Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

Letter on temperance : Peterboro, July 29th, 1839, [to] Edward C. Delavan.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 412

LETTER ON TEMPERANCE.

PETERBORO, JULY 29th, 1839.

EDWARD C. DELAVAN, -

MY DEAR FRIEND, After your distinguished and successful labors in Europe to promote the cause of temperance, you have again returned to your native land. Tens of thousands welcome you to the theatre of your first and long-continued and most illustrious efforts in this holy cause - to the country, which abounds in the enduring monuments of your philanthropy; and in which innumerable reclaimed drunkards and their once broken-hearted, but now comforted, relatives, "rise up and call you blessed."

It appears from your letters, that the fashionable and influential classes in Europe still cling to the wine bottle; and that there, as well as here, the excuse for wine drinking is, that the Savior drank wine.

The cause of temperance can never be crowned with triumph, until it ceases to be believed, that He drank intoxicating wine; or mail it is allowed, that his drinking of it would furnish no justification for our drinking of it. Some of the most intelligent friends of our cause deny, that the Savior drank wine. Others of them admit the probability, that He drank it - but deny, that He drank any other wine than that, which was unfermented and unintoxicating. You are aware, that, in my judgment, He drank the wines, which are generally in use amongst the Jews, when He was on the earth - intoxicating, as well as other wines. I have long desired, that the friends of temperance should admit, that the Scriptures strongly favor the supposition, that the Savior drank intoxicating wines. If the admission should prove fatal to the arguments, which they have built up on real or supposed facts in the personal habits of the Savior, it, nevertheless, would leave unharmed and impregnable that legitimate and proper argument against the drinking of intoxicating liquors, which is founded on the principles of physiology.

But, it is asked, bow, if we admit, that the Savior drank intoxicating wine, can we consistently forbid the drinking of it by others? To this question it has been replied by some, that, drunkenness, not being prevalent amongst the Jews in the time of the Savior, it was comparatively harmless for them to drink intoxicating liquors. But the premises in this reply are untrue. Drunkenness was prevalent amongst the Jews, as is pretty clearly indicated by the fact, that an Apostle rebutted the charge, that he and his fellow disciples were intoxicated - not by calling it unreasonable and incredible when brought against Jews - but by reminding their accusers, that it was but nine o'clock in the morning - or, in other words, not yet the usual time of day for getting drunk. The true answer to the question before us is - that, since in respect to meats, drinks, clothing, manual labor, &c., &c., the Savior acted with but the knowledge of a mere man, He knew not that the drinking of intoxicating liquors was injurious to the human constitution. He, of course, knew, as we did, fifteen years ago, that it was injurious to get drunk: but, He knew no better than we did, fifteen years ago, that drunkenness, instead of being an accident, is a legitimate consequence of the habit of drinking intoxicating liquors - and that this habit is uniformly pernicious. That the Savior drank intoxicating wine, may be argued from the fact, that the Apostles and their fellow disciples drank it, and from the improbability, that they would have drunk it against his will. That they drank it, may be argued from the vindication to which reference has just been made. Had the Christian of that day been a "teetotaller," the Apostle would have needed only to refer to the fact, that those, against whom the charge of drunkenness was brought, were Christians - were a denomination, who, at no hour of the day, early or late, drank inebriating liquors. There are, however, much stronger proofs, that the Savior, and the Apostles, and the Christians of their time drank fermented wine.

I am aware, that my admission, that the Savior drank intoxicating liquor, - and still more the ground on which I account for it, - will shock the religious sensibilities of many. The idea, that Jesus Christ is not to be followed by us in all those respects in which we ran follow Him, is very abhorrent to most of his disciples. I regret the pain, which former expressions of my sentiments on this subject have given. But no consideration can justify the suppression of what, we feel, the cause of truth requires us to utter.

I, of course, admit, that, so far as entire sinlessness renders perfect, the God-man was so - for He was "without sin." But, that his manhood was perfect in knowledge, is not admitted. Had it been, the Bible would not say, that He "increased in wisdom." In respect to physical and intellectual powers, He was "touched with the feeling of our infirmities;" for He had those infirmities in common with our race. If Jesus be "very God," and that He is, will, without passing upon the merits of the discussions of Trinitarians with Unitarians, be taken for granted in this communication; if, I say, He be "very God," no less is He "very man" - and the absurdity of ascribing infinite powers to his humanity, is as great as to call in question the illimitableness of his Divine powers. Save that He was "without sin," the man Christ Jesus was like other men. As a man, he differed from them in holiness only; not in capacities and knowledge: and, that it was so, is to his glory instead of disparagement. To have come into the world the naked God would have evinced no con ension; and comparatively little of that virtue would have graced his entrance, had He come in the form of an angel. But He took on himself the form of a man: -

"And wrapped His God-head in a veil
Of our inferior clay."

