In p. 32, 1. 4, a translation is given of the first of these texts-"the blood of the grape-fermentable liquor-thou didst drink." Further on we learn that tho 'unfermented' it is ‘fermentable'—that “the original word means simply,a grape juice that will ferment, i. e. a juice which has palpable and highly marked qualities." We claim some explanation of the value of qualities merely latent. Fancy a man lifting up a goblet of hhemer to his lips, and ere he drinks it, apostrophizing it thus:-'O excellent wine, all praise to thy delightful property of exciting a pleasing delirium. Thou hast it not I know, but thou mightest have had, if thou hadst been properly treated. I give thee credit for the most perfect readiness to intoxicate me, if cruel fate had not deprived thee of the power. Thou art willing, but weak!' After all, would there be much sense in the speech? Qualities 'palpable' to the stomach, such as those of the wine which 'marked' St. Martin's organ with inflammatory patches, we can understand; but not highly marked' grape juice, unless indeed, the Jews had a peculiar sort which rivaled Meux Reid and Co's treble X, and marked XXXX upon their jars of hhemer! P. 32. We require proof to satisfy us that the terms in Ezra vi. 9; vii. 22; are really the same as in Dan. v. 1, 2, 4, and 23; and to explain the variation of orthography. If indeed they are the same word, they mean the same thing: in which case how shall we reconcile the following! "It would seem probable, however, that the wine drunk by Belshazzar and his court, was of an intoxicating nature. But our object is merely to inquire what was customary and lawful among the Hebrews; and the use of the Chaldee word in the chapter respecting Belshazzar decides nothing certain in regard to that." P. 28-9. In two other passages, the Chaldee hhamar-the same as the Hebrew hhemer is ranked with corn, oil, etc., presented as an oblation to God, and is of course to be regarded as an unfermented liquor." Page 32. But were not both Ezra and Daniel, who had lived at Babylon, alike acquainted with Chaldee? P. 33. II. 10, 31. Our American brethren, who were so slow to apply the generic-theory to yayin and shechar; now mis-apply it to the specific terms! Poor ausis is thus represented as either fermented or unfermented, intoxicating or unintoxicating-tho there is not a single instance on record of its exercise of any evil propensity whatsoever. In the History of this question the Americans began with making nearly all the terms translated 'wine' specific, none general,—they now seem inclined to end by making all generic, and none specific. In p. 45, Prof. Stuart represents Pliny as speaking (in his Nat. Hist. xiv. 2) of "a Spanish wine, not hurtful to strength, since alone it will not intoxicate. " This preludes the introduction of an anecdote of two American Judges meeting with a similar wine when traveling in Spain, about 50 years ago. We should be interested if the Professor could further ascertain the name of the wine, the places where it was made and drank, and the mode of its preparation ? On turning to Pliny it unluckily does not appear that the inerticula he mentions, was a spanish grape. с с The Chemistry and Physiology of Prof. Stuart do not claim an equal measure of that respect to which, as a critic, he is entitled. False preconceptions on these subjects-fallacies entertained by himself and Dr. Nott in common, and refuted a year ago in the Alcoholin-grape-Question-have vitiated his criticisms thröout, and prompted to false constructions in favor of an existing alcoholic tendency in several of the Hebrew wines. In p. 35, a strange indifference is expressed as to the effects of a wine with 16 per centage of alcohol, provided only three waters be added!-arising from a notion (which neither he nor any one else ought to test by trying) that "it could scarcely affect any person in a sound state in any sensible degree. This again arises from another notion exprest in p. 38, viz. that On one important part of this question-that involving the enquiry into the true meaning of tirosh, and its associate term yitzhar—we have purposely refrained from entering. For the last eight years we have had no doubt that the first denotes VINTAGE-FRUIT, and the last ORCHARD-FRUIT; which explains the reason of their frequent junction with dagan, FIELD-FRUIT (or grain in general); thus comprehending, as a triad of natural blessings, the entire fruital and titheable produce of the Hebrews. Professor Stuart, however, deceived by the common translation 'wine,' and feeling the necessity of making some distinction between tirosh and yayin (the allowed 'generic' term for wine), seeks to impart speciality' to tirosh by supposing it to mean 'new