physicians in the Metropolis, so lately as Nov. 4th, 1847, after the reading of a paper by H. R. MADDEN, M. D., 'On Stimulating Drinks. The chief results at which Dr. Madden (a favorite pupil of Professor Christison) had arrived, concerning the beverage-use of alcohol, were these:

d

1. "Alcohol is not the natural stimulus to any of our organs, and hence functions performed in consequence of its application, tend to debilitate the organ acted upon.

2. Alcohol is incapable of being assimilated, or converted into any organic proximate principle, and hence cannot be considered nutritious.

3. The strength experienced after the use of alcohol, is not new strength added to the system, but is manifested by calling into exercise the nervous energy pre-existing.

4. Alcohol is capable of affording a supply of animal heat, but in so doing acts injuriously in three distinct ways, viz. :-(1) By its presence in the blood preventing the oxidation of its carbonaceous compounds: (2) By combining with the absorbed oxygen, preventing the normal decomposition of tissue: (3) By affording animal heat without at the same time increasing the amount of available vital force.

5. The daily use of alcohol proves injurious by enabling the stomach to digest more food than is required: whence plethora.

6. The ultimate exhausting effects of alcohol, owing to its stimulant properties, produce an unnatural susceptibilty to morbid action in all the organs, and this, with the plethora superinduced, becomes a fertile source of disease.

7. A person who habitually exerts himself to such an extent as to require the daily use of stimulants to ward off exhaustion, may be compared to a machine working under high pressure. He will become much more obnoxious to the causes of disease, and will certainly break down sooner than he would have done under more favorable circumstances.

8. The more frequently alcohol is had recourse to for the purpose of overcoming feelings of debility, the more it will be required, and by constant repetition a period is at length reached when it cannot be foregone, unless re-action is simultaneously brought about by a temporary total change of the habits of life.

Owing to the above facts, I conclude that the DAILY USE OF STIMULANTS IS INDEFENSIBLE UNDER ANY KNOWN CIRCUMSTANCES."

The Medicinal-use of Alcohol, Dr. Madden allows only under the following circumstances and conditions:

1. “When the nervous energy has been depressed without being exhausted.

2. When digestion is weak in debilitated subjects, especially when the debility arises from loss of humors.

3. When animal heat is necessary to the continuance of life (as in low fevers) and no natural material of respiration can be introduced."

See The British Journal of Homeopathy, vol. vi. p. 29, p. 125 f.

The use of alcohol as medicine, is prohibited by Dr. Madden in the following instances:1. "Alcohol should never be employed, even for temporary relief, in cases where the nervous system is morbidly susceptible, while the bodily strength continues unimpaired. This frequently occurs in what are called, par excellence, 'nervous diseases,' wherein the patient feels unfitted for any exertion, while, in truth, he is capable of considerable effort.

2. Alcohol, as a palliative, should only be used when the circumstances for which it is required are not likely to continue for any length of time, since the continued-use-ofstimulants has been shown to be, in all cases, injurious."

In one of the three cases in which alcoholic medicine is allowed by Dr. Madden to be useful (not therefore necessary ')—viz. as a stimulus to the coats of the stomach in great weakness, he himself admits that cayenne pepper, or similar condiments, will answer the same purpose; and, we may add, without decomposing the gastric juice itself, as alcohol does ín part. He also admits, that in the first case (of nervous depression, without exhaustion), other and more natural stimulants (as new scenes, traveling, the water-cure, mental excitement, etc.) will also answer the same purpose. It follows, then, that, so far as our present knowlege goes, there is only one extreme, and as far as temperance people are concerned, very rare case, in which alcohol, as a therapeutic agent, can be at all justified-viz. the case of its use as a material for keeping up the heat of the body in recovery from low fever, and only while no nourishment can be taken.

Our readers will now be prepared to judge how far the Medical Review is justified in its attack upon those temperance men who have thought proper to repudiate medical infallibility. The reviewer enumerates five distinct cases for the medical-use of alcohol: we, on the other hand, challenge him to establish its necessity in any case, while we limit its justifiable use to the one last named.