And, what is more, He did not choose for his tabernacle of flesh an exalted and admired specimen of humanity. He might have combined unequalled physical strength with a far larger measure of personal grace and beauty than that, which fancy and affection ascribe to Him. Instead of choosing for Himself powers of mind, that were, probably, in no degree extraordinary, He might have clustered in Himself the wisdom of Bacon, the vast intellectual reach of Newton and the genius of Shakspeare. He might, in a word, have adorned his manhood with every conceivable human advantage and excellence. But, it became Him, who is "meek and lowly in

heart," to clothe Himself with the form of a servant. That He might be accessible to the poor, and "know the heart," and sympathize with the trials of the poor, it became Him to take an humble position in society. His were the person and demeanor of a plain, laboring, unlettered man. When did it ever occur, that a learned and luxurious bishop was, like Him, supposed "to be the gardener?"

Jesus Christ was not a man of science. The Bible is not a book of science. We are not to go to it for scientific instruction - for lessons in astronomy, or mechanics, or physiology. It requires us, however, under fearful penalties for disobedience, to improve all our advantages for acquiring knowledge. The Savior requires us of this favored age, and favored portion of the world, to be better as astronomers than were He and his cotemporaries. He requires the modern carpenter to be more skilful than was "the carpenter, the son of Mary." He requires us, who are, or, at least, who have the opportunities to be, so conversant with the laws of health and life, to know better than He and his countrymen did, what, and what not, to eat and drink. And in this, He does but require, that we keep pace with, and live answerably to, the developements of His own providence. To drink intoxicating liquor, when we know not, and have not the means of knowing, that it is injurious to us, is not admitted to be sin. To drink it, however, after we have been taught in the course of the Savior's providence, that it poisons and kills, is to incur the Divine displeasure. The question, then, which we are to put to ourselves, is not, whether our personal habits are, in all respects, like the Savior's - but, whether we have responded to the concurrent and mutually explanatory teachings of the Bible, and nature, and providence. I mention the Bible in this connexion, because nature reveals - providence and science establish - no fact, no principle at war with the Bible.

For us to conform to the Savior's handicraft, and to his modes of living in all particulars, would be sin. To limit ourselves to His measure of skill in carpentry, and reject all improvements in that branch of mechanical labor; to stop the wheels of our manufactories

[2]

and clothe ourselves with precisely such fabrics, as He wore; to refuse to avail ourselves of all modern discoveries and instructions in dietetics, and to study to eat and drink that and that only, which Jesus Christ ate and drank, and to do all this with entire independence of the question, whether it would not be a violation of the laws, which He has Himself impressed upon our being - who can doubt, that such bigotry and superstition would be sin? Thus to follow the man Christ Jesus without regard to the laws of the God Christ Jesus, is to set the humanity above the divinity of the Savior: - it is to reject the laws and providence of the unerring God to conform to the imperfections of the nature in which that unerring God tabernacled. Besides, were the Savior now to return to earth, He would not tread in all the former steps of his human nature. Those steps were in conformity to the teachings of His providence eighteen hundred years ago. His present conduct would meet the present unfoldings of the same providence, and would give no countenance to the folly of making the customs and practices of a benighted age the standard of duty for an enlightened people.

The Savior, acting in the case as man, and not at all with the omniscience of God, doubtless ate and drank what the wisdom of His age pronounced good. It was for this contrast to the abstemious and ascetic life of John the Baptist - a contrast, as great by the Savior's own intimation, as between piping and mourning - that He was called "a gluttonous man and a wine bibber." It is our duty, also, to eat and drink what the wisdom of our age pronounces good. If science and observation have settled the fact, that one particular vegetable is healthful and another injurious, this conclusion, and not my palate, or my knowledge of Jewish living, is to govern my choice between them. So, too, if it be settled what drinks are, and what are not, healthful, - and this is a point, which, like the other, is to be settled by science and observation, rather than by recourse to the Bible and to the habits of the Savior, - I sin, if I make the demands of the palate, however fortified they may be by distinguished examples, of paramount authority to the laws of health.