wine, or wine in the fresh state'! Seeing, however, that it could not remain 'new,' but would become 'old,' he adds the all intemperance in drinking (explained as the use of a liquid that will intoxicate in any manner or measure) is forbidden by the word of God--which, in turn, is interpreted with a secret reservation as to what intoxication is, and that it would not be produced by a low per centage of alcohol-with much more in the same style, in the face of the following distinct confessions! (1) Alcohol is a poison: (2) Its continued use in small measures has a direct tendency to injure the fine parts of the human frame: (3) It can never be compatible with duty for persons in health so to use alcoholic liquors (4) The taste for them is unnatural or factitious. Nevertheless, p. 39 winds up with denying any effect at all to minute doses of alcohol! tho some effect is allowed to a drop of Fowler's solution of of arsenid! Ten drops of alcohol mixed with water, it seems, have some evil tendency—but a single drop has not any! Whence it follows that the power is not in the alcohol, but in the addition-not in the units joined, but in the joining of them! In other words, 1 is O, but ten of these naughts make 1. Further on, an homeopathic dose is said to 'refresh and strengthen '! These absurdities are attempted to be concealed by an equally absurd comparison-the effects of an acknowleged poison being compared with the effects of bread! The fallacy involved in saying, that "while four pounds of bread would overload the stomach, four ounces would have no such tendency"-needs no answer in Old England. Our argument (both as regards quality and quantity) simply requires that four ounces of bread shall do SOMETHING towards loading and feeding-and if the four ounces did not, we are quite sure that the four pounds could not. Unhappily, Prof. Stuart's illustration overloads his logic.—This verba fallacy serves as a prelude to a chemical one— viz. that alcohol actually exists "in our bread-in all sweet fruits exposed to a warm sun, with the skin broken-as well as in nearly all of the saccharine vegetables, "—so that, if all this were as accurate as it is absurd, the Teetotaler could not possibly escape his spirituous foe, as indeed, in p. 41, Mr. Stuart intimates to be the case! Nay, al-Cohol, or the Demon, (before so powerless) becomes transformed into an Angel of Light,—and so far from injuring our bodily system, serves to refresh and strengthen it'!!! These statements of which the only proof furnisht is the Professor's ipse dixit-may be met with a direct denial. Last year one of the most careful Chemists in England submitted grapes (not only sound, but also decayed and broken grapes) to the test of experiment. The result we publisht; and so satisfied was the Committee of the British Temperance Association of the accuracy of those experiments, that they offered £50 to any one who could demonstrate the contrary! No one, however, has attempted to contest the result arrived at. It is here an establisht FACT, that Nature even in decay declines to give being to alcohol. If Prof. Stuart thinks American or Palestine Nature to be different from ours, would it not be well worth while to reduce the matter to a certainty, rather than reason upon mere supposals with the risk of going wrong? Again, he asks-"Is not alcohol produced in the human stomach from all saccharine nutrition?" If he has been told it is, and believes it, we pity his credulity. (By the way, 'sugar' is not 'nutrition,' but 'fuel.') The Professor backs up his assault upon 'extremes' by two hoary maxims, The Law disregards minims'-'Nothing overdo'-(under-do, would be as true; and cut the other way). All we have to reply is, that whatever help Lawyers and Society may need for their patchwork legislation, the Divine Law is quite independent of all Legal or Latin proverbs: and for our part, we feel bound to obey it, notwithstanding either. attributes-' unfermented'—' well-preserved,' etc. Thus, the attempt to get a definite, fixed meaning, totally fails. Tho the word occurs nearly forty times in the Bible, the Professor fails to extract any distinct individuality out of it-indeed, his definition ends in making it to be the same as the species ausis this day, and the same as the species hhemer the next! Tirosh, in truth, is a generic term (not for 'wine,' for that already exists in yayin, but for 'fruit'); and hence the absence of all individual characterization in the frequent occurrence of the word—a fact which, alone, ought to lead the Professor to suspect the accuracy of an opinion somewhat carelessly assumed. His objections (Note, p. 29, 30) to our position, as regards tirosh and yitzhar, are confined to a hasty reference to