wine is meant.
The fact is, there are scholars of repute on both sides of the question; but we do not claim too much when we say that the weight of scholarly authority is on our side, and not on that of the Doctor
But suppose the weight on each side were equal, what then?
One theory makes the Bible
contradict itself, puts it below the sacred books of many other nations in the strictness of its morality, and sets it as an obstacle to the highest civilization.
The other reconciles all its teachings one with another, lifts it to the level of the highest moral idea, and makes it the inspirer and the guide in all noble efforts to elevate the race.
Which theory ought the believer in the Bible
to prefer, if both were equally well supported?
Are those who degrade the Bible
below other scriptures entitled to charge us with “undermining” it?
There are other claims besides that of unfermented wine which are “magnificent in their daring” and, let me add, in their insolence.
Some of the Doctor
's young hearers might have been surprised to see a divine flinging the Bible
in the way of the Temperance movement.
But we older ones and Abolitionists are used to such attempts.
Forty-five years ago the Princeton Review
, representing the Presbyterian Church, denounced the Antislavery movementat a time when Garrison
stood surrounded by divines and church-members without number — as infidel and “contrary to revealed religion.”
Its argument was the exact counterpart of Dr. Crosby
's against our Temperance enterprise.
In vain we showed that the word “slave” in the New Testament did not necessarily or probably mean a chattel slave, and in vain did Weld
's “Bible argument” --which was never answered — prove the same to be true of the Old Testament.
Still, we were denounced as