Now! Then! 2024! - Yorkshire On This Day

Excerpt

The Rev Francis Beardsall has published a pamphlet, in which he exhibits himself as the vender of an unfermented wine for religious purposes, which, he says, is better for keeping. Why, I was lately with a friend in Lancashire, and he told me he had got three bottles of Mr Beardsall’s stuff, and that one night, when they were sitting quietly in the house, off went one of the bottles like a pistol [i.e. it was alcoholic]. Another of the bottles was covered with a thick mildew, and they thought they would be poisoned. After a while, they tried the third, and he then pronounced it the nastiest stuff he had ever tasted. If any of you should think proper to drink much of that sort of wine, you will do well to be prepared with the requisite medicine for diarrhoea.

Comment

Comment

Bromley seems to have been stationed at Rotherham at the time.

I haven’t read Priestly despotism rampant, (Martin 1853), but Bromley seems to have been suspended or expelled from Wesleyan Conference for extremism a dozen years later, so he his views and methods may already have been unconventional.

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

ROTHERHAM DISCUSSION.

[1840.]

THIS discussion took place on Tuesday, the 25th of August, 1840, in the Court-house, Rotherham. The history of the controversy is as follows:-The Rev. JAMES BROMLEY, Wesleyan, was reported to have uttered some very strong charges against the Temperance Society, not only in private company, but from the pulpit-such, for example, as that it was a Religious hoax! These circumstances coming to the ears of the Teetotalers, a deputation waited upon Mr Bromley, to ascertain whether he would attempt to justify those views in public. He expressed his willingness, and the preliminaries were drawn up by himself. The Committee endeavored to obtain some definite proposition for debate, but he would consent to no alterations of the conditions, to which finally the Committee agreed rather than give occasion for the opponent to escape.

CONDITIONS,

“1. That admission to the meeting shall be by ticket, gratuitously distributed, no fee or emolument taken at the door or otherwise.
2. That the chairman shall be a person approved-of by both parties.
3. That the customary expressions of popular feeling, approbatory or the reverse, such as clapping, stamping, hissing, etc., shall be disallowed.
4. That J. Bromley shall be allowed to extend his observations uninterrupted for one hour and a half; the rest of the time to be at the discretion of the opposite party.
5. That should J.Bromley propose a rejoinder, a second meeting shall be held for that purpose, which meeting shall be regulated by the above preliminaries.”

Six hundred tickets were printed, and half of them offered to Mr Bromley. He at first declined their acceptance, but finding the subject was exciting great interest, he eventually accepted of 150. During the day great numbers of strangers arrived in the town, by the railway and other conveyances, from Doncaster, Barnsley, Wakefield, Leeds, Huddersfield, etc., and long before the time appointed for the doors being open-half-past 5 o’clock-a dense crowd had assembled at the door, anxious to obtain the best seats. The doors being at length opened, the Town Hall was completely crammed in a few minutes. The Chairman appointed for the occasion was JOHN OXLEY, Esq., who took the chair as soon as he entered the room. On the Magistrates’ bench were several influential gentlemen of the neighborhood, and a number of ladies. On the right of the Chairman sat the Rev. JAMES BROMLEY, and on his left Mr FREDERIC R. LEES, of Leeds, Secretary of the British Temperance Association, and Editor of the British Temperance Advocate, the gentleman selected as the champion of Abstinence. He was attended by the Rev. W. H. STOWELL, President of the Independent College, Mr JOHN GUEST, and other friends.
The CHAIRMAN rose at a quarter to six, and said that it would not become him to detain the meeting with any observations; and he should therefore proceed at once to read the rules according to which this contest was to be governed. Having done so, he called upon the first speaker.
The Rev. JAMES BROMLEY said-However I and my honorable opponent may differ in opinion on some points connected with the question of Abstinence, we are agreed on one or two particulars; we are one, feelingly and sincerely one, in deep and unaffected sorrow at the general prevalence over the face of this fair island of the odious and horrible vice of intoxication; and I also think we are united in the earnest wish that some plan could be adopted, some effectual measure found out, for the remedy of this dreadful evil. To those advocates of Abstinence who have of late figured so conspicuously as the adversaries of drunkenness, and who are the advocates of but-yesterday, I would unhesitatingly avow, that for thirty years, in private and in public, by precept and example, by prayer and instruction, I have been the decided and uniform opponent of the dreadful vice of intoxication. But I conceive it is possible to oppose the vice of intemperance in an intemperate manner,-in an improper and unlawful, an anti-christian and a dangerous way. I think it is so opposed; and, therefore, I have undertaken to express my sentiments in this public manner. Some months ago a highly-gifted advocate of the Teetotal cause waited upon me, and wished I would become an ally of his, and attach myself to the cause in which he was so earnestly embarked. I made some objections which arose from my views of the Old and New Testaments; and that gentleman did say to me, that the advocates of Total Abstinence, in the career of philanthropy they were following, did not trouble themselves with any Ancient-history whatever.[Original fn: See Works, vol. iii. and vol. iv, for History of Ancient Teetotalism.] Now I, for thirty-five years, have troubled myself with that Ancient-history; I have endeavored to make it the rule of my life, the ground of my principles, the foundation of my hope. I have imitated the conduct of a distinguished prelate, who, when installed in the theological chair at Oxford, took a copy of the Greek Testament, and said—“This is the ground of my RELIGION; whatever is not according to this, is not of God.” If I succeed now in showing that the principles and institutions of the Total Abstinence Association are incompatible with the facts and precepts, the allowances and the spirit, of that great book, I shall be authorized to call upon you to be careful how you connect yourselves with such a yesterday-thing as this institution, presenting, as it does, an aspect so that one is staggered at first with its wonderful and absurd principles. If I fail in this,—if I fail in proving that the principles of the institution are not in harmony with that old history, and if my learned opponent should succeed in proving the contrary, and that their principles are in harmony with the Scriptures, then you will do well to scout the insolence which undertook, in this public manner, to oppose the institution.[Original fn: We do not deem a man insolent for the modest and tolerant expression of his opinions, however mistaken.]