three texts as to tirosh, and two as to yitzhar, wherein he has permitted the translation to mislead him as much as it possibly could the most unlearned of his readers. The objections founded on three of these texts had long since been considered: and what chiefly requires to be said further, especially concerning yitzhar, will be found in the subjoined Letter from the Author of Tirosh lo Yayin himself, addressed to Prof. Stuart. We need here make only a few minor remarks. (1.) Mr. Stuart charges the author of Tirosh lo Yayin with having committed an oversight fatal to his theory respecting tirosh, and adds: "That the substance in question is a liquor, is most palpably shown by such passages as the following: Prov. iii. 10; Isa. lxv. 8; Isa. lii. 8." It is the American Professor, however, not the British Author, who has committed the oversight, for had Mr. Stuart more carefully looked into the book he criticises, he would have found that those texts were not overlooked-but, on the contrary, considered as furnishing arguments in favor of the author's theory. (See pages 51-2, 59, 60.; But even on the most superficial view, these three texts, as objections, must diminish to one—and that one will become extremely doubtful. (2.) The phraseology of the translation of Prov. iii. 10-Thy presses shall burst forth with tirosh'-is certainly no proof to us that tirosh was a liquor. Both flames' and 'men' are often said to 'burst forth,' and yet neither of them are 'liquors." Thus (whether the phrase be considered literally or metaphorically) we might, with equal appropriateness, represent the grape-vats (or presses) as 'bursting forth' with the abundance of 'the fruit.' It is strange, indeed, that, in the face of so many other texts clearly establishing tirosh as 'vine-fruit,' this one should be selected as furnishing an objection in the literal sense of the phrase, and by critics too, who, generally, are but over fond of converting plain terms into 'poetry' and 'metaphor.' The Hebrew, however, has still less any essential connection with a liquid. Gesenius had long ago remarked that in this text it simply signifies abundance, as in some 'increase' (of substance), and in others rumour (the 'spreading' of news), etc. "Neither the wine-press nor wine-vat," he adds, can be said to burst from the quantity of wine made, that figure applying only to a cask or wineskin: "—besides, if the vat could burst, the spilling of the wine (or even its 'overflow') would be a loss to deplore, not a largess to desire. (3.) Isaiah lxv. 8—'as the tirosh is found in the cluster'—is more a proof than an objection. Is not the grape-yea, the little grape, the new, tender, and promising grape― found in the cluster? Rightly, therefore, does Lowth render it grape, as others granum, in this text. On the contrary, had wine been intended, it ought to have read 'As the wine is found in THE GRAPE '—which it does not. This passage shows, therefore, not the 'liquid'-ity of tirosh, but of the objection. (4.) One text therefore, and one only remains, whereon to raise even a plausible objection: and that Bishop Lowth had long since disposed of satisfactorily. Instead, therefore, of giving a harsh, unnatural, and varying sense to the majority of the tirosh-texts, we prefer to call in the aid of their unmistakeable sense, and of various readings, in order to harmonize this solitary text with the rest. (5.) Mr. Stuart alleges a similar mistake as to yitzhar: and, in proof of its liquidity, quotes Joel ii. 24; Zec. iv. 14. d A careful perusal of the Letter to Prof. Stuart, will enable the reader to judge on whom the charge of haste, mistake, and oversight justly falls. We observe, however, that even the translation of the first passage-'thy presses shall overflow with yitzhar'-by no means justifies any conclusion against us. Instances are abundant in language, where the word 'overflow-or some corresponding one-is employed in plain literal discourse, without at all implying a liquid. Not to speak of 'overflowing houses' meaning, simply, 'full' or 'crowded houses, '-we will select an illustration which applies to two languages at once. It occurs in one of the books of the celebrated French authoress who writes under the name of George Sand,' and is taken from the 5th volume of the English Translation of her works : : "The enormous heaps of corn and forage, of which the barns were full to OVERFLOWING, burned with the rapidity of thought." Miller of Angibault, chap. xxxiv, We subjoin the original:-"Les énormes amas de céréales et de fourrages, dont regorgeaient les batimens d' EXPLOITATION, flambaient avec la rapidité de pensée."