10, 11, where the reference is either to the grape itself, or to the wine in the grape. It has also a similar application in the New Testament, see Matt. 9:17; Luke 5: 37, 39. But it is not true that the phrase fruit of the vine is periphrastic and synonymous with the word wine, because there was wine-oinos-among the ancients made of other things besides grapes. There was wine made of barley, and of dates-the fruit of the palm, and of apples, pears, &c. And it is remarkable that while Herodotus mentions these different kinds of wine, he makes use of the phrase fruit of the vine, and wine of the vine, to designate grape wine, and distinguish it from the other kinds of wine. (See Pickering's Greek Lexicon, word oinos, and Foote's Lectures on Luke, vol. 2, page 541.) Our Lord's language, then, intimates that it was the wine of grapes, in distinction from all other kinds of wine, that was used in the Passover and the Lord's supper. Hence we infer that we are not at liberty to use anything and every thing that goes by the name of wine, as some congregations do, who employ the wine of commerce for sacramental purposes. A great amount of the wine sold by druggists is nothing more than a compound of drugs and coloring matter, which never had any connection with the vine. Nay, as our Lord is exhibited under the emblem of a vine, John 15:1, so it is evident that the genuine fruit of the vine or pure blood of the grape is the only authorized symbol of his blood, which was shed for the remission of sins. It is evident, too, that as the blood of the grape in its unfermented state not only answers to the designation, fruit of the vine, but is the only thing that answers to it in a strict and literal sense, so it is most appropriate as an emblem of the blood of Christ.

But again, it is inferred that the wine of the first supper was old and fermented, from our Lord's language in applying the word new to the wine which he was about to drink with his disciples in the kingdom of his Father. We reply, that if we should grant that it was old, it would not follow that it was fermented; because there is abundant evidence to prove that wines were preserved for long periods among the ancients in an unfermented state. But there is no ground for the inference in question. The contrast implied in the language of Christ, was not between different kinds of literal wine, as if he was then drinking old wine with his disciples, but was about to drink literal wine that would be new, with them in his Father's kingdom; but it was between the literal wine of earth and the spiritual wine of heaven, that is, the joy and felicity of the heavenly state, of which the literal wine in the supper was a significant symbol. Hence our Lord may have applied the epithet new to the latter by way of analogy and not by way of contrast; that is, it may have been from the fact that the material wine which he was then drinking with his disciples was new, that he called the spiritual wine of heavenly joy which he expected to drink with them, also new. There is at least as much ground for this interpretation as the other.

2. Another argument in favor of unfermented wine in the supper may be founded on its superior adaptation as a symbol of the grace of Christ. It will be admitted that the wine is used in the Lord's supper merely as an emblem of spiritual benefits. And the question arises-which kind of wine will be best suited to this design? Or which kind of wine will best represent the grace of God as displayed in the pardon and purification. of the sinner? Will it be fermented wine, which is not only almost entirely destitute of any nutritious property, but contains the potent spirit of mischief-the venom of the serpent and the deadly sting of the adder, and is often mentioned in Scripture as an emblem of the wrath of God?

Will not such wine more fitly represent moral guilt and pollution, spiritual disease and death, than pardon, purification and spiritual life. But unfermented wine, being not only innocent but healthful and nutritious, is a most appropriate emblem to represent the grace of him who said: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever." Would our Lord employ as an emblem of his blood-that blood which delivers from guilt and condemnation, which purges away pollution, quickens the dead, heals the diseased, makes wise the simple, and promotes peace on earth and good will toward men-that same intoxicating cup which draws after it in its dark train, guilt, pollution, madness, disease, and death, which produces woes, sorrows, contentions, babblings and wounds without cause, and, in a word, acknowledges no rival as a source of misery and ruin among men? The presumption is that he would not, but would employ the unfermented juice of the grape, which from its innocent and nutritious properties, is an appropriate and most expressive emblem of the pardoning mercy of God and of the sweet and sanctifying influence of the grace of Christ.