I. I quarrel with the pledge at the very outset, as one to which no Christian, no person who values the high and superlative respect due to our evangelical religion and its institutes, ought to think of subscribing. “I do voluntarily promise to abstain entirely from all intoxicating liquors, whether distilled or fermented, except as medicine, or in a religious ordinance.” Or—in a religious ordinance! Why do you thus abstain from wine, for example? Why, say the totalers, because wine, as an alcoholic liquor, is a noxious, deleterious, poisonous, deadly article. Now I put it to those who have attended teetotal meetings, whether this is not the kind of accumulated epithetism used in reference to wine. In a manual of the Temperance Society, it is stated that all intoxicating drinks are not only useless, but injurious! I have here also some numbers of the Temperance Advocate, and one of them says, that it seems to be too late in the day to ask, Is alcohol a poison? But still there is an exception in the pledge, as regards medicines and religious ordinances. So it is come to this, is it, that an acknowledged and powerful poison, which is not fit for any gentleman’s table, is yet good enough for the table of our Lord? It is a very exquisite compliment paid to the most solemn rite of the church of the living God; and I put it to you whether it is not a dreadful insult to that most solemn rite. This privilege either goes too far, or not far enough.
2. I object to the pledge, because its principles are a direct reflection upon the goodness and wisdom of the Mosaic aconomy.-The Hebrew word yayin is translated in the Septuagint oinos, in the Latin vinum, and in most of the modern European languages by the word ‘wine’: and, with a slight shade of difference in the pronunciation, this word occurs 142 times. I now, at the risk of temerity, or of being considered by my opponent so bold as to be easily brought down, unhesitatingly aver, that yayin uniformly and everywhere in the Bible denotes a fermented and intoxicating liquor. You will remember, that “Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard, and drank of the yayin (wine), and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.” This is the first time yayin occurs in the Scriptures. The author of Anti-Bacchus tells us, that this wine was the juice of the grape unfermented, but that Ham, the son of Noah, had drugged it. Oh, that is capital! The second case where yayin means intoxicating liquor is that of Nabal, whose “heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken;” and we are told that it was in consequence of the wine he had taken. If any other proof were wanting, I might refer to the case of Hannah, who, when speaking in an undertone in prayer, found such acceptance with her God, while the high priest in attendance, thinking she was drunken, said, “How long wilt thou be drunken; put away thy wine from thee” (1 Sam. i. 14). I cite one passage more. “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions? Who hath babbling? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the yayin;” that is, the wine-enough to satisfy you that this term does denote intoxicating, and consequently fermented, liquor.
Wine is appointed under the authority of the Most High in the religious services of the Mosaic dispensation. For example, Melchizedec presented Abram with bread and wine; and when Hannah went to the tabernacle to present her child, she took with her three bullocks, some flour, and a skinful of wine.[Original fn: * Vide I Sam. i. 13-15. Hannah had not even drunk of wine or strong drink. See v. 24. The term translated a ‘bottle,’ which Mr Bromley renders a ‘skinful,’ is the Hebrew word NEBEL-an earthen pitcher! Vide its translation in Isa. xxx. 14, Lam. iv. 2. Mr Bromley has confounded this word with another in the 20th verse of the 16th chapter, NODH, a skin bottle. Vide Ps. cxix. 83.] Who has not read that beautiful passage in the 104th Psalm-” He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man; that he may bring forth food out of the earth; and wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine.” Permit me here to trouble you with a comment by the learned Dr Adam Clarke:-“Wine, in moderate quantity, has a tendency to revive and invigorate the human being; ardent spirits exhilarate, but they exhaust the strength; wine, on the contrary, exhilarates and invigorates; it makes him cheerful, and provides for a continuance of that cheerfulness by strengthening the muscles and bracing the nerves. This is its use. Those who continue drinking till wine inflames them, abuse this mercy of heaven.” Now my learned opponent will tell you that there were two sorts of wine among the ancient Jews; one fermented and intoxicating, and the other not So. And he will tell you, that the latter was used in the ritual of the Mosaic œconomy. I dare say he will quote the passage of Dr Clarke, relating to Genesis xl. II, about Pharaoh’s butler; and he will tell you that the wine of the ancients was pressed from the grapes into the cup, and consequently unfermented. Now I will just put this question does the word yayin occur in that passage? The word ‘wine’ is not used in that passage at all. However, supposing for argument’s sake, that there were two kinds of wine, I don’t hesitate to say, that it was the intoxicating wine which was exhibited as the blessing. In proof, I beg attention to the benediction of Jacob, respecting his son Judah:-“He washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes. His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.” I again, therefore, call upon you to be careful how you put your hands to the pledge, which in its form, tendency, and bearing, goes to pronounce such an article as a curse rather than a blessing, and to pronounce it as poisonous, deleterious, and injurious.
3. The pledge is a gross disrespect to the first miracle of the Son of God. -I will not join the Abstinence Society; but I should like to see established, and would join, an Anti-Absurd ASSOCIATION, which I think is very greatly needed, if we may judge from the principles and conduct of certain members of the teetotal body. The first miracle of our Saviour was the turning of water into wine. Now the only point in debate is, whether this wine was, or was not, an intoxicating beverage. I put it to any one who has the slightest attainment in the learned languages, whether the Greek word oinos does not always denote a beverage which, when taken in excess, will most certainly intoxicate? That this was the case, the following passages will certify: -“Drink no longer water, but use a little wine, oinos, for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities.” Why a little, except that much would intoxicate? A Christian bishop must not be given to wine; and why not? Because, if he were, it would make him drunk. 66 ‘Be not drunk with wine, oinos, wherein is excess. “No man putteth new wine into old bottles, else the new-wine will burst the bottles, and the wine be spilled; but new-wine must be put into new bottles, and both are preserved.’ “No man having drunk old wine, straightway desireth new, for he saith, the old is better.” Now it is well known, that the bottles referred-to by these figurative passages, were made of skins or leather; and it is also known, that wine properly fermented, the longer it is kept, the better it is, while the longer they keep the unfermented wine, the worst it becomes. The Rev. F. Beardsall has published a pamphlet, in which he exhibits himself as the vender of an unfermented-wine for religious purposes, which, he says, is better for keeping. Why, I was lately with a friend in Lancashire, and he told me he had got three bottles of Mr Beardsall’s stuff; and that one night, when they were sitting quietly in the house, off went one of the bottles like a pistol: another of the bottles was covered with a thick mildew, and they thought they would be poisoned; after a while, they tried the third, and he then pronounced it the nastiest stuff he had ever tasted.[Original fn: Mr Beardsall’s early experiments in preserving wine were naturally imperfect. Mr Delavan’s unfermented Italian wine kept well after being carried with him in travelling above 2,000 miles. We have now (1858) a portion of Italian vino cotto, totally unchanged after being preserved 20 years. In champagne manufactories bottles often burst.] However, I have heard two objections to this account. The first is, that the wine could not be fermented, because it was miraculously produced![Original fn: In the light of forty-six years later knowledge, this remark looks very curious. Fermentation, we now know, consists in the action of innumerable yeast plants upon sugar. They eat up and dissolve the sugar. Did our Lord then create in the water these fungi? If not, then there was no fermentative process. For our part, we conceive that the identity of wine is not in the origin but in the nature and qualities of the thing.] Now this is capital; and the objection has only one principle on which it can stand—that ‘wine’ does not mean wine! The second objection is, the old deistical one revived,—namely, that Christ would not have made intoxicating wine for those who had well-drunk already.[Original fn: The deistical objection is not, that Christ would not have made more intoxicating wine for those who had well-drunk, but exactly the reverse-that he did so. Hence the position of the teetotalers is a denial of the old deistical objection.] Is it not stated expressly, “They have no wine?” The miracle was wrought to supply the deficiency. Again, “Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine, and when men have well-drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.’ But suppose this wine resembled Mr Beardsall’s liquor-sweet, thick, syrupy, treacle-like stuff. According to his own showing, the guests had well-drunk of it; and if Christ had given them more, he must have made himself the patron of gluttony, whether of drunkenness or not. If any of you should think proper to drink much of that sort of wine, you will do well to be prepared with the requisite medicine for diarrhoea.[Original fn: Exactly: ought not to be taken immoderately. Hence the Apostle says, in reference to such wine, which is so delicious as almost to tempt to excess:-” Be not given to much wine.” Solomon, in like manner says, “much honey is not good.’]
4. The pledge casts a direct reflection on the conduct of our Saviour in having made wine; but still more so upon His moral conduct for having drank it. “John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, he hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber.” Now it is known to every student of Scripture that John was a Nazirite, and therefore must abstain from the yayin of the Hebrews; it is also known that the advocates of abstinence exhibit the Nazirites as examples of the strength of Samson. They ought also to tell you, that as they wish you to be Nazirites in this particular, you would do well to let no razor come near your face or head. The passage I have quoted is a beautiful antithetical sentence, in which the Saviour puts His own conduct in contrast with that of John.
5. The pledge is a reflection upon Paul the Apostle, who says to Timothy, “Drink no longer water, but take a little wine,” etc. Now it seems Timothy was a private Water-drinker, as I was myself for several years, and during those several years, I seldom knew what a well-digested dinner was. Paul advised Timothy to take a little wine -not much. ‘Oh,’ says the author of Anti-Bacchus, it was to be taken medicinally.’ Now I think not; I think it was to be taken dietetically, because it was to be taken where water was taken before; and who would say that Timothy had been taking water as a medicine? He had been drinking water too long; and was desired not to go on drinking the beverage of oxen and asses, but to play the man, and drink a little wine when he could get it. But Methodist preachers can’t always get it.
6. (The speaker here quoted a long opinion of Dr Macknight, to the effect that the ancient abstainers [original fn: Some were, and some were not. See ‘Epidemic Whims’ in these ‘Works,’ vol. v.] were ‘superstitious.’) St Paul, in another place, cautions bishops, deacons, and also women, that they be not given to wine. Caution intimates danger; and these cautions of the Apostle prove that the beverage against which he cautioned them was intoxicating.[Original fn: Yet Mr Bromley had himself, just before, cautioned us not to be given to much of Mr Beardsall’s unintoxicating ‘thick, syrupy, treaclelike stuff.’]
7. In conclusion, I object to the pledge because it reflects upon the sacred rite of the Christian Eucharist. That our Saviour, when he took the cup in hand, did not call the beverage oinos, I am aware; nor sakar; nor any other term in Hebrew or Greek, implying fermented liquor; but he expressed it by the term ‘the fruit of the vine,’ a sort of Hebraism, as the fruit of the lips denotes praise. Dr Adam Clarke says (in Essay on the Eucharist):
“It will be of considerable consequence to ascertain what this cup contained. Wine is not specially mentioned, but what is tantamount to it, viz. what our Lord terms the ‘offspring’ or produce of the vine. Though this was the true and proper wine, yet it was widely different from the medicated and sophisticated beverage which goes under that name. The yayin of the Hebrews, the oinos of the Greeks, and the vinum of the ancient Romans, meant simply the expressed juice of the grape, sometimes drank immediately after it was expressed while its natural sweetness remained, and then termed mustum; at other times, after fermentation, which process rendered it fit for keeping without getting unhealthful, then called oinos and vinum. By the ancient Hebrews, I believe, it was chiefly drank in its first or simple state; hence it was termed among them peree haggephen, ‘the fruit of the vine,’ and by our Lord in the Syriac, his vernacular language, the young or son of the vine. In ancient times, when only a small portion was wanted for immediate use, the juice was pressed by the hand out of a bunch of grapes, and immediately drank. After this manner, Pharaoh’s butler was accustomed to squeeze out wine into the royal cup, as is evident from Gen. xl. II.”

It is reported, that a Jew dare not drink fermented liquor in the observance of the Passover. I think this is a mistake; and in order to set myself right, I wrote to a friend, to get me the particulars from some respectable Jew. [The speaker read the letter in reply, to the effect that the wine used at the Passover must be made of fruit only, and though a light wine, would certainly intoxicate, if taken to excess. They were also allowed to take shrub, but no liquor made from grain.] The individual who wrote this, is a member of the illustrious house of Rothschild, and who may safely be depended upon for the truth of his statements. Believing, as I do, that the wine in the cup of our Saviour was fermented liquor, I cannot hear without sentiments of horror and dismay, that the same is considered a noxious poison-the cup of devils. I cannot hear without alarm that the wine used in commemorating the death of the Saviour, by Wesley, and Fletcher, and Whitefield, and Watts, and Baxter, and Tillotson, and Latimer, and Cranmer, and Ridley, and so many good pious Christians, is now to be cursed as poison, and is the cup of devils! It excites my deepest anxiety and alarm, that a Christian minister is now actually importing into this country, and supplying to different churches, an artificial unfermented Must, in the place of what I believe to have been the beverage in the cup of the Son of God.

