to abstain from "drunkenness, buying or selling spirituous liquors, or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme necessity." The temperance idea is, therefore, incorporated in our organic law, and the Church is one great temperance society, with well-defined principles and purposes. To trace the development of this idea, and to show the position of our Church upon this question, is the object of the present writing.

The General Rules, from which the foregoing quotation is made, were formulated by Jolin and Charles Wesley in 1743. Wesley found drunkenness a prevalent evil in his day, and the ravages of the liquor fiend excited his commiseration for the sufferings, and stimulated his zeal for the salvation, of men. Methodists were expected to avoid "evil of every kind, but especially that most generally practiced," among which drunkenness has always been found. The rule on this subject has several times been changed, as follows:

1743. Mr. Wesley's original rule: "Drunkenness, buying or selling spirituous liquors, or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme necessity."

1789. "Drunkenness, buying or selling spirituous liquors, or drinking them."

1790. "Drunkenness, or drinking spirituous liquors, unless in cases of necessity."

1791. "Drunkenness, or drinking spirituous liquors, unless in cases of necessity."

1848. Mr. Wesley's rule restored as in 1743.

The General Rules have become a part of the constitutional law of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to which every member has subscribed, and by which they are governed. Under this law the Church, in its legislative body, has sought to give expression to its views, and efficiency to the law, in various ways. It was not to be expected that a rule or law so at variance with the common customs of the age would remain unviolated. There were then, as now, some who were regardless of Church vows, and held law in abeyance when goaded on in an evil course by appetite or gain. But the fathers thought the offenders should be dealt with, and the law be vindicated. As early as 1780 we find Conference action recorded. At that time the struggle for national independence was progressing, and for years the colonies had been engaged FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXVIII.-40

in war. Religious privileges had been few, and spiritual prosperity had been retarded. Church laws had been thrown aside, or trampled under foot. Asbury came forth from his retirement, whither he had been driven by the war, and presided at this Conference. It was found that Methodists had suffered in the general defection from the ways of God, and were engaged in the distillation of spirituous liquors. In relation to this the following was adopted :—

Quest. Do we disapprove of the practice of distilling grain into liquor? Shall we disown our friends who will not renounce the practice?

"Ans. Yes."

This law had special reference to distilling, and nothing was said about drinking. But three years later higher ground was taken, and the following was added to the Conference Minutes: Quest. Should our friends be permitted to make spirituous liquors, sell, and drink them in drams?

"Ans. By no means: we think it wrong in its nature and consequences, and desire all our preachers to teach the people by precept and example to put away this evil.”

This was strong ground to be taken, considering the preva lence of the evil, for in that day it pervaded all classes of society. Seasons of festivity and sorrow, of labor and relaxation, and sometimes even of religious solemnity, were characterized by the free use of intoxicating drinks. Although in all ages drunkenness has been condemned as a vice, the Methodist Church was the first Christian Church since the apostles which forbade the use of spirituous liquors as a beverage, and their sale for such purposes. The action of the Conference mentioned above was thirty years earlier than the organization of any temperance society. The men composing that Conference were brave and good men, pioneers in a good cause, ready to carry out the law as left by Wesley.

In the three years from 1780 to 1783 there was evidently a growth in the temperance sentiment. In the first-named year the distillation of ardent spirits was denounced, and all Methodists engaged in the base work were to be disowned. It was pandering too much to the vices of the times. It is likely that as some Methodists were engaged in the manufacture of spirituous liquors, many more were habitual drinkers.

There is an intimation that the preachers were not all free from it. Mention is made of the same state of things in the Large Minutes. The evil of dram drinking and snuff taking was found to some extent, even among those who met in band. These bands were supposed to include the most devoted and circumspect, but they were living in violation of the rules of the Church. Their condition is sho wnby the following minute :-"Quest. Have those in band left off snuff and drams?

66 Ans. No. Many are still enslaved to one or the other. In order to redress this, 1. Let no preacher touch either on any account. 2. Strongly dissuade our people from them. 3. Answer their pretenses, particularly curing the colic."

Our fathers were engaged in a hard fight. They were battling an insidious foe. It is evident the early dram-drinking Methodists were not slow in finding pretenses for their evil habits. We think the preachers assigned themselves a hard task to answer the pretenses of moderate drinkers. The "colic," and kindred diseases requiring oft-repeated doses of ardent spirits, are stubborn ailments, and will not readily yield to medical treatment, and the subjects of them are in constant fear of a return of the malady, and so think it best to use the medicine as a preventive as well as a cure. Alas for the weakness of human nature! The preachers also were specially reminded of their duty of total abstinence in the following:"Quest. May our ministers or traveling preachers drink spirituous liquors?

