AFTERNOON SESSION, JULY 15, 1891.

The Convention was called to order by the President, and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. Thompson.

The PRESIDENT appointed the following Committees. Committee on Business: Rev. T. L. Poulson, of New York; Rev. B. H. Lane, of Rhode Island; Mrs. H. C. Campbell, of Pennsylvania; J. H. Kellogg, of New York; Charles E. Hart, of Connecticut.

Committee on Finance: Hon, H. B. Metcalf, of Rhode Island; Rev. D. C. Babcock, of New Hampshire; Rev. Hugh Montgomery, of Massachusetts; Mrs. E. A. Mickle, of New York; M. M. Evanson, of Pennsylvania.

The PRESIDENT suggested that while waiting for business, the Convention listen to the reading of Dr. Wayland's paper, "Total Abstinence as a Christian Obligation."

The paper was read by the Secretary.

Mr. C. E. BASCOM, of New York: It seems to me it would be unfortunate to pass over these topics without thorough discussion. If it is the will of God that liquor should be put out of this country, and if we are thoroughly convinced of that, we should not be handicapped, but our minds should be clear on this question that we may give a certain verdict, until it shall be accepted among the churches generally that total abstinence is a Christian obligation, which, under all circumstances, God requires of every man, woman, and child. Of course we may make certain exceptions where liquors are used as medicine and under the physician's prescriptions. Conscience will not then say that it is a sin to drink; but otherwise it seems to me the Christian forces should be concentrated on that point throughout the length and breadth of our land. Suppose we are agreed in this house. It is desirable, nevertheless, that we should declare our faith in no uncertain terms, that we, as a people in this land, shall refrain from the use of intoxicants as a beverage, not only for our own sake, but for the sake of weaker friends.

Rev. GEO. B. FOSTER, of Saratoga: I listened with much interest to the clear and strong paper which was read from Dr. Wayland, regarding the obligations of total abstinence. I felt, as I heard that paper, that a single admission would have made it stronger, and it is in the interest of that admission that I would like to say Just a word. I think the remarks of the preceding speaker make that admission all the more important. We are concerned not

simply in the conclusion in which we may all agree, but we are specially concerned in the arguments and methods by which we arrive at that conclusion. Now, precisely, what is the basis, or the doctrine of total abstinence? Upon this subject there should be no difference of opinion in this body. The paper did not make that so clear as we could wish it had done, because a certain admission should have been made. It is not intrinsically wrong, I assert, to take a glass of wine. That admission must be universally made by all temperance workers, in order to harmony in the temperance ranks to-day. It is not inherently wrong simply to take a glass of wine, or to drink that which is intoxicating. I mean that it is not in the sense that it is a sin to tell a lie. Now, it is always wrong to tell a lie. No circumstances, no position in life, make it right to tell a lie. It is inherently and everlastingly wrong. Now, it is not as inherently and everlastingly wrong to take a glass of wine as it is to tell a lie. It is that admission that must be put to the front today by all temperance workers. Now, upon what ground is it not inherently wrong to take a glass of wine, or to do, as I do, abstain absolutely from intoxicating drinks? I abstain, but I refuse to abstain upon the arguments which are so often made. I abstain from drinking, not because it is inherently wrong for me to touch it, but because there are questions of expediency. There is a question of expediency upon which the apostle Paul bases his conduct, and which should govern our conduct in social life upon this question of drink. And it is upon that ground, and upon that alone, we can base our arguments. Paul did not teach the inherent wrong of drinking. It cannot be demonstrated that the Son of God upon the earth did not make and drink wine that is intoxicating.

The PRESIDENT: We have been going on with this discussion awaiting the report of the Committee on Business, and they are now ready to report, but before they report let me invite the officers to take seats upon the platform.

The Committee on Business reported in favor of selecting a few of the topics for the afternoon. They recommended that the first topic to be discussed be "Temperance Literature," that twenty minutes be allowed, and that Dr. D. C. Babcock open the discussion; second, "The High License Question," forty minutes to be allowed, and that Dr. A. G. Lawson open the discussion; third, "Constitutional Prohibition, State and National," forty minutes, and that A. M. Powell, Esq., open the discussion; fourth, "Can Prohibition be Enforced?" to be opened by Hon, L. B. Kellogg, of

Kansas, discussion thirty minutes, each speaker to be allowed but a three-minutes' speech, and not to speak the second time until every one who wishes to speak has done so.

The report of the Committee was adopted, to go into effect after the discussion of Dr. Wayland's paper was finished.

A DELEGATE: Mr. President, I move that Dr. G. W. Hughey be allowed ten minutes on the pending question.

The PRESIDENT: The motion is, that ten minutes for discussion be awarded to Dr. Hughey, of Missouri.

Rev. GEO. B. FOSTER : Chairman and Delegates of this Convention: It is either wrong or right to drink wine as a beverage, or a glass of wine, and let us settle that question. I object to being called a crank or a fool, and I want the chance to discuss this question if the opportunity presents itself.

The PRESIDENT: The question before the Convention is the ten minutes' discussion by Rev. Dr. Hughey, of Missouri.

Hon. H. B. METCALF, of Rhode Island: I move an amendment, and that the twenty minutes to be allowed be comprised in speeches of three minutes each.

The PRESIDENT; The motion before the Convention is that ten minutes be given to Dr. Hughey, and the amendment is that twenty minutes be allowed on the pending discussion, divided into threeminute speeches.