The CHAIRMAN, after a lapse of about ten minutes, to afford opportunity to light up the room, and to give a little breathing time to the heated and crowded audience, then introduced the next speaker, who addressed the meeting for nearly two hours and a half; but owing to his very rapid utterance, only an imperfect report of his speech can be presented.

Mr F. R. LEES said-You are aware of the unequal circumstances under which I address you. I have come here without study or preparation, not having been permitted to know even the line of argument, much less the specific objections, which my opponent would adopt on this occasion. It is, therefore, a species of bushfighting in which I am engaged with my courteous antagonist. I was exposed to an hidden fire, and knew not from what quarter the attack would come. I might fairly have demanded that we should have been apprized of the specific objections of our opponents, as they were acquainted with the published

principles of our body. However, though laboring under these disadvantages-being previously ignorant of the propositions which my reverend opponent, after the labour and preparation of months, has now attempted to establish–I feel no want of confidence in upholding, in all their truth and purity, the principles of that party whose humble advocate I am; and I trust that, before the conclusion of this meeting, I shall have given for my esteemed brethren reasons for the faith that is in them, and reasons, too, which shall find a way to the understanding and the heart of every individual before me.

It is with great pleasure I refer to the points of agreement with my reverend opponent. I lament with him, that the vice of intoxication is so great an evil, and must avow the same strong desire for its suppression. I admit, that in opposing a crime even so dark and debasing as intemperance, we may employ improper, unlawful, and antichristian means. The only question is, whether Abstinence be such an improper, unlawful, and anti-christian system? I think not; and I am prepared to show that it is not only lawful and Christian, but that it is the only adequate and rational remedy ever devised for the evil. However, I must not digress. I am here merely as a Defendant, and must take the counts of the plaintiff, one by one, as they are presented, until I have shown them to be valid or invalid, as the judgment of my audience may determine. Permit me to say, however, that I have numerous sources of evidence by which to establish our positions, independent of replying to Mr Bromley’s charges; and since he has not thought proper to impeach the validity of that evidence, otherwise than by alleging its opposition. to the Bible, I may fairly assume that it is considered in itself as valid, or at least directly unassailable. Now, it is a principle with me, that every subject of inquiry, whether in the department of physical or moral science, ought to be pursued upon its own evidence, or tried upon

its own merits. It is on this principle we act in the ordinary affairs of life-we try everything by its special and appropriate evidence-chemistry by its proper testsScripture we leave to theologians-and medicine, a matter involving life or death, in the hands of those who best understand it, to be governed by their direction, without question or appeal;-so, in like manner, I have a right to demand that all extraneous discussion be put aside. The question is a physical one, not a Religion; and can therefore be fully settled by physical evidence and physical experiment.

I freely confess to the first charge, that Teetotalers assign as a reason for their conduct, that alcoholic liquors, under whatever name known,―ale, wine, or spirits, fermented or distilled,—are poison, or contain poison. This assertion, shocking as it seems to be considered, we believe to be strictly true, and capable of being supported by the plainest and strongest evidence. In the first place, we refer for its support to the practical experience of the Teetotalers: not to scores, but to hundreds-not to hundreds, but to thousands and tens of thousands,—nay, I may now say, millions; and this vast array, embracing both sexes, men and women of all ages, habits, constitutions, and employments; the young and the old, the weak and the strong, the healthy and the diseased, the sedentary and the laborious, the peer and the peasant, the rich and the poor, the moderate and the intemperate; and though there are here and there exceptions, ‘few and far between,’ there is altogether a most singular uniformity in the testimony before us-and that testimony is, from almost all, that they are as well without intoxicating drinks as ever they were with them,that they can perform all the duties and engagements of life with the same ease and skill as before they agreed to abstain, thus showing that these drinks are not generally necessary; while eight out of ten can go further, and are ready to attest, that they are not only as well, but better

without than with them, and therefore worse with than without them! Here, then, ‘is a cloud of witnesses,’ broad and dense enough to convince the most sceptical-the testimony of millions of our fellow creatures, in a matter of their own daily experience, about which there can be no mistake-demonstrating our fundamental principle, that the drinking of alcoholic beverages is not only useless, but pernicious. I therefore presume, and I believe the presumption cannot be gainsayed, that there has been a greater and more conclusive experiment made with respect to the pernicious character of alcoholic drinks,—that there has been a wider and broader induction of facts bearing on this point, than can be brought by the most eminent of the medical profession in support of those principles of dietetics or medicine upon which, as the result of the most extensive practice, they are accustomed to place the greatest reliance, and to view as most certainly established. I make my appeal to Common-sense, and I think every man, exercising this first gift of the Creator, will agree with me, that what has been tested by Experience, being the offspring of serious judgment upon the evidence of our own senses, and the facts of our own consciousness, and which is thus proved to be true, cannot, by any other source of evidence, be shown to be false. To deny this, would be to destroy the authority of evidence itself, and to open an inlet for boundless infidelity and scepticism. What is it that supports the miracles of our Saviour, if we are to doubt the evidence of those who beheld them? What is it which tells us there is a spirit which operates upon our hearts, save human consciousness? Doubt this evidence, and you remove the strongest testimony to the facts of conversion and the operation of the Holy Spirit. This blessed book, the Bible, is supported by similar evidence; and therefore it is, that I warn my opponent against the plan he is pursuing, and entreat him to consider the subject again and again, before the authority of the Bible is placed in peril. The

evidence of Abstinence is clear, undeniable, and powerfulit combines the evidence of the senses, the evidence of our own feelings, the evidence of physical experiment,—and it would be as impossible for me to doubt such evidence, or to stop short of the conclusion, as to doubt my own existence, to rob myself of reason, or subvert the laws and structure of the intellect itself! Yet there are those who ought to know, and who do know better, who ignore this array of evidence -not because they have shown our testimony to be worthless, or the experiments erroneous, for this they cannot do -but because it agrees not with some short-sighted interpretation of their own, as to ancient customs and obsolete languages. Such individuals invert the ordinary processes of human reasoning, and instead of interpreting the obscure by the clear, they interpret what is clear by what is dark!

Another species of evidence is that of Chemistry. This contradicts the popular notion that we are rejecting a ‘good creature of God.’ It tells us, that as alcohol existed not at the creation of the world, so it can discover no trace of its existence, either in the animal or the vegetable kingdom of Life now.

Then we have Physiology. There are the curious experiments of Dr Beaumont, of America, upon a person who had an orifice in his side, and which showed, by ocular demonstration, that alcohol was a poison, for it invariably, and in any quantity, acted as a poison. He had watched its effects upon the interior of his patient’s stomach, and found that it always impeded digestion. Wherever it came. in contact with the fine organs of the stomach, it irritated and inflamed them; and produced symptoms of artificial fever throughout the frame.

We have, too, the highest Testimony on our side. No one who understands anything of chemistry or medicine ever dreams of denying the position that alcohol is a poison-a positive and deadly poison. However the proposition may startle my reverend antagonist, it nevertheless is a settled

axiom in medical science. Whoever doubts it? I hold in my hand a work which has gained the prize of a gold medal from the Medical Society of Edinburgh; I need call your attention only to the title of the book, in order to show you that the fundamental principle of teetotalism is a matter of course in medical science. ‘An Experimental Inquiry con’cerning the presence of Alcohol in the ventricles of the ‘brain after POISONING by that liquid; together with experi’ments illustrative of the physiological action of Alcohol: by ‘John Percy, M.D. 1839.’ A fact established by those experiments is, that alcohol goes into the body as alcohol, circulates in the system as alcohol, disturbing the healthy functions of organic life, and, after some part is chemically burnt-up, the rest is finally expelled as alcohol. Another fact is revealed, and it is truly appalling-that alcohol has a peculiar affinity for the human brain! It was found, on examination, that there is a greater proportion of alcohol deposited in the drunkard’s brain than in any other part. And what is the brain? The seat of nervous power, and the organ of the mind. Here, then, we have the terrible secret of the power of alcohol revealed-here we see why alcohol should not only destroy the body, but, beyond opium or any other poison, disturb the reason and pollute the soul.

My opponent has not dared to touch upon this ground, because it shows that he felt how difficult it would be to upset facts. As well might he attempt, like the inquisitors of old, to suppress the physical truths promulgated by Galilei, because those truths opposed, not the Bible, but some false and favorite theory by which they interpreted the Bibleas well might he try to arrest our earth as it wheels its course around the sun, or make the steadfast sun move round our planet, by an appeal to the words of Joshua-as try to overturn the evidence of the truths, and the consciousness of the benefits, of Teetotalism, by a similar appeal! I repeat, we must try everything upon its own merits-test it by its own evidence and under this impression it is that

I enter this discussion. Were the issue of the inquiry to prove as adverse as my opponent so confidently anticipates -were I perfectly convinced that the Bible, properly interpreted, was altogether opposed to our principles-I should regret it, extremely regret it, but I should not the less be a Teetotaler. Either the Bible is true, and only apparently contradicts physical facts owing to our erring method of interpretation; or the Bible does really contradict the strongest kind of human evidence, and is therefore false. I do not anticipate being reduced to either alternative. I have not the slightest fear that the Word of God will be found in opposition to the Works of God. So far from agreeing that anything contained in the Holy Scriptures is contrary to our principles, either apparently or really, I believe they are in the most perfect harmony. Let it be borne in mind, however, that the evidence of the divine authority of the Bible may be very clear, and the evidence for any particular interpretation very doubtful. The evidence depends upon facts, the interpretation of the doctrine upon man’s erring judgment. Facts may oppose some particular theory of interpretation; but, if the Bible be true, as we believe it is, this opposition will only disprove the correctness of the interpretation.