A reviewer who is so severe upon the solitary 'suicide' of teetotalism, a stranger to this very strange world would expect to speak out in thunder tones against the wholesale, legalized murders, by means of alcoholic-medicine. Greatly would he be disappointed, however. The gentlest whisper only is uttered against the educated and privileged poisoners: the stern rebuke is reserved for the poor, deceived, reformed one! Out on such uneven balances'! we at least, will not fawn upon the profession; we shall stand up for Nature and Common Sense. The Medical Review says:-

"It is of the utmost importance not to carry the stimulus too far-or the subsequent re-action [as if there could be a prior re-action!] may give us a fearful retribution for OUR incaution."-P. 33.

But do not medical men constantly carry the stimulus too far? Do they display a wise caution once in twenty times, especially with the poor in the hospitals? Unfortunately, however, it is not the us who suffer the fearful retribution,' but the innocent victim of their mal-practice-softly styled 'INCAUTION! If the results of an alleged 'error' of the man who simply refuses alcohol is rightly denounced as 'Suicide,' what shall we denominate 'the fearful' work of giving alcohol so as to induce a deadly aggravation of the disorder? Not 'self murder' certainly-but something worse.

We object, also, to the title of this pamphlet-Temperance and Teetotalism'. If Teetotalism be the right thing, dietetically at least-(as the author says it is)-then it is a branch of Temperance, and we do not see the fitness of the phrase 'A Tree and its Branch'! If the title designs to distinguish between the two-making the use of alcoholic beverage equal to Temperance, and the non-use something beyond-we impeach the distinction as alike pernicious and false.

II. THE BIBLICAL QUESTION.

Scriptural View of the Wine Question, in a Letter to the Rev. Dr. Nott, President of Union College. By MOSES STUART, Professor in the Theological Seminary at Andover Mass.' New-York: Leavitt, Trow, and Co. 1848. pp. 64.

HIS elaborate Letter exhibits its learned writer in a most amiable light: no one can read it without feeling the highest respect for the qualities of charity, candor, and truthfulness which it displays. Our only regret is, that a scholar so admirably adapted to enter into the investigation of the question before him, should not have been enabled to do so with the advantages of sufficient leisure and an adequate acquaintance with the chief works which this enquiry had already occasioned.a

As regards the Temperance Question, the leading principles of the Letter are nearly all we could desire. Professor Stuart rightly contends for the Concordance of the Divine Teachings in the Scriptures with the results of human Experience and Science. The two words of the Hebrew chiefly concerned in this controversy, Yayin and Shechar (translated Wine and Strong-Drink), are shown to be generic,-i. e. terms applicable to various species of Wine and Drink, good or bad, new and old, pure or fermented, neat or mixed, watered or drugged mixtures, etc. BUT IN NO SINGLE INSTANCE WHERE THESE TERMS ARE APPLIED TO A BAD OR FERMENTED LIQUOR, DOES HE FIND THAT GOD HAS SANCTIONED THEIR USE AS A BEVERAGE. He thus states the issue of his enquiry :

:-

"My final conclusion is this; viz, that wherever the Scriptures speak of Wine as a comfort, a blessing, or a libation to God, they mean-they can mean-only such wine as contained no alcohol that could have a mischievous tendency b: that wherever they denounce it, prohibit it, and connect it with drunkenness and revelling, they can mean only alcoholic or intoxicating wine." P. 49.

In perusing this Letter, however, we have seen occasion to question several of the criticisms on minor points, and we beg the learned Professor's renewed attention to them, in the order we have marked them down.

The adoption of the opinion already settled among our own Temperance Writers, as to the generic nature not only of Yayin but of Shechar, indicates an advance of opinion among our American brethren: but the description of shechar is defective, inasmuch as it fails to include an article it would be primarily, and perhaps for long, exclusively applied to— and which it could never exclude―viz. the juice obtained from the tapping of the Palm tree-a meaning not even barely referred to until page 41.