3. But again, another argument may be drawn from the amount of wine used in the observance of the Passover. We have reason to believe that it was not merely supped or sipped, as is the present custom in the observance of the Lord's supper, but drunk abundantly. Dr. Gill, whose superior acquaintance with Jewish customs will be acknowledged by all, says "that it was the custom of the Jews at the Passover that they obliged all to drink four cups of wine, men, women and children," and "that the four cups which were drunk at this feast held an Italian quart of wine, so that one cup contained half a pint." See Gill's Com. on Matt. 26:27, and on Luke 22:17. Dr. Smith says: "There is no mention of wine in connection with the Passover in the Pentateuch, but the Mishna strictly enjoins that there should never be less than four cups of it provided at the paschal meal, even of the poorest Israelite. Two of them appear to be distinctly mentioned in Luke 22:17-20." See Comprehensive Dictionary of the Bible by Smith and Barnum, page 803. Mr. Frey, in his work on the Types, vol. 1, page 88, informs us that the Jews were accustomed to drink four cnps of wine in the observance of the Passover. And Dr. Tees declares that the traditions of the Talmud state "that each person at the Passover was supplied with four cups at least, and had permission to take an extra quantity between." He shows also, that according to the Talmud, the quantity of wine which it was obligatory on each person to drink, would be three pints." (Temperance Com. page 281.) Now, granting that the statements of the Talmud in regard to quantity are somewhat extravagant, it is still quite obvious that the wine of the Passover was used very freely and copiously. They did not sup, but drink it, and they drank four cups during that solemnity. And on the supposition that the wine was fermented, it is difficult to see how the Jews could observe the Passover without some degree of inebriation. Moreover, if our Lord and his disciples kept the Passover according to Jewish customs, unless we assume that the wine was unfermented, it will necessarily follow that they both countenanced and exemplified that excess of wine," which he so strongly condemns in his Word. Indeed, the very thought, that the cup which we know our Lord gave to his disciples at least twice during his last paschal supper (see Luke 22:17-20), commanding them not only to sup of it, but to drink of it, was the cup of intoxication, the cup of trembling, is a thought from which the pious mind instinctively recoils.

66

4. Finally, we would mention, as further evidence of our position, the

66

law which excluded all leaven or ferment, and everything leavened or fermented, from the feast of the Passover and from the houses of the Israelites during a period of seven days. It is presumed that our Lord and his disciples would keep the Passover in accordance with the requisitions of this law. What, then, was this law? We quote the following, as pertinent to our purpose: "Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day, ye shall put away leaven out of your houses; for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel." Exodus 12: 15. And, again: Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger or born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread." Exodus 12:19, 20. Now, if the Jews were required to "eat nothing leavened," as is obvious from the above, then certainly it was required that not only their bread but all their food, whether solid or liquid, should be unleavened or unfermented. It ought, however, to be observed in this connection, that the word bread in the above quotations is not in the original, but is supplied by our translators, aud the antithesis in the last verse quoted, clearly shows that the phrase "unleavened bread," ought to be rendered unleavened food or unleavened things, thus: Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened things. Here, then, the prohibition of leavened food was universal and absolute, admitting of no exceptions.

The Jews were to eat during the Passover, not merely no bread that was leavened, but nothing, that is, no eatable or esculent, no kind of food, whether solid or liquid, that was leavened or fermented, How is it possible by any legitimate interpretation of language, to exempt fermented wine from the compass of this prohibition?

Hence, we conclude that the wine used in the Passover was unfermented. And, indeed, this is the conclusion at which some of the most eminent scholars and philologists have arrived. Dr. Wm. Smith, when referring to the amount of wine used in the Passover, subjoins the following foot-note: "The reader will bear in mind that all leaven being prohibited, the wine used on the occasion must of necessity have been unfermented." See Smith's Abridged Dictionary, page 693. And Dr. Tees says: “Obedience to the Mosaic law required the absence of all fermented articles from the Passover feast. The law forbade Seor-yeast, ferment, whatever could excite fermentation, and Hamets-whatever had uudergone fermentation or been subject to the action of seor. Fermented grape juice must, therefore, by the necessity of the case, have been equally interdicted with fermented bread." (See Temperance Com. page 280.)

It is, however, stoutly maintained, and that on philological grounds, that the prohibition of leaven in the law for the Passover had no reference to liquids, but only to solid food. But the consideration of this point must be reserved for another occasion. W. W.

THE blind man cannot form the most distant idea of colors, nor the deaf man of music; so there may be attributes of God of which we cannot form the dimmest conception, differing as much from anything we have experienced, as colors do from sounds, as mind does from body.-Mc Cosh.

THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA.
SKETCHES OF HER ORGANIC HISTORY. No. XII.

BY REV. THOS. SPROULL, D. D.

DURING the intermediate time betweeen the meeting of the Eastern SubSynod and that of the General Synod, the church was in a state of painful disquiet. As might be expected, strenuous efforts were made on both sides for the struggle that it was foreseen would take place in the supreme judicatory. The object aimed at was to secure a majority that would decide the question and restore peace to the church. As it was not at all likely that either side would submit to a decision adverse to the views which they respectively maintained, the ulterior object was, by having a majority, to retain the right to be the Reformed Presbyterian Church. On the part of those who held by her established position, a division in their favor was desirable, as a means of strengthening many persons who were wavering through the example and influence of those who had diverged from that position. The true question was, which of these opposing parties occupied the ground that the church had held from its first organic existence in regard to the government of the country.