1. My opponent quarrels with the Pledge at the very outset. It is harsh language to say that no one who values evangelical religion ought to sign our pledge! And why not? Because we except wine as medicine and in a religious ordinance! First as to medicine. It is a fundamental principle in medical science, that an ordinary, beverage in health, from the very circumstance that it is such, cannot be good as a remedy for disease. Disease is an extraordinary condition, for which extraordinary agents must be used. Hence, in order to make such agents useful as medicines, we must exclude them as beverages.—Then as to religious ordinances. Mr Bromley says ” So then, an acknowledged poison, not good enough for a gentleman’s table, is good

enough for the table of our Lord!” God forbid! I think it is not good enough, and therefore I would use the pure juice of the grape, ‘the fruit of the vine,’ in which the Eucharist was originally instituted. There is no quarrel here, for I fully coincide, that alcoholic wine, if not fit for me, is not good enough for the Lord’s table. But my opponent argues as if the pledge made it imperative to use the forbidden beverage on that occasion. No such thing; the pledge does not bind you; it says what you may do, not what you ought. It is an agreement to abstain from intoxicating drink within a given limit; beyond that point we do not interfere; and the reservation leaves the custom beyond that limit just where it was. I do not think the privilege goes too far; but, in my opinion, the existing practice does not go far enough. We leave the individual, in that case, to abstain from it or not, according to his own judg ment and the interpretation of the passage he choses to follow. Satisfied to secure the union of all in its abandonment as a beverage, since from its use as a beverage drunkenness principally arises, we do not seek to force opinion on the subordinate points. The exception, in fact, does not, as yet, express any uniform sentiment of the Teetotalers, but is a privilege reserved for the accommodation of such scrupulous individuals as my reverend opponent, until science and criticism convince them that the existing practice is incorrect.

2. The second great objection to our system is, that it is a direct insult to the Mosaic oeconomy! If not observing the requirements of that economy be an insult to it, then we do insult it. Surely, as Christians, we differ from it, and I trust are now prepared to tread down beneath our feet that fanaticism which would bind us to the observance of its ordinances, and, casting off its galling yoke, stand emancipated by the gospel of Jesus Christ, the King of Liberty! God forbid we should continue to observe all the laws and allowances of the Mosaic œconomy! Are we again to

revive the days when witches were burnt, and exhibit the spectacle of a Christian nation stoning criminals to death? No! That œconomy was dissolved when the substance of which its ceremonies were the shadow had arrived; it waxed old as a garment, and a new and better covenant was established.

Mr Bromley tells us that yayin, wine,’ uniformly and everywhere in the Bible means an intoxicating liquor. For proof, he refers in the first instance to the case of Noah. We admit, then, for the sake of argument, that that was alcoholic wine. What then? There is not the shadow of approbation connected with its use. On the contrary, we ought to take warning from the circumstance. Whether the wine he took were alcoholic or drugged, we ought equally to take warning; and the circumstances in which such wine has so frequently proved fatal to prophets, patriarchs, priests, and kings, are expressly recorded and held up to our view, in order that we may avoid the danger and the shame. A useful and impressive lesson is thus afforded to us, because where holier men than we have not withal been able to surmount temptation,-God forbid that we should depend on what was not efficient to preserve them. To the self-sufficient or to him who depends on securing the end without adopting the means—I would say, “He who thinketh that he stands, take heed lest he fall.”

In the case of Nabal, also, the wine drank was of an intoxicating nature; but there is no approbation connected with the circumstance. Mr Bromley, surely, does not dispute that there were such things as drugged liquor referred to in the Bible? What was the character of that given to our Saviour, mixed with myrrh, or some strong opiate, and which he refused? What was the nature of that referred to by Solomon? “Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy heart. Let him drink and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more.”—(Prov. xxxi.) It was drugged wine: at

least, so say the learned; so says Bishop Lowth, and his opinion is corroborated by Mr Bromley’s own ‘learned and celebrated’ Dr Adam Clarke. It was the stupifying potion administered to the criminal on his passage to the tomb. What would you say to quoting that passage, and that custom, as an authority for the daily-use of intoxicating wine? In his hour of suffering on the cross, our Saviour took the vinegar-of-wine which was cooling; but that which was mixed and drugged he rejected. Mr Bromley has gained nothing by such passages as he has quoted; and I merely refer to these other to show, that we are justified by the Scriptures themselves, in asserting that there were drugged wines in use among the Jews. I may therefore ask, how does Mr Bromley know, any more than we do not know, that the wine which made Noah drunk was an alcoholic and not a drugged wine? If there is nothing recorded on our side, there is certainly as little on his.

Mr Bromley has staked all his credit, as a man of learning, upon the proof that yayin uniformly means intoxicating wine. Alas! he leans upon a broken reed, as I shall presently show him. He has quoted one passage where wine is spoken of with approbation:-“He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man; that he may bring forth food out of the earth; (even) wine that maketh glad the heart of man, oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man’s heart.”—(Ps. civ. 14, 15.) Mr Bromley is ready to infer that ‘making glad’ means a gladness consequent upon an intoxicating article; but what is the authority for such an assertion? We are here told, that ‘bread strengtheneth man’s heart,’ and in other parts, that bread ‘maketh glad’ the heart of man. Now, the Hebrew word tirosh, which is very frequently used and translated ‘new-wine,’ has the same consequence attributed to its use (‘cheering’-‘ making glad’) in passages where it cannot possibly mean intoxicating wine. [Mr Bromley: My remarks referred to yayin.] Yes; but

I

if I show that not only bread but tirosh, can ‘cheer,’ then Psalm civ. 15, need not necessarily be referred to an intoxicating wine. What, again, have we here?-Judges ix. 13: “Then said the Trees unto the Vine, come thou, and reign over us. And the Vine said unto them, shall I leave MY WINE (tirosh) which cheereth God and man.” What could this be, but the juice of the grape, or the grape itself? Yet this tirosh, unfermented as it must be, is said to ‘cheer God and man’; and therefore to ‘cheer’ or ‘make glad’ does not imply an intoxicating quality. Mr Bromley has quoted the comment of Dr Clarke on the passage, and he is no bad authority in matters of learning; but this, surely [holding up the Bible] is a much better authority than even Dr Clarke himself; and until we can get a better, we will take it. Here we have Scripture interpreting Scripture: one passage as a comment upon another. Mr Bromley quoted the Psalms in reference to a wine that cheereth; I quote from the Judges, and my part tells me clearly, that the cheering has reference to the fruit of the vine.’ Hence these terms, ‘cheering,’ ‘making glad,’ etc., are no proof that the substance in question was of an intoxicating character. If other proof is yet required, I refer you to these passages. Gaal with his brethren, “trode the grapes, and made merry.” -(Judges ix. 27.) “Corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new-wine (tirosh) the maids.”—(Zech. ix. 17.) Here the same term is applied to both corn and wine, and therefore, according to Mr Bromley’s argument, corn is intoxicating! Teetotalers never drink intoxicating wine; yet who are more habitually merry and cheerful ?

[ocr errors]
Again, with respect to yayin, what proof is there that poor Hannah’s (supposed) ‘skinful’ was intoxicating?

My opponent told you I should quote Dr Clarke on Genesis xl. II. I shall do no such thing, for the word ‘yayin’ certainly does not occur there; though, as Dr Clarke says, what is ‘tantamount to it’ does. I may observe, however, that the authority of Dr Clarke is not

the less strong because the word ‘wine’ is not in the passage. He was undoubtedly a man of vast learning, and better calculated to inform us about the original meaning of the words than my opponent will pretend to be. The result of his researches is, as you have heard, that the yayin of the Hebrews, the oinos of the Greeks, and the vinum of the Latins, anciently signified the unfermented juice of the grape.

Mr Bromley triumphantly asks if the term ‘yayin’ occurs there? I will ask in return, if the generic term occurs in other passages, in a clear connexion with unfermented wine, is he ready to give up the point? I must see what I can do for his favorite ‘yayin.’ “This,” says he, “always and everywhere in the Bible means an intoxicating and fermented liquor.” Let us try. “My belly,” says Job, “is as yayin that hath no vent; it is ready to burst like new bottles” (xxxii. 19). This is an obvious allusion to a known mode of preventing fermentation; since so long as there is no vent for the grape juice, it cannot become fermented; therefore is not intoxicating.* Hear now the prophet Jeremiah: “All the Jews returned and gathered WINE (yayin) and summer fruits very much (xl. 12). Who ever heard of gathering port or sherry? Again, “I have caused wine (yayin) to fail from the wine presses; none shall tread with shouting” (xlviii. 33). Here yayin is applied to the juice trodden out in the press, and therefore to a perfectly unintoxicating liquor. What has Mr Bromley been dreaming of, to say that we Teetotalers ought to read our Bibles better, when here, in three minutes, I have produced as many passages to upset his broad assertion?