It is unfortunate that when Shechar is declared to be inappropriately rendered by 'strong-drink' (p. 14), Professor Stuart should yet frequently afterwards use the phrase 'strong-drink of Scripture.' In vain will the most superior talent attempt to dissolve the popular association: better forsake the name altogether as having no counterpart in the original.

In p. 16, two errors are committed in the interpretation of Numbers vi. 3: more meaning is discovered in the text than, as we conceive, Moses himself intended; while the correctness of the authorized version seems unjustly impugned. The statement

a We refer particularly to Tirosh lo Yayin and Supplement (1841); articles Drink, Fruit, Wine, etc., in Dr. Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature (1844-5); Burne's Concordance of Science and Scripture (1846); and Mearn's Olive, Vine, and Palm (1847).

b The error involved in the last six words is exploded in the Tract reprinted from the first series of the Truth-Seeker, entitled The Alcohol-in-Grape Question Solved, being a a criticism on some of the views of the venerable President to whom the Professor's Letter is addrest.

that a kind of vinegar (from grapes or palm juice) was as little used as a beverage by the ancient Hebrews as by ourselves, is of no more value than would be the statement that olive-oil is not a common everyday article of diet with the Anglo-saxon race, and therefore was not with the ancient Hebrews.

We adhere to the rendering vinegar of wine,' 'vinegar of shechar,' for it seems to us a false refinement to seek for a fermented liquor distinguished simply by its acidulation; and is neither in harmony with the known results of fermentation in hot climates, nor with the definition of yayin as comprizing all sorts of wine-thus rendering the mention of one particular kind of wine out of several, both superfluous and absurd.

The real difficulty of the passage is not touched, nor shall we open it up here: but the prohibition to the Nazarite, as it appears to us, embraced the following items :-

Yayin, grape wine,

and

1st.

Shechar, palm wine,

2nd.

6

whether freshly expressed, or fermented, pure or drugged, but only while it remained wine. Hhomets yayin, vinegar of wine,' and Hhomets shechar, 'vinegar of shechar,' 3rd. Misrath 'anabhim, 'the liquor of grapes '—i. e. any drink made by the steeping of dried grapes in water, etc.

Either liquors which had passed from wine into vinegar, or had been directly made into vinegar.

4th. The grapes themselves, whether moist or dried.

5th. Anything that cometh (or is made) from the vine-thus comprizing everything else which might keep alive, or excite, any desire for the other forms of the forbidden fruit and liquors; as infusions of the leaves and tendrils, which, in many vines, are richly impregnated with the vinous flavor.

Prov. xx. 1, is noticed (p. 18), but no light is reflected upon it; while a current interpretation of Prov. xxxi. 6 is questioned on very insufficient grounds. The article referred to, the Professor thinks, was not given to criminals about to be executed, because the cup given to such was 'full of mixture,' and was called wine. Shechar, however, as he shows, was also drugged, and is a species of wine-viz. Palm-wine. Compare Numb. xxviii. 7,14; on which texts Mr. Stuart remarks:-- "This shows that the two substances were regarded as being substantially of the same nature or rank. " The reason" Kings would not need a command to abstain from medicated wine"-is better; and inclines us to think that the writer referred to no particular liquor, but to wine in general, as in good states an agent of 'luxury,' and in others of 'intoxication.'

In the comment (p. 27) on Numb. xviii. 12, lit. 'the fat of the new wine,' Mr. Stuart concludes from its connection with 'first fruits,' that there is a recognition of its being new wine.' Certainly no such recognition occurs in the Hebrew, nor indeed in the Translation, unless wine is a convertible term with fruit! That Tirosh ranked amongst the class of fruital produce, however, we have not the slightest doubt: hence one out of many grounds for our position-Tirosh not Yayin.

At p. 29, 1. 3 f., the Professor comes to a contrary conclusion concerning this new wine, 'falsely so called.' He says:- I see nothing to favor the idea that time or age is the main ground of distinction, instead of quality or state"-and at p. 28, he speaks of tirosh as 'well-preserved,' like our 'syrups'-tho, strangely enough, he finishes with the inference (p. 29), that tirosh "unites in itself the compound idea of being recent, and of being in an unfermented condition."