Unfortunately this question was in a great measure left out of view in the distracted condition of affairs in the eastern part of the church. The issue raised by those who had taken the first step of departure, was the legality of the pro re nata meeting of the Eastern Sub-Synod. The point which they were diligent in keeping before the minds of the people was not that their brethren had left the original ground on which the church stood in this country, but that in endeavoring to apply the discipline of the church, they had violated ecclesiastical forms and law. The epithet pro re nata men, that there was a persistent effort to fasten on them as a distinctive designation, was artfully suited to impress the public mind that the whole difference between the parties was the legality of that interim meeting of the Eastern Sub-Synod.

On the other side, the names "New-Light" and " Old-Light" came into use as expressive designations of the parties respectively, and pointing to the true cause of difference. The Old-Lights adhered to the position that the church had from the beginning occupied; the New-Lights, abandoning that position, put a new construction on the acts by which the church had defined her relation to the government, as dissenting from and witnessing against its immoralities, and against the unfaithfulness of the churches that permitted their members to incorporate with it.

The General Synod was to meet in Philadelphia on the first Wednesday of August, 1833. As the time of the meeting drew near, the interest throughout the church became more and more intensified in the questions at issue, and their settlement by Synod. A full meeting was expected. All the delegates who were appointed were determined to be there. The writer, in company with the late Rev. John Cannon, set out from Blairsville, forty miles east of Pittsburgh, on Monday morning next preceding the time of meeting. Travelling by the stage-coach on the Northern turnpike, it was not until about ten o'clock on Wednesday evening that we arrived in Philadelphia. The hour that Synod had appointed to meet was 7 P. M. When we alighted from the coach in Philadelphia we were met by Mr. Robert Brown, father-in-law of Mr. Cannon, one of the delegates of Pittsburgh Presbytery. With a countenance and tone that evinced deep emotion, he said to us, "Our beloved church is torn asunder." We went

with him to his lodging at Mr. Henry Sterling's house, his son-in-law and elder of Dr. Wylie, where we obtained further particulars of the separation. On the next morning we had the opportunity of hearing both sides, and so conflicting were the statements that it seemed difficult to know what was our duty. The writer had a private interview with Dr. John Black, under whom he had studied theology, and for whom he had a high regard. The doctor employed all his influence and all his power of reasoning to induce him to join with the party that embraced the new views. The scene of the preceding evening was presented as one of great disorder and violence on the part of those whom he designated pro re nata men. To all this the reply in substance was: "I know the principles of the church; I was trained in them from my childhood, and under your teaching my convictions of their truth were deepened and settled. With the body that holds these principles it is my purpose to unite." This reply brought the interview to a close.

Strenuous endeavors had been employed on both sides to prevent a rupture. Both parties desired to preserve the integrity of the church. In this they agreed. But on the mode of accomplishing this result, they widely differed. On the one side it was held to be essential to any arrangement, that the position of the church as dissenting from the government so long as it contained in its constitution no recognition of the su preme authority of Jesus Christ, and of the obligations of the divine law, should be maintained. Had a guarantee of this been given by the other side without an exception, the members from the presbyteries in the Western Sub-Synod would have agreed in General Synod to have reviewed the acts of suspension passed by the Eastern Sub-Synod, and rescind them. And we are sure that the members of that Synod would have acquiesced in the agreement, inasmuch as what they were endeavoring to accomplish by discipline would now be secured by an amicable and wise adjustment. And we doubt not, had an assurance of this been given in good faith to the Eastern Sub-Synod, that court would have repealed the acts of suspension, and thus removed the great difficulty that stood in the way of the organization of the supreme court. One of those suspended was the moderator of General Synod, and was, in the judgment of those who held that his suspension was valid, disabled from constituting Synod. By those on the other side there was no disposition to give this assurance, and besides, terms were presented that would not be accepted. A paper entitled "A proposed plan of harmony," was prepared, and is published in the Appendix of the Minutes of their Synod. It is preceded by the subjoined statement: "The following plan of harmony was prepared by various individuals, whom the pro re nata party had injured. It was hoped that through the medium of their western brethren, to as many as access could be had to, it was submitted before the meeting of Synod, it would have availed in effecting the proposed end." We give the several particulars of the plan, omitting the statements and reasons by which it was enforced.

"I. Let the New York pro re nata of Nov. 21, 1832, be declared null and void. II. Separate incidental questions from what is of general interest. III. That we may distinctly understand what this point of general interest is-what the matter of discipline or inquiry respecting it amounts to, and how it may be accommodated; let us occupy the same ground on which we stood in August, 1831. IV. Give time for reflection. V. Should diversity of opinion appear on any general principle, or in its application to any given case, before employing violent measures, let us consult our brethren abroad, as well as give time for reflection at home. VI. In the meantime recommend forbearance in the doing or enjoying of what is lawful, if offensive to others, and forbid all violent and unauthorized actings, by inferior courts, in reference to what is sub