[ocr errors]
It must be evident, from the passages enumerated, that unfermented wine was in use as a beverage among the Jews which is spoken of as a blessing, and employed as an

* A skin-bottle containing newly fermenting-wine is sure to be bursted, and the wine spilt.

emblem of the richness and purity of the Gospel feast-and if this debate should be prolonged, I am prepared with a long series of ancient and modern testimonies on the question. I can refer to various Greek and Roman authorsto Pliny, Columella, Plutarch, and others-all bearing on the subject; and all shall be brought forward should this discussion not terminate this evening. Unfermented wines were in extensive use among the ancients, and the vulgar notions on the subject depend on a prevalent ignorance about the whole matter.

Mr Bromley insists that it was intoxicating wine which was the ‘blessing.’ Then what wine was it, which was held up as a curse? “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” Wine “biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.” “Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess.” Is this the wine spoken of as a blessing? No; this must be either the alcoholic or the drugged wine. I admit all those passages, without seeking to distort their plain and obvious import into figures and absurdities. There are two sets of passages, which speak differently of wine. I believe them all, and taking ancient history and common sense to their interpretation, I can harmonize the Scripture with facts and with itself. I have examined the Bible carefully with reference to this matter, but cannot find a solitary passage which shows that intoxicating wine was ever held forth as a blessing of God; while, on the other hand, I meet with many in which unintoxicating wine is clearly considered as such.

Mr Bromley cites one passage indeed in proof:-” He washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes”; and we are told that this must be fermented wine, because it is said “his eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk” (Gen. xlix. 11, 12). The first verse obviously refers to the treading-out the juice’ of the grapes in the wine-press, and therefore to an unfermented wine. If the second verse refers to intoxicating

wine, what connexion is there between the statements ? There must evidently be something very erroneous in this method of interpretation. Besides, it will carry us too far. What says Solomon ? “Who hath redness of eyes? He who tarries long at the wine.” Redness of eyes is the very symbol of drunkenness, and will not be produced by a limited use of intoxicating wine.* I put it to you, then, whether redness of eyes caused by the inflammatory action and excessive use of an intoxicating wine, can really be a blessing from God? Whatever else it refers to, it cannot mean that. But if ‘his eyes being red with wine,’ does not mean inflamed eyes-the general sense of the passage is plain enough-it symbolises a condition of plenty, and refers to the clothes being stained, and the face sprinkled, by the claret juice, as in the sublime passage where the Lord is represented as coming with dyed garments from Bozrah,’ after treading ‘the wine-press’ of his wrath alone. (Isa. lxiii. 1-6).

[ocr errors]
3. Then the pledge is viewed as a gross disrespect to the miracles of the Son of God! This is a serious subject, and ought not to be treated with levity. Mr Bromley, however, says that our system is anything but what it ought to be— though I did think he would have allowed our wholesale reformation of drunkards to be something good-and he talks of the necessity for an Anti-absurdity Association! I can only tell him this, that if I were the president of such an association, I should vote that the gentleman is not qualified to become a member. However, there seems to be no getting over the fact of the Saviour turning water into wine! To tell him a secret-I have no wish. The only question is, what sort of wine was the water turned into -alcoholic and poisonous, or pure, unintoxicating, and good wine? Our Saviour’s character is sufficient pledge that it was not the first. But Mr Bromley asks whether

*The Hebrew is properly rendered by the Jews—“His eyes are bright as wine, –his teeth white as milk.” So many other versions.

‘oinos’ does not mean an intoxicating liquor? On this subject, he has already quoted Dr Clarke as saying, that yayin, oinos, and vinum, in their primitive meaning, refer to the unfermented juice of the grape; and yet he puts it calmly to any one in this company who has the slightest attainment in Greek, whether oinos does not always mean intoxicating wine? He thus leaves his own learned ‘authority’ to appeal to you!

Mr Bromley alludes to Timothy, who was advised to use ‘a little’ wine, and asks—why a little if it were not intoxicating? Supposing it was to be used as a medicine, why should it not be a little? Do we administer medicines by glasses full, or without measure? What is the meaning of the marks and figures on the druggist’s glasses-drachm, half-drachm, ounce, half-ounce, and so on? What but this -that if, in some cases, the least mistake were made, the patient, instead of being restored to health, would be consigned to the tomb? And yet, argues Mr Bromley, this medicated wine, administered to Timothy, a teetotaler, was not to be limited, unless it were intoxicating! Why, medicine is generally given in small quantities. In fact, it would seldom answer as medicine, were it not given in small quantities and at stated times.

Another citation is-“No man having drank old wine, straightway desireth new, for he saith the old is better.” What shall we draw from this? Christ says “I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.” Our Saviour intimates that the new is better than the old. What are we to make of these contradictory passages? I will tell you what I make of them-I believe them both. I do not sacrifice one to the other, or both to suit a theory, like some I could name; but I seek to harmonize them, and find out the facts to which they relate. I believe they refer to different kinds of wine, or to the different tastes of the people who drank them. We know from history that

old wines were valued for their age; not because they were more intoxicating or tasted better-not because they were sweet or bitter—but simply because they were old. This was then the case, and it is still partially so. Pliny tells us that wines were esteemed for their age, and not according to their real value; and this artificial standard related both to intoxicating and unintoxicating wines. Some Teetotalers, even, like old unfermented wine better than new. Mr Beardsall considers his inspissated wine to possess a superior flavour when old. All this may be a matter of taste; for my own part, I prefer the juice of the grape in its fresh and purest condition. This, however, is plain, that our Saviour would not judge of wine upon a principle of fashion. He would value wine according to its intrinsic excellence and goodness; and he refers to the fruit of the vine as being better when new than old. It was, then, the unfermented. This is the way to show the beauty and harmony of these several and otherwise conflicting passages.

Next came a singular digression from my reverend opponent, about what he elegantly styles Mr Beardsall’s ‘stuff.’ Solomon indeed represents such ‘stuff’ as a blessing of Providence and a preparation of Wisdom (Prov. ix. 2); but who is he? Then a bottle of Mr Beardsall’s wine burst-fearful catastrophe! I don’t know whether my opponent meant to draw any argument from this circumstance, as some have done from a similar one. presume he will not say that it furnished any evidence that the wine in the bottles which did not burst, was intoxicating; if he does, he will be wrong.

I

Mr Bromley, however, has heard two objections to his account of the turning of water into wine. You have, doubtless, noticed how he has condescended to save me the trouble of making objections by anticipating them, and sweeping them away in no time. Thus, here, he anticipates what he calls our objection-“that the wine could not be fermented, because it was miraculously produced. I like

this!” says Mr Bromley. Now some of you have probably heard of a celebrated Chevalier, La Mancha’s knight, named Don Quixote, who was in the habit of fighting with windmills which he mistook for giants. Mr Bromley reminds me of this renowned and courteous chevalier; because he not only fights windmills, mistaking them for giants, but first builds up the mills themselves for the pleasure of knocking them down! As to the objection itself, I can only say, that I never saw it in a publication, nor heard it from an advocate.

Mr Bromley affirms we have only one leg to stand upon —namely, that wine is not ‘wine.’ Now, though we do not say that wine is not wine, yet we do say—and even Mr Bromley can’t disturb the position-that fermented wine is one sort, and unfermented another. The question, therefore, is, whether the wine made at Cana was this or that? We know, to a certainty, that alcohol is a poison, and we cannot therefore believe that it would be created by the good Being who, on that occasion, ‘showed forth His glory’; not even for those who had drank to the most limited extent of any other liquid of a similar nature.

I can

The second objection, raised up by anticipation, he calls an old Deistical objection revived-namely, that Christ would not have given intoxicating wine to those who had well drank already. Now if it be an objection long since made, for the purpose of reflecting on our Lord’s character, the greater the need for having it solidly answered. inform my reverend antagonist, that it is one which, in principle, has also been suggested to men of piety and learning. What think you of Dr Doddridge? Was he a Deist, or likely to use a Deist’s objection unless well founded? I think not yet what does he say? “None can seriously imagine the Evangelist so destitute of common sense as to represent Christ as displaying His glory by miraculously furnishing the company with wine to prolong a drunken revel” (Works, vi. 134). To avoid

this supposition, Dr Doddridge alters the translation from ‘well-drunk’ to ‘drank-plentifully.’ I perfectly agree with my opponent, that Christ could not be the patron of drunkenness, as the old deists wished to show. But, then, what is the reply to their argument?-for it is evident if Christ made a plentiful supply of intoxicating wine to be administered to those who had already ‘well drunk,’ they must have become intoxicated. So far from answering this objection, Mr Bromley virtually admits it, and carries out the principle a step farther. If the guests, said he, had well drunk of Mr Beardsall’s ” sweet, thick, syrupy, treacle-like stuff,” and Christ had given them more, then he must have become the patron of gluttony!

