First, as to scholarship. Does the writer of the above believe that he is superior as to scholarship to the following distinguished scholars, all of whom believe in "this notion of two wines, one fermented and the other unfermented," several of whom, after a most patient and careful examination of the question, have written one or more volumes upon the subject, and one of them has been twice to the Bible lands for the purpose of carefully investigating the question there and verifying his statements? viz., Moses Stuart, Eliphalet Nott, Alonzo Potter, George Bush, Albert Barns, William M. Jacobus, Taylor Lewis, Geo. W. Sampson, Leon C. Field, F. R. Lees, Norman Kerr, Canon Farrar, Canon Wilberforce, Dawson Burns, Wm. Ritchie, George Duffield, C. H. Fowler, Wm. Patton, Adam Clarke, J. M. Van Buren, S. M. Isaacs, Wm. M. Thayer, John J. Owen; Charles Hartwell, and many other writers I could name, who, after a most critical examination of the question, have written earnestly in favor of the "notion of two wines, one fermented and the other unfermented." In view of the opinion of such men as these, can the above writer say truthfully that the "notion of two wines" is "unsanctioned by any scholarship"? Have we any more distinguished scholars than those I have named? Are not scholars who have for years made a special study of a question like this, in all of its aspects, much more competent to judge correctly than those who have not? It is certain that the writer in the _Christian Union_ has never examined both sides of this question with the slightest care; for if he had done so, as an honest Christian man, as I trust he is, he could never have made many of the statements he has made. He says that the "notion of two wines" is unsupported by any facts, and that "there was but one kind of wine known to the ancients--fermented grape-juice." Has he never read the Bible--even the New Testament? I shall first bring the testimony of the Lord Himself against him. He says:-- "Neither do men put new wine (_oinon neon_) into old bottles; else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish; but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved." Matt, ix, 17. Here we have the fresh, unfermented juice of the grape called wine--"new wine." It could not be put into old bottles and be preserved, for old bottles, especially skin bottles, are sure to contain leaven cells, which would inevitably cause fermentation and burst the bottles, whether they were of skins, glass, or earthenware. We know that fermented wine can be preserved in old bottles, and that it is so preserved without bursting the bottles. Here, then, the fresh, unfermented juice of grapes is called wine by the Lord. Should not our clergy heed His testimony?