"Ans. By no means, unless it be medicinally."

They were also enjoined to preach expressly against dram drinking. The leaders were to "closely examine and exhort every person to put away the accursed thing." The preacher was to "warn every Society that none who is guilty herein. can remain among us;" and he was to "vigorously, but calmly, enforce the rule concerning drams." And on the reception of a new helper the question was proposed, "Do you take no drams?"

It has been seen that the original rule of Mr. Wesley was changed in 1789, leaving out the phrase "unless in cases of extreme necessity," thus prohibiting all use of spirituous liquors as a drink, and even forbidding buying or selling them under any circumstances. In 1790 the rule was again changed, and in a

great measure robbed of its significance and glory, by leav ing out the phrase buying or selling. This was probably the greatest mistake ever made on this subject by the Methodist Episcopal Church. It compromised the Church, and did an incalculable amount of injury. Within six years of this time the pernicious custom of retailing spirituons liquors by members of the Church had become so offensive as to require a special enactment of the General Conference to check the unhallowed practice; to check, but not prohibit, for when people begin to make laws with a view to regulate an existing evil, it is an evidence that the evil itself is in some sense sanctioned.

To regulate this evil the General Conference of 1796 added a new section to the Discipline: "Of the Sale and Use of Spirituous Liquors." It is in itself something of a curiosity. "If any member of our Society retail or give spirituous liquors, and any thing disorderly be transacted under his roof on this account, the preacher who has the oversight of the circuit shall proceed against him, as in the case of other immoralities; and the person accused shall be cleared, censured, suspended, or excluded, according to his conduct, as on other charges of immorality." This was a sort of an ecclesiastical-civil damage law, punishing a man for the evil consequences of the selling or giving, while it tolerated the acts themselves. At this time the bishops (Coke and Asbury) were requested by the Confer ence to prepare notes explanatory of the Discipline. They did so, and the notes were bound up with the form of Discipline. Explanatory of the above section we find the following note:

N. B. Far be it from us to wish or endeavor to intrude upon the proper religious or civil liberty of any of our people. But the retailing of spirituous liquors, and giving drams to customers when they call at the stores, are such prevalent customs at present, and are productive of so many evils, that we judge it our indispensable duty to form a regulation against them. The cause of God, which we prefer to every other consideration under heaven, absolutely requires us to step forth with humble boldness in this respect.

This objectionable section was omitted from the Discipline

in 1840.

The administrators of discipline were evidently perplexed by the change of the General Rule, because under it, in its changed form, those who trafficked in spirituous liquors could

be dealt with, only under the more general and equivocal rule of "doing no harm.”

There were but slight changes in the law for many years. after this. In 1820 we get a glimpse of the matter in the "Bishops' Address to the General Conference," which, on this point, was referred to a committee, with instructions to report. The report was made, but was laid upon the table. The following, however, was added to the Discipline: "No preacher among us shall distill or retail spirituous liquors without forfeiting his official standing." The law itself is a sad comment upon the practices of the times. There were diverse views in regard to this, and a motion was made to strike it out; but the motion was lost. It was then moved "that no member in our Church shall distill ardent spirits without forfeiting his standing." This, though a just and consistent measure, was killed by indefinite postponement. From 1790 to 1828 there was great laxity on the part of the administrators of Discipline, and the tendency of the Church was to recede from the original position of Mr. Wesley. The rule itself had been softened down, and in many instances even this had been suffered to remain as a dead letter. The American Temperance Society commenced its operations in 1826, and did a vast amount of good. A proposition was made to our Church that it should unite with that society, but the terms were such as the Church did not think it expedient to accept. The proposition gave rise to a controversy, and to some bitterness and heart-burnings. on both sides of the question. The discussion elicited some facts that had long been concealed. It was clearly discovered that members of our own Church were in the daily habit of using intoxicating liquors, and that the Discipline, at best, had been but partially enforced. This discovery led to important results. It showed the necessity of a reformation even in our own Church, notwithstanding the prohibitory rule. Temperance societies were formed, and many of the preachers and people fell in with the temperance measures, greatly to the benefit of the Church and to the cause of God generally.

The General Conference of 1828 adopted a report on the subject, prepared by Wilbur Fisk. It speaks of the example of the fathers both in Europe and America, and of our excellent rules, as tending to the suppression of intemperance, and