The amendment was adopted, and the Chairman announced that twenty minutes would be allowed for the speeches.

The PRESIDENT announced the Committee on Resolutions, and said: In making up this Committee I have conferred with gentlemen on both sides. I have tried to get a representative Committee, one that shall represent all the "isms" of the temperance question of the day, and while I do not envy any one who will serve on this Committee, especially the chairman of it, I have tried to give a proper representative for each phase of the question.

The following are the names of the Committee on Resolutions, who were unanimously confirmed by the Convention: Hon. D. H. Goodell, of New Hampshire; Hon. H. B. Metcalf, of Rhode Island; Hon. James Black, of Pennsylvania; Prof. Samuel Dickie, of Michigan; Mrs. Susan S. Fessenden, of Massachusetts; A. M. Powell, Esq., of New York; Mrs. J. Ellen Foster, of Iowa; Rev. Dr. W. N. Brodbeck, of Massachusetts; Rev. Dr. A. J. Kynett, of Pennsylvania; Rev. S. H. Archibald, of Vermont; Rev. Dr. G. W. Hughey, of Missouri; Hon. S. B. Ransom, of New Jersey; J. W.

Manning, Esq., of Connecticut; Rev. R. D. Munger, of New York; Rev. J. Blanchard, of Illinois.

Rev. Dr. G. W. HUGHEY: There are four things that determine me in my mind on the question of the Christian obligation of total abstinence. We do not have a positive command, such as we find in the decalogue, saying, Thou shalt not drink wine, but we do have what in every loyal heart is equal to it, and that is Divine admonition. And wherever God gives admonition to us, it is as strong as though a positive command. The Divine command is, "Look not upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright; at the last it biteth like a serpent and stingeth like an adder." That admonition is enforced in many places in the Word of God. The second is, that under the Old Testament dispensation, God Almighty coupled the highest purity amongst men with total abstinence, touching anything that could intoxicate. The Nazarite and the priest, when they went to minister before the altar of God, are the representatives of the highest types of purity under the old dispensation. It was a death penalty to touch wine when ministering before the altar. So, in the highest sanctuary, He gave the most positive command to avoid anything that could intoxicate. The third is as much binding upon a Christian heart. "If meat make my brother to offend, I will take none." That law is binding upon every Christian conscience. It is an honest law. It is the law of Christianity. These principles have been sufficient to bind my conscience with cords of steel to the doctrine of total abstinence, and I have been a total abstainer every year of my manhood life.

Mrs. MARY C. LEAVITT: May I give an additional Bible reason for total abstinence as commanded in the Bible. We have no command in the decalogue which says, Thou shalt not forge, or thou shalt not counterfeit; but we have the command, Thou shalt not steal, and these are founded upon that principle. In these commands we have, "Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not commit adultery." We know that eleven out of twelve murders are done by persons while drunk, and that three-fourths of the divorces are on account of drink. And He said, "Thou shalt not touch that thing which causes men and women to disobey my commands, as given in the decalogue." Oh, men, women, and children, who profess to be followers of Christ, Jesus says, “Abide in me," and then does He not tell every Christian not to touch drink? We are kings and priests under God, and there is not a time to touch drink. He that defileth the temple God will destroy. Neither you nor any

body else can swallow one single spoonful of anything that tastes of alcohol without defiling his body. God does not say, thou shalt not drink a little, but nothing.

Rev. J. B. GRAW, of New Jersey: I want to say, first, that our friend Foster claims that we should admit that drinking one glass of liquor or one glass of wine is harmless. He gave no reason worthy of being considered for a moment why we should make that concession.

Rev. GEO. B. FOSTER 1 did not say that drinking a single glass of wine was harmless. I said that drinking a glass of wine was not as inherently wrong as telling a lie.

Mr. GRAW: I will accept his statement, and I simply want to say that he gave no reason whatever by which to justify that statement. Now I will answer his position by one statement. If it is not inherently wrong to take one glass of wine, assuming that four glasses of wine will make a man drunk, then it is not inherently wrong for a man to be one-fourth drunk. Again, he tells us that it is not inherently wrong for a man to drink one glass of wine. Of the 75,000 drunkards in the United States there is not one who staggers in the streets, or lies in the gutter, but drank his first glass. Again, he tells us that it is not possible for us to demonstrate the fact that Jesus Christ did not drink intoxicating liquors. He asserts what cannot be found in the Word of God.

The Rev. HUGH MONTGOMERY, of Massachusetts, said: It is an insult to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to say that He made and drank alcoholic wine. He called their attention to an interesting fact, as taught by a certain eminent scholar, Professor Shepard, of New Haven, Conn., who devoted many years to the study of this subject. That anciently among the Jews it was a custom whenever a child was born to bury in the earth pots of the pure juice of the grape, the same to remain there till the day of the child's marriage, at which time this wine was exhumed, unsealed, and in its pure, unfermented state set before the wedding guests. This kind of wine, moreover, was used by all pious Jews at their sacred feasts. Among the latter was included the marriage. These facts are considered as creating a very reasonable presumption in favor of the doctrine that unfermented, non-alcoholic wine was the kind used at Cana, and more especially the kind created by our Saviour on the occasion of the marriage there. This clearly proves that God did not come to this earth to create what He had already condemned.

Mr. BATTON, of New Jersey: I am a Jerseyman, and I am a