What, then, shall we say to this Miracle at Cana? There is nothing in the narrative which would naturally lead to the inference that intoxicating wine was either created or consumed there. The Jewish marriage feasts appear to have been prolonged for several days. On this occasion, owing perhaps to an unexpected influx of company consequent on the rumour that our Saviour would be present, the supply of wine fell short. The guests were not permanent: one party would come on one day, another on a second, third, or fourth day. Those of the highest rank or closest connexion would arrive first, and naturally partake of the best viands. It is even so with ourselves. If a stranger or a relative visit us, do we not provide something extra-something better than common? Do we not bring out our good things first, then, when these are done, those which are worse? The greater the stranger-or the higher his rank-the greater is the attempt to supply him with something ‘good.’ We exhaust our resources in this way—and then, how common the apology, ‘We make no stranger of you.’ So it was with the Jews; so at the marriage feast at Cana. If we have good food, or good wine —or what is considered such-it is brought out first, to the greatest strangers, the most exalted guests, or the most

esteemed friends. Hence the saying in reference to the wine-food not then being deficient-“Every man at first setteth forth the good wine, and when,” in the course of the feast, the various guests coming and going have drank plentifully, then the worst. In this way, the best wine having been consumed by the first and highest guests, a deficiency arose in the common. “And when the wine was at an end, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.” Our Saviour then changed the water into wine, and the ruler of the feast tasted it, but knew not how it had been produced. Upon tasting the wine, and finding it of such a superior flavour and quality, he became surprised, and evidently considered that the ordinary custom had not been followed. This ruler of the feast was, from his office, some grave and permanent guest. He therefore could compare this wine with that which had been drank at the early part of the feast, and he was struck with the contrast.* What does he? Publicly comment upon this deviation from an ordinary rule? No-but he “called to the bridegroom,” evidently considering that he only, and not the guests then present, knew of the difference, “and saith unto him-How is this? It is usual to set before your guests the best wine first, and when that is done, then the worst; but you have kept the best wine till now!” Now, what was the best wine? It was Christ who produced this wine from water, and He has told us that the wine which He considers best, is that ‘new’ and unintoxicating wine which he selects as the emblem of the richness of his Father’s kingdom; and, therefore, we may fairly presume, it was into such wine the pure water was changed.

4. The principles of the Teetotaler are no reflection on the conduct of our Saviour for having drank wine. He did drink a customary beverage, but, unfortunately for the

* See Kalon Oinon, or Marriage at Cana explained by primitive Church History. Works, iv. The strength of the wine would not be revealed by a taste, but only by the flavour.

objection, we know that unfermented wine was a very customary article of diet amongst the Jews. It is true that Christ was called a glutton and a wine-bibber,* and that the passage “John came neither eating nor drinking” (any kind of wine) is an antithetical passage. It would be sufficient to reply that the whole was a vile calumny upon our Saviour, on which we could not rely in any particular. But I prefer to give a directer answer. What is the meaning of a ‘wine-bibber’? Does it mean that he was a drunkard? They could scarce say that of his spotless character: the people had seen no exhibitions of visible intemperance to make them credit the accusation of drunkenness; and therefore they modify the charge, and call him a ‘wine-drinker’—but ‘bibber’ means a person who is continually taking a beverage-whether intoxicating or not-at undue seasons and with undue frequency. Potees is applied to drink of any sort, both to water and milk.

Mr Bromley talks of the Nazirites and of the Teetotalers allowing their beards to grow? Has he forgotten his argument, that we insult the Mosaic œconomy by not observing its ritual? At any rate, we do not sneer at, or ridicule it! But what is he now doing? On referring to this book—[the Bible: Num. vi.]-I find that the Naziritish regulations were an integral portion of the Mosaic system. The Nazirites were not only not condemned, but laws were expressly made by God for their government and regulation. They were persons peculiarly devoted to God and holy things: yet Mr Bromley sneers at a thing approved of by God himself! Mr Bromley, it appears, can insult, when convenient, the Naziritish œconomy-but it is a deadly sin in the Teetotalers to insult the Mosaic! [Mr Bromley: ‘Oh, no.’] Oh, yes, Sir! What was the meaning of the advice we received

*No-he was called a Wine-drinker, by way of reproach: not a bibber. When and where else did the Teetotal Pharisees see him drinking?

the tone and manner of ridicule in which it was given-that we should go with our beards unshaven, and our locks uncut? I appeal to the impression produced-to the laugh created-whether such was not the fact? I believe Mr Bromley would not calmly wish to insult either God’s Nazirites or the Mosaic œconomy; but that certainly was the tendency of his argument and the actual effect of his allusion.

5. Then we return to the case of Timothy. Poor Timothy! They appeal so frequently to thee, that we are led to believe that all our drinking friends are generally, if not always, exceedingly poorly! They hear that Timothy was recommended to take a little wine for his stomach’s sake, and therefore they are always taking wine for their stomachs’ sake! Mr Bromley says that he was like Timothy, a private water-drinker, but that for several years he knew not what a well-digested dinner was. I wonder what the beasts of the field and the forest, whose strength is far more than human, take after their dinner, to help digestion! Water is the best diluent in nature; this the most eminent physicians of ancient and modern times admit. It is well known that alcoholic wine does not assist digestion; it hardens rather than dissolves the food; it retards its conversion into chyme, and answers no other purpose but that of irritation; and on this subject I again refer to the conclusive experiments of Dr Beaumont. But, says Mr Bromley, it was given dietetically, because it was in the place of water. I apprehend not. Suppose it was intoxicating wine, the principal part would be water and if so, the question is, whether the alcoholic part was not given medicinally. Was it used for

:

*

*This is clearly implied in the restriction to take a little’ only. A pint and a half of liquid during the day, to one who performs arduous work, either by manual labour or preaching, and in this case both were probably combined, is not too much, and is certainly not a little.’ The wine, therefore, was not taken in the place of water, but along with it. Mr Bromley quotes the opinion of Dr Macknight, but he well knew it would be inconvenient to quote the whole: we therefore give his paraphrase and comment, which answer three of Mr Bromley’s

health or for disease? The wine was recommended by the Apostle for Timothy’s stomach’s sake, and for his often infirmities; thus plainly showing that Timothy was subject to some complaint, and therefore stood in need of medicine; that only being a medicine which stands related to the cure of a complaint. Still, it does not appear either what was the particular complaint, or what was the kind of wine recommended for it. It may have been a medicated wine, such as was anciently used expressly for complaints, compounded of drugs or herbs; or it may have been ‘sweet, thick, syrupy, treacle-like stuff.’ Indeed, it might have been the pure juice of the grape inspissated or fresh, which, in wine countries, is frequently and successfully resorted to for weakness of stomach or general debility. We have no reason for supposing that it was intoxicating wine. On the contrary Pliny, who was about contemporary with Timothy, enumerates scores of kinds of wine, very many of which were ‘thick, syrupy’ stuff. Among these were the medicated wineswines expressly made for cases of sickness-and as the Apostle uses a generic term, applying to all, the context might lead to the supposition, that, being recommended for a stomach complaint, such wine was intended.

Then what a beautiful conclusion to this argument issued from Mr Bromley’s lips! “Timothy was no longer to be a Teetotaler, and drink the beverage of oxen and asses! “‘*

objections at once. “No longer drink pure water, but mix a little “wine with it, on account of the disorder of thy stomach, and thy many “other bodily infirmities. Though this counsel might have been given “without inspiration, it was properly inserted in an inspired writing.”

* The late Rev. James Sherman, along with some moderation friends, applied for advice to the celebrated Dr John Farre. His friends asked if the debility was not occasioned by the water-system. The Doctor gravely replied:-” Why, the elephant gets strong upon water, and the ox fattens on water; let Mr Sherman continue the water, and perform his accustomed labours.”

“There can be no question that water is the best and the only drink which nature has designed for man.”-Dr James Johnson, Physician to William IV.

No; but you will recollect that the text does not say ‘never drink water’- -as some of our tippling friends appear to read it—but simply “Drink no longer water” (that is, exclusively). The inference therefore is, that when the wine had done its work, and the infirmities of the patient had become removed, Timothy might then go back to his former Abstinence. Surely, in other matters, the influence of prejudice and custom apart, you would never think of making what was given as a temporary prescription for disease into a permanent beverage in health! Such a course would be as pernicious in practice as it is preposterous in theory.

“Oh, then,” says Mr Bromley, “Timothy was to play the man, and drink of the intoxicating glass.” And is drinking ‘playing the man’? I have not so learnt Scripture. What says the wise king? and he probably spoke from bitter experience. Does he tell the youth of Israel to’play the man’? “Look not thou upon the wine when it is redwhen it giveth its colour in the cup-when it moveth itself aright for at the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.” Never mind, says Mr Bromley, ‘Play the man!’ Is it not sad for a minister of the Gospel to tell you to ‘play the man’-to do that which has led to the wreck of millions-which has ruined patriarchs, and prophets, and wise men, priests at the altar and kings upon their throne, and which in our day is destroying men of learning, intellect, and power? ‘Play the man’ indeed! Is this Christian advice? I would rather warn you with the apostle, and say, “Be not drunk with wine wherein is excess.” Does the apostle mean,’ Be not drunk, for in drunkenness is excess’? No, that would be a puerility indeed. He plainly indicates that we are not to ‘play the man.’ Aye, my opponent rightly admits, that in a little of intoxicating wine there is danger, and from that little all the intemperance in the world has sprung; and the bible, and history, and science, and facts, combine to declare, that so long as any people continue in this manner to patronise the drink-for in the drink lies

the evil and the agent of the excess-so long will the world, as now, have to mourn the prevalence of intemperance;long as our youth are taught and encouraged to ‘play the man,’ so long will vast numbers continue to play that worse part-the part of the poor degraded drunkard! Remember, that you cannot recommend the use of these drinks without recommending what has been, is now, and, by the necessary law of narcotics, always must be, the origin of that intemperate appetite which leads to disaster, desolation, and death! One man, indeed, here and there, may think himself perfectly secure while playing with the deceptive serpent, but while he is boasting, his ‘weaker brethren’ are falling fast around him, and society is becoming more and more corrupted by this great physical and social pestilence. Oh, for pity’s sake, let us hear no more about playing the man with this fatal beverage.