Many, whom the offer of a world could not tempt to violate a law of the decalogue, trample on the laws of health, without any coneciousness of guilt. It is true, that these laws are not so easily ascertained, as are those of the decalogue, - but, when ascertained, the infraction of them is as decidedly sinful. There are many too, whose consciences shrink from the proposition to drink a glass of wine, but who, nevertheless, for the sake of gratifying their tastes, eat, without scruple, that, which they know is pernicious. The sin is, however, no clearer in the one case than in the other; and, in both cases, it consists in a conscious violation of the laws of health and life. The direction, "Do thyself no harm," can be violated in eating, as well as in drinking, - as well in partaking of a poisonous dish, as of the contents of a bottle of whiskey.

If I were to presume to offer advice to the friends of temperance, it would be, that they spend no more time in endeavoring to convince themselves and others, that Jesus Christ did not drink intoxicating wines, - a point by the way, quite as immaterial, as that he did not eat a particular vegetable; but, that they study to learn, and acquaint others with, the laws of life and health; and that they study to learn, and inform others, what drinks violate, and what conform to these laws.

The fact, that God, under the old dispensation, numbered wine among the blessings of man, is a thousand fold more pertinent to the temperance controversy, than is that of the drinking of intoxicating wines by Jesus Christ. There are several ways of so disposing of this fact, that it shall not militate against the position, that it is morally wrong to use any alcoholic liquor as a beverage. One of these ways is, taking the ground, that our invaluable fellow laborer, William Goodell, took, and which others have since taken, and, like himself, ably defended, - that the wine, thus numbered amongst blessings, was unintoxicating. Another is, that, in speaking of wine as a blessing, God did so with reference to the respective proper uses of the fermented and unfermented, - regarding the one as a pleasant, healthful, and nutritious beverage, and the other as of valuable medical properties. Another, and, in my judgment, the best explanation is, to admit, that God spoke of fermented and unfermented wines without distinction, and that He called them a blessing on the principle of many of the Divine declarations, - the principle of speaking in accordance with man's ideas and the appearances of things, rather than in accordance with philosophical truth. Thus He manifestly speaks, when, in describing the earth in the 38th chapter of Job, he says: "Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? Or who laid the corner stone thereof?" I need not say, that this language is used to correspond with the false notion of the ancients, that the earth is a plane resting on supports. And is it not to suit the conceptions of mankind in general, rather than because of any truth in the declaration, that God speaks of great riches as a great blessing? But, it may be asked, whether God ever speaks in accordance with man's sinful ideas. A sufficient reply to this question, in this connexion, is, that it is not admitted, that it was sinful to drink intoxicating wine, ere yet science and observation had made it certain, that such wine, even in small quantities, is pernicious as a beverage. I would remark, that, even were it true, that God includes intoxicating wine, for a drink, amongst blessings, the rule I have laid down for determining what it is sinless, and what it is sinful, to eat and drink, would, nevertheless, hold good. We, who maintain, that intoxicating liquor is injurious as a beverage, would, in that case, have but to admit, that we bad fallen into a mistake, either as to the laws of health, or as to the substances, which, when received into the stomach, violate them.

There are, doubtless, not a few, who would reject the rule in question, through the fear, that their adoption of it would impel them to become, "Grahamites." Perhaps, their fear is well grounded. But, however this may be, I have no doubt, that the hearty adoption of the rule, to study carefully the laws of health and life, and to eat and drink nothing, that, in our judgment, could contravene them, would banish many dishes from the tables of even temperance men.

I remark, in conclusion, that they, who go to tile Bible to learn what they may eat and drink; and they, who contend, that, because the Bible offers man the "fruit of the trees," "the green herb," and "every moving thing that liveth," for his "meat," they may oat whatever kinds of fruit, or herbs, or animals, may suit their palates, - I remark, that such persons betray their very narrow conceptions of the powers and discretion, which God has given to man. He has endowed us with ability to determine what meats and drinks are healthful, and what the reverse; and He has thrown open to us all seas and lands from which to seek our supplies. If, in these circumstances, we are guilty of the childish ignorance, or of the perverseness, which prefers evil to good, and the pleasing of our palates to the health of our bodies, the sin and folly and consequent misery are upon our own heads. The Bible teaches us, neither, what "fruit," what "herb," or what "moving thing that liveth," is suitable for human sustenance, nor, indeed, whether it is proper for us to derive our food entirely from one, or two, or partly from each of the three classes of edible substances.

Your friend and brother,

GERRIT SMITH.