No proofs are furnished of the statements in p. 28, that "teeroash, when well-preserved became a very delicious sweet liquor," and further on, that "it is equally clear that teeroash designates a wine distinct from the older and fermented wine. " They are equally clear'; and we will add, equally proofless. The Professor is writing, unconsciously, under the in

fluence of erroneous preconception, which we respectfully challenge him to bring to the test of a careful, as we are sure it will be a candid examination. The fact is, tirosh is not distinguished by any marks of individuality, but by the absence of all such marks.

Referring to the Classification of minor Terms (p. 30), it is observed: "Such is the nature of some of them, that one is easily led to suppose, that a part of them may have been" included in "the category of strong drink.” This erroneous preconception concerning their nature subsequently occasions the erroneous classification.

What reason is there for supposing (p. 30) that Sobhe is a poetic name' rather than plain prose? The cases where this word occurs only require more steady consideration to show that they do not suppose any connection with intoxication; while the resemblance (both in name and nature) to the Roman Sapa, goes far to establish their identity. The comment (p. 31) on Isaiah i. 22, is sadly confused. The English mixed does not to us 'give the substance of the idea' of circumcision-cut round' (mahool)—nor is 'circumcision' an "exscinding operation which deprives a man of his virility." Ex, in composition, should be used as equivalent to out of-not simply as off-but was the operation supposed to be referred to by Mr. Stuart, tho common amongst some ancient nations, really practised amongst the Jews? Lev. xxi. 20, and Deut. xxiii. 1. (Heb. 2), show that the object of such process was effected amongst them in a different way from exscinding'; besides, such and every real mutilation of the person was unlawful amongst the Hebrews; and therefore we think it unlikely that the Jewish Prophet should make any such indelicate and needless allusion as is supposed. The rite of 'circumcision' is a very different affair: and to this, we think, the Prophet metaphorically refersnot to Pliny's vinum castrare.-Mr. Stuart says that 'the Arabians employ the same [method of] expression in the same way' [he means, in reference to diluted wine]. Which expression? The indecent, or the Jewish one?

He concludes There is nothing here that will lead us to decide whether yayin or shaycawr, or BOTH, is meant '- -a little more carelessness might have added-or NEITHER!

Prof. Stuart affirms (p. 31), that the sobhe texts "leave us unable to decide whether it includes any liquors that intoxicate;" yet on Isa. i. 22, he says, very positively, “the liquor here in question, in its original state, was lively and sparkling." If so, then we affirm, on chemical grounds, that it must have been alcoholic, like champagne: but we ask the Professor, what text he can cite as authority for ascribing bubbles and effervescence to the sobhe? The notion is itself a 'bubble,' and will burst when it is touched. The idea of dilution applies much better to a sapa, or 'boiled wine,' which (as represented in Hos. iv. 18) was also liable to 'turn' sour. Because it turns acid, however, Mr. Stuart seems to fancy it must first and purposely have undergone the vinous fermentation: but this is a mistake of chemical and common facts. Syrups often turn sour,' if badly pre

pared or preserved-still syrup does not signify an 'intoxicating liquor.'

Both texts, observes Mr. Stuart, "merely present the idea of deterioration, and are not employed to designate the common usages of men as to drinking." Here too we differ: for to us both texts seem to allude to common and ordinary (not 'usages,' but) events and circumstances.

Hhemer is oddly said (p. 31) to be used with somewhat more frequency' than sobhe, when in fact the word occurs but twice in any Bible! and should occur but once-for in Isa. xxvii. 22, some transcriber has clearly substituted (r) for ▼ (d), thus making it read hhemer instead of hhemed. The Professor adds-'it is not confined to poetry'!—— a still more curious notion than that of sobhe being a poetical term'; for, of the two texts in question, the first (Deut. xxxii. 14) certainly is poetry, and printed as such in our Hebrew Bible, while the second (Isaiah xxvii. 22) forms part of a Song—a composition which, now-a-days at least, one never meets with in prose.