:

6. Caution intimates danger,’ says Mr Bromley and hence the Apostle cautions us. But how does ‘play the man’ intimate danger? It is advice to drink, not caution against the danger of drinking: and, therefore, my opponent, contradicts the apostle! Where St Paul intimates danger, Mr Bromley intimates safety! “Wine is a mocker-look not upon it,” says Solomon. “Be not drunk with wine

Mr Bromley responds:

wherein is excess,” says St Paul. True, caution intimates danger: nevertheless, ‘play the man,’ ye youth: no longer drink water (though you have no stomach complaint), but ‘play the man,’ and drink of the intoxicating cup! Is such the language or advice of a wise man?

Is our abstinence system really altering Christ’s religion for the worse? Look at the reformations effected-look at the varied and wondrous good our society has done and then, if you can, point out to us the great evil. We altering Christ’s religion for the worse! Look about you, and see what is going on. There are your ministers of the Gospel preaching the way of salvation-there are your Sunday

Schools sowing the seeds of knowledge and religion-there your Missionary and your Bible Societies, and all your other institutions of a holy and charitable character,–there, in noble array, is the benevolence of the British people, guided by British intellect and genius, striving to ameliorate the condition of our country, and do good to the inhabitants of other climes,—to elevate the world in the scale of being, and to spread the glad tidings of redemption over all the earth,—and what is it, I ask, which is opposing the success of those noble undertakings, but Intemperance sitting upon her ebon throne in triumph and rejoicing over the disappointments of humanity? And is Christ’s religion made worse by that system which alone can grapple with this tyrant, and which has broken the chain that fettered ten thousand captives to her chariot wheels?

7. Mr Bromley objects to the pledge, on the plea that it describes fermented liquors as ‘poison.’ The pledge does nothing of the kind. It does not say upon what grounds you join the society. You may join it upon that principle of Christian duty and expediency by which Paul the apostle was governed, when he said, “If eating flesh meat, or drinking wine, or anything, make my weak brother to offend or fall, I will no more eat meat or drink wine while the world endureth.” Aye, there outspoke the true spirit of primitive Christianity; and I wish we had more possessing this spirit to join the society on such noble grounds; we should then have less of that carping spirit of objection so prevalent among professors. The pledge is a common bond of union, open to all who wish to follow so glorious an example. It does not state whether we unite on the principle of Christian expediency, or for those physical considerations to which I have referred. It merely says, “We agree to abstain from intoxicating beverages”—and calls upon us for no reasons in subscribing it. A man may say, “I live not for myself alone, but for God and my brethren; and if I find what is safe for me is dangerous for those with whom I associate,

and who are affected by my example, then am not I bound to abstain ?”—or another man may say, “I find these drinks physically pernicious; therefore, as a man of sense, I will abstain,”—and no passage in the Bible says you shall not?

8. Next come we to the Sacrament. Now, why is not the usual Greek term for wine employed on that occasion? What term is used? Not a generic term, but a particular term-one that can only be truly applied to one kind of wine. Why this speciality on this important occasion, if oinos would serve? The term used is properly translated ‘the fruit’ or ‘offspring’ of the vine. Is fermented drink the fruit of the vine? Nothing of the kind—no more than is vinegar. Fermented wine is the produce of man’s perverted ingenuity, exerted upon the good creatures of God, and causing an essential alteration of their original properties. The phrase ‘fruit of the vine’ can truly refer only to the pure, unintoxicating juice. Authority is referred to; but facts cannot be overturned by authority; on the contrary, authority must submit to facts. And what are the facts? The Paschal supper was originally instituted in unfermented things (Exodus xii. 15). The Hebrew word, matsah, applies to liquid as well as bread. What says the learned Calmet? That the Jews, anciently, “examined all the house with very scrupulous care, to eject whatever had ferment in it.” The Jews always understood the prohibition to be so applied; and they still act on that principle. Our Saviour was a Jew, and must have observed the Passover feast in the correct way, and the command was that all fermented aliment be excluded. This was the custom of the Jews then, and it has been the general custom ever since. What is fermentation but a process of decay or decomposition? And why is it so carefully forbidden in this insti

“By the ancient Hebrews, I believe,” says Dr Clarke, “it (yayin) was chiefly drank in its first or simple state”-that is before fermentation-” hence,” says he-“it was termed among them the fruit of the vine.”

K

tution? Because, as a regressive process, it is a correct emblem of corruption. Hence, the pure juice of the grape was to be used before corruption had begun.* Dr Clarke says the wine was sometimes drank immediately after being expressed; and by the ancient Hebrews chiefly in that its first state; only, he says, the unfermented juice could not always be obtained. This is a question of fact, on which the doctor may be mistaken, as well as any other doctor. Dr Clarke, like many others, imagines there is no process for preventing pure wine becoming bad, save vinous fermentation. Now there are many methods of doing this, without suffering the juice to become transformed by fermenting it. In Judea, grapes could be obtained the year round. Mr E. C. Delavan tells me of an existing practice in Italy of preserving ripe grapes from vintage to vintage—says that a large wine-maker sent to him, many months after the grape season, a quantity of grapes in a state of purity, and without any symptoms of decay, of which preserved grapes he had twenty gallons of inspissated wine made to order, most of which he still has by him, unfermented, pure, and sweet. In grape countries they can keep the grape almost as pure as when first plucked, and consequently the Jews could observe the sacrament in the fruit of the vine.’ I remember a passage in Josephus, where, in speaking of the fortress of Masada being taken by the Romans, he says that large quantities of fruit were found, fresh and full ripe, as good as when first plucked, although they had been in the fortress upwards of ninety years-(Wars, b. vii. ch. viii.) These facts completely overturn the authority of Dr Clarke.

* “For drink, the pure (or foaming) blood of the grape.”-Deut. xxxii. 14. “Blood here,” says Dr A. Clarke in his Commentary, “is synonymous with juice.

[ocr errors]
+ We were favored with the possession of three bottles of this wine. On December 23rd, 1858, nearly 20 years after the wine was made, we had the last bottle opened, and found it just as pure and unchanged as it was sixteen years before. It is vino cotto, or inspissated wine, such as we have tasted in Sicily.

Methods were and are known for preserving grapes or wine without fermentation, and hence our Saviour had the means of instituting the ordinance of the last supper with unfermented wine. What does the testimony of Mr Bromley’s Jew the member of the wealthy and illustrious house of Rothschild ‘-amount to? Why, that it ought to be unfermented, but if they cannot always get such wine, or keep it so, they must do without it! The question after all is,— what is the law laid down in the Bible?

I have now gone through all the objections brought against our principle, and if Mr Bromley is disposed to meet me again, I will go over every chemical, physiological, medical, historical, and theological assertion-each shall be proved by additional and appropriate evidence-word by word-proposition by proposition. What has Mr Bromley to say in conclusion? He can only talk of the horrible act of introducing the ‘fruit of the vine’ into Christian churches for the Sacramental element! He speaks of all the good and holy men who have used intoxicating wine at the celebration of the Eucharist, and asks if all these were wrong? Why not? Were any of them infallible? If we show they have been in error, why not correct the mistake in future? Having been wrong in more important matters, why may they not have erred in this? Are we to make the darkness of the past an excuse for rejecting the light of the present? On this principle of declamation we might again light up the fires of martyrdom, and amidst the blaze of an auto da fe, invoke the names of great and pious but most fearfully erring men! What would Mr Bromley think if an individual were to rise in this public assembly, and, reasoning after his fashion, appeal to the shades of Calvin, Melancthon, Ridley, and Cranmer, in justification of the principle of punishment for opinion? Let such abject

sentiments of submission to the crimes and errors of past ages become prevalent, and we shall again have to win our freedom in the battle field and at the cannon’s mouth.

the evil and the agent of the excess-so long will the world, as now, have to mourn the prevalence of intemperance;long as our youth are taught and encouraged to ‘play the man,’ so long will vast numbers continue to play that worse part-the part of the poor degraded drunkard! Remember, that you cannot recommend the use of these drinks without recommending what has been, is now, and, by the necessary law of narcotics, always must be, the origin of that intemperate appetite which leads to disaster, desolation, and death! One man, indeed, here and there, may think himself perfectly secure while playing with the deceptive serpent, but while he is boasting, his ‘weaker brethren’ are falling fast around him, and society is becoming more and more corrupted by this great physical and social pestilence. Oh, for pity’s sake, let us hear no more about playing the man with this fatal beverage.

:

6. Caution intimates danger,’ says Mr Bromley and hence the Apostle cautions us. But how does ‘play the man’ intimate danger? It is advice to drink, not caution against the danger of drinking: and, therefore, my opponent, contradicts the apostle! Where St Paul intimates danger, Mr Bromley intimates safety! “Wine is a mocker-look not upon it,” says Solomon. “Be not drunk with wine

Mr Bromley responds:

wherein is excess,” says St Paul. True, caution intimates danger: nevertheless, ‘play the man,’ ye youth: no longer drink water (though you have no stomach complaint), but ‘play the man,’ and drink of the intoxicating cup! Is such the language or advice of a wise man?