-Brussells Edition, 1845. In 2 Chron. xxxi. 5, 6, tirosh and other produce, are said to be laid in heaps: now, if 'overflowing' caunot transform the 'heaps of corn and forage' named in this passage from the French authoress into beer or buttermilk, how can 'overflowing' in Joel ii. 24, convert the heaps of tirosh and yitzhar' mentioned in Chronicles and other places, into wine and oil? The analogy suggested in the 'Supplement to Tirosh lo Yayin' as existing between the Latin pomum and the Hebrew yitzhar, both seeming to be general terms comprehensive of every fruit except that of the vine, has led one to suppose the not improbable occurrence of a nearly kindred illustration of the main question, arising out of it after this manner. Suppose the case of one of the ancient Fathers of the Church writing in the Latin tongue upon the fall of man. Let him have mentally determined the forbidden tree in the midst of the garden not to have been the vine, tho without being able to decide what was the fruit intended to be prohibited, could he not then, in referring to that event, have very correctly made use of the Latin word pomum? And having done so, would a translator have fairly represented his meaning by rendering his indefinite term by the English 'apple,' however much it might be in conformity with the popular notion? F. R. L. d In Mr. Stuart's 'Scriptural View,' the reference is Zech, ii. 14; of course a misprint for Zech. iv. 14. ( TIROSH NOT WINE YITZHAR' NOT OIL.' To Professor Moses Stuart, Theo. Sem. Andover. OUR Scriptural View' having been recently sent me, and my attention directed especially to the Note at p. 29, wherein you notice my little volume, it was a matter of no slight interest to me to embrace the opportunity of perusing the sentiments of so eminent an Hebraist and Theologian on a subject, which, at one time, much engrossed my own mind. Considering the brevity of my Notes on the texts in Isaiah lxv. 8. and lxii. 8,-a defect supplied at an after period,-your statement of my having overlooked them did not cause any surprize. But I regret much the expression of an opinion from such a quarter, of my having committed an oversight fatal to my whole theory as regards the word tirosh, besides a similar mistake as to the word yitzhar; and the more so as it imposes upon an indolent man the necessity of resuming his pen-a duty which proper deference to your criticism will not permit me to decline. It is impossible for any one acquainted with the history of the Wine Question in England, the occasional frivolity, the more frequent acrimony, the personal recriminations, and the eagerness for victory, sometimes it is feared at the expense of truth, which its discussion has exhibited, -it is impossible, I repeat, for any one so circumstanced to glance thro your pamphlet without experiencing in the perusal of your preliminary observations a feeling of delight at the magnanimous spirit with which you propose to approach it. The respect paid to the talents of others engaged in the dispute-your renegation of the claims to infallibility so commonly asserted by disputants,-nay more, the absence of all vanity of superiority-your acknowledgment of new light received from renewed investigation, and your willingness, amid engrossing occupations, to tread anew paths already beaten, and leave out of view all past expressed opinions, whether of friends or your own-all comm and my warmest admiration. Yet amid all this, it is to be lamented, that certain accessories to such a task,-the possession of greater leisure and an exemption from bodily ailment, so valuable on such an occasion,-should have been temporarily denied you. At the outset you complain, "My slender health and the prospect of the labors before me during our summer term, have obliged me to proceed more slowly than usual in the investigation,"--and in your first Note, "All I can do in my present infirm state I have done," and the mention elsewhere of "the appalling labor of examining the whole development of the matter as it stands in the Scriptures," show distinctly enough the disadvantages under which you have labored, and serve to account for those indications of haste in conclusion and expression apparent at intervals in parts of the pamphlet, which the friends of temperance will most sincerely regret. Prior to my attention having been specifically directed to the Wine Question with a view to its illustration, my mind was powerfully impressed with its involved condition, owing, as it seemed, to the various translations of Hebrew terms rendered wine,' etc., in the authorized version of the Old Testament. It had revolted at the common reading of "The new wine is found in the cluster," in Isaiah lxv. 8, as offensive to a plain understanding. The passage in Ovid, 'Vixque merum capiunt grana quod intus habent. |