Is our abstinence system really altering Christ’s religion for the worse? Look at the reformations effected-look at the varied and wondrous good our society has done and then, if you can, point out to us the great evil. We altering Christ’s religion for the worse! Look about you, and see what is going on. There are your ministers of the Gospel preaching the way of salvation-there are your Sunday

Schools sowing the seeds of knowledge and religion-there your Missionary and your Bible Societies, and all your other institutions of a holy and charitable character,–there, in noble array, is the benevolence of the British people, guided by British intellect and genius, striving to ameliorate the condition of our country, and do good to the inhabitants of other climes,—to elevate the world in the scale of being, and to spread the glad tidings of redemption over all the earth,—and what is it, I ask, which is opposing the success of those noble undertakings, but Intemperance sitting upon her ebon throne in triumph and rejoicing over the disappointments of humanity? And is Christ’s religion made worse by that system which alone can grapple with this tyrant, and which has broken the chain that fettered ten thousand captives to her chariot wheels?

7. Mr Bromley objects to the pledge, on the plea that it describes fermented liquors as ‘poison.’ The pledge does nothing of the kind. It does not say upon what grounds you join the society. You may join it upon that principle of Christian duty and expediency by which Paul the apostle was governed, when he said, “If eating flesh meat, or drinking wine, or anything, make my weak brother to offend or fall, I will no more eat meat or drink wine while the world endureth.” Aye, there outspoke the true spirit of primitive Christianity; and I wish we had more possessing this spirit to join the society on such noble grounds; we should then have less of that carping spirit of objection so prevalent among professors. The pledge is a common bond of union, open to all who wish to follow so glorious an example. It does not state whether we unite on the principle of Christian expediency, or for those physical considerations to which I have referred. It merely says, “We agree to abstain from intoxicating beverages”—and calls upon us for no reasons in subscribing it. A man may say, “I live not for myself alone, but for God and my brethren; and if I find what is safe for me is dangerous for those with whom I associate,

and who are affected by my example, then am not I bound to abstain ?”—or another man may say, “I find these drinks physically pernicious; therefore, as a man of sense, I will abstain,”—and no passage in the Bible says you shall not?

8. Next come we to the Sacrament. Now, why is not the usual Greek term for wine employed on that occasion? What term is used? Not a generic term, but a particular term-one that can only be truly applied to one kind of wine. Why this speciality on this important occasion, if oinos would serve? The term used is properly translated ‘the fruit’ or ‘offspring’ of the vine. Is fermented drink the fruit of the vine? Nothing of the kind—no more than is vinegar. Fermented wine is the produce of man’s perverted ingenuity, exerted upon the good creatures of God, and causing an essential alteration of their original properties. The phrase ‘fruit of the vine’ can truly refer only to the pure, unintoxicating juice. Authority is referred to; but facts cannot be overturned by authority; on the contrary, authority must submit to facts. And what are the facts? The Paschal supper was originally instituted in unfermented things (Exodus xii. 15). The Hebrew word, matsah, applies to liquid as well as bread. What says the learned Calmet? That the Jews, anciently, “examined all the house with very scrupulous care, to eject whatever had ferment in it.” The Jews always understood the prohibition to be so applied; and they still act on that principle. Our Saviour was a Jew, and must have observed the Passover feast in the correct way, and the command was that all fermented aliment be excluded. This was the custom of the Jews then, and it has been the general custom ever since. What is fermentation but a process of decay or decomposition? And why is it so carefully forbidden in this insti

“By the ancient Hebrews, I believe,” says Dr Clarke, “it (yayin) was chiefly drank in its first or simple state”-that is before fermentation-” hence,” says he-“it was termed among them the fruit of the vine.”

K

tution? Because, as a regressive process, it is a correct emblem of corruption. Hence, the pure juice of the grape was to be used before corruption had begun.* Dr Clarke says the wine was sometimes drank immediately after being expressed; and by the ancient Hebrews chiefly in that its first state; only, he says, the unfermented juice could not always be obtained. This is a question of fact, on which the doctor may be mistaken, as well as any other doctor. Dr Clarke, like many others, imagines there is no process for preventing pure wine becoming bad, save vinous fermentation. Now there are many methods of doing this, without suffering the juice to become transformed by fermenting it. In Judea, grapes could be obtained the year round. Mr E. C. Delavan tells me of an existing practice in Italy of preserving ripe grapes from vintage to vintage—says that a large wine-maker sent to him, many months after the grape season, a quantity of grapes in a state of purity, and without any symptoms of decay, of which preserved grapes he had twenty gallons of inspissated wine made to order, most of which he still has by him, unfermented, pure, and sweet. In grape countries they can keep the grape almost as pure as when first plucked, and consequently the Jews could observe the sacrament in the fruit of the vine.’ I remember a passage in Josephus, where, in speaking of the fortress of Masada being taken by the Romans, he says that large quantities of fruit were found, fresh and full ripe, as good as when first plucked, although they had been in the fortress upwards of ninety years-(Wars, b. vii. ch. viii.) These facts completely overturn the authority of Dr Clarke.

* “For drink, the pure (or foaming) blood of the grape.”-Deut. xxxii. 14. “Blood here,” says Dr A. Clarke in his Commentary, “is synonymous with juice.

[ocr errors]
+ We were favored with the possession of three bottles of this wine. On December 23rd, 1858, nearly 20 years after the wine was made, we had the last bottle opened, and found it just as pure and unchanged as it was sixteen years before. It is vino cotto, or inspissated wine, such as we have tasted in Sicily.

Methods were and are known for preserving grapes or wine without fermentation, and hence our Saviour had the means of instituting the ordinance of the last supper with unfermented wine. What does the testimony of Mr Bromley’s Jew the member of the wealthy and illustrious house of Rothschild ‘-amount to? Why, that it ought to be unfermented, but if they cannot always get such wine, or keep it so, they must do without it! The question after all is,— what is the law laid down in the Bible?

I have now gone through all the objections brought against our principle, and if Mr Bromley is disposed to meet me again, I will go over every chemical, physiological, medical, historical, and theological assertion-each shall be proved by additional and appropriate evidence-word by word-proposition by proposition. What has Mr Bromley to say in conclusion? He can only talk of the horrible act of introducing the ‘fruit of the vine’ into Christian churches for the Sacramental element! He speaks of all the good and holy men who have used intoxicating wine at the celebration of the Eucharist, and asks if all these were wrong? Why not? Were any of them infallible? If we show they have been in error, why not correct the mistake in future? Having been wrong in more important matters, why may they not have erred in this? Are we to make the darkness of the past an excuse for rejecting the light of the present? On this principle of declamation we might again light up the fires of martyrdom, and amidst the blaze of an auto da fe, invoke the names of great and pious but most fearfully erring men! What would Mr Bromley think if an individual were to rise in this public assembly, and, reasoning after his fashion, appeal to the shades of Calvin, Melancthon, Ridley, and Cranmer, in justification of the principle of punishment for opinion? Let such abject

sentiments of submission to the crimes and errors of past ages become prevalent, and we shall again have to win our freedom in the battle field and at the cannon’s mouth.

15704 words.

Tags

Tags are assigned inclusively on the basis of an entry’s original text and any comment. You may find this confusing if you only read an entry excerpt.

• Abstinence pledge (1) ·
• Abstinence (1) ·
• Alcohol (drug) (59) ·
• Alcohol intoxication (27) ·
• 📌Barnsley (23) ·
• Beardsall, Francis (1), teetotaller reverend, manufacturer of unreliably unfermented "wine" ·
• Bromley, James (1785-1860) (1), Wesleyan Methodist minister, friend and supporter of Samuel Warren, eventually expelled from Conference ·
• Congregational church (9) ·
• Diarrhea (2) ·
• 📌Doncaster (34) ·
• Frederic Richard Lees (1) ·
• Grape juice (1) ·
• Lancashire dialect (2) ·
• 📌Leeds (235) ·
• Methodism (38) ·
• Non-alcoholic drink (1) ·
• Rotherham (21) ·
• Teetotalism (6) ·
• Temperance movement (10) ·
• Theatre (22) ·
• 📌Wakefield (36), cathedral city on the River Calder in the West Riding/West Yorkshire ·
• Wesley, John (1703-91) (21), cleric and leader of a evangelical revival movement within the Church of England known as Methodism ·
• Wine (4) ·

All tags.

Similar

• 11 March 1879: Calling for magistrates to lose their jurisdiction over pub licences, the teetotaller Wilfrid Lawson suggests that Tory Radical William St James Wheelhouse serves the Yorkshire Brewers’ Association
• 17 January 1865: At Leeds, temperance advocate Wilfrid Lawson MP calls for the sale of alcohol to be banned
• 31 October 1674: Riding home to Pontefract from Wakefield fair, a sozzled Silvanus Rich enters the River Calder in flood at Wakefield bridge
• 16 September 1821: The Rev Sydney Smith tells Lady Grey how the harvest was saved at Foston (Ryedale)
• 24 July 1761: Jonas Rushford (14) of Bradford tells a perhaps envious John Wesley how the Skipton magician Timothy Crowther helped him find a missing man
• 17 December 1674: Michael Gilburn, a Halifax lawyer, terminates a drunken weekend in style
• 2 February 1609: A crowd-pleasing morality play at Candlemas at Gouthwaite Hall in Catholic Nidderdale lands the cordwainer-players and their patron before the Star Chamber
• 14 April 1843: John Nicholson, “the Airedale Poet,” “the Bingley Baron,” dies after falling into the Aire while drunk
• 30 April 1872: MPs discuss drink, proverbial curse of the working class, with James Wetherell, Leeds’s chief constable
• 18 July 1784: Wesley finds children “restrained from open sin” at one of the first Sunday schools, at Bingley