Page 58 - History of UB Church by A. Funkhouser Ver 1
P. 58
Otherwise, it was not tolerated. Christian Shuey, who gave the land and assisted largely in building
Bethlehem church near Swoope Depot, was a small slave owner. Although he was reared in a home
where the fathers preached, and although he was the class leader and mainstay of his
congregation, his son and his son-in-law enforced the church law against him, and expelled him
from membership in his own church. However, the question of character was not involved in this
violation of church law, for Christian Shuey remained loyal to his church and was its standby until
his death. He continued to be the leader of the class from which he was technically expelled."
In the matter of intoxicants the position taken by the United Brethren from the first is highly
creditable. The German settlers of the eighteenth century were a temperate people. They did not
have the beer-loving propensity of the modern German, a habit which has made that element in
America a laggard in the march of prohibition. Again, the United Brethren put themselves on record
at a time when the drinking habit lacked little of being universal in this country.
It is often asserted that in the "good old days" liquor was purer than it is now, and that
although drinking was prevalent, intoxication was rare. The statement is echoed time after time, as
though its truth were unquestionable. And yet its only foundation is a mirage; an illusion of human
nature that is very aptly expressed in the following couplet:
Tis distance lends enchantment to the view, And robes the mountains in their azure hue.
The only solid fact in the statement mentioned is that in those "good old days,"—about which,
by the way, there is so much of humbug—the intoxicating element in liquor was generally alcohol,
and not so much as now, a compound of corrosive chemicals. Alcohol is alcohol, the world over,
and its effects on the human system are but slightly influenced by climate or race. Instead of
actual drunkenness being less frequent than now, it was more frequent. The authority for this
assertion is abundant and unimpeachable. Washington said in 1789 that drink was the ruin of half
the workmen in America. An eminent French visitor of the same period said that the most common
vice of the inferior class of the American people was drunkenness. The Continental Congress of
1777 passed a resolution that the state legislatures should at once pass laws "the most effectual
for putting a stop to the pernicious practice of distilling grain." But this resolution was too far in
advance of the public sentiment of the day and was laid on the table.
In our time it requires no high degree of courage to denounce the rum trade, for the simple
reason that the business is now under the ban of the best public opinion. But a century ago the
traffic was so strongly entrenched in the social customs of even the best classes of society that the
person presuming to antagonize it was called a visionary or a fanatic.
The decanter was then in almost every home. Temperance sermons were not preached, neither
were there any temperance societies. High church officials drank to intoxication. Drinking was
carried on at marriages, births, and burials. When a doctor visited a patient he was offered a dram.
Speaking in 1820, a pastor in the city of New York said it was difficult to make pastoral visits for a
day without becoming intoxicated. Dr. Daniel Dorchester quotes a minister of that period as saying
he could count up among his acquaintances forty ministers who were drunkards, or who were so
far addicted to the use of drink that their usefulness was impaired. Coming nearer home, all but
one of the eight deacons of a certain church were in 1839 actively engaged in distilling whiskey.
And this was within the present bounds of the Virginia Conference.
And yet we find the United Brethren Conference ruling,—as early as 1814,—that "every
member shall abstain from strong drink, and use it only on necessity as medicine." Seven years
later, the General Conference ruled that "neither preacher nor lay member shall be allowed to carry
on a distillery." Outside of our church there is in American history no ecclesiastical action on record
of earlier date than 1811. The one of 1811 took place in New England, and exerted very little
influence outside. It was not until 1826, when the American Temperance Society was organized,
that the evangelical churches of the United States put themselves on record as opponents of the
liquor trade. In 1841 came the adoption by the United Brethren of the rule which declares that "the
distilling, vending, and use of ardent spirits as a beverage shall be and is hereby forbidden
throughout our society." The Church thus became a total abstinence society, and such it has ever
since remained.
Nevertheless, the early restrictive legislation was not always heeded. The conference of 1831
took this action concerning one of its members: "Resolved, if Conrad Weast don't quit making
Chapter XV 58 Concerning Slavery and
Intoxicants
Bethlehem church near Swoope Depot, was a small slave owner. Although he was reared in a home
where the fathers preached, and although he was the class leader and mainstay of his
congregation, his son and his son-in-law enforced the church law against him, and expelled him
from membership in his own church. However, the question of character was not involved in this
violation of church law, for Christian Shuey remained loyal to his church and was its standby until
his death. He continued to be the leader of the class from which he was technically expelled."
In the matter of intoxicants the position taken by the United Brethren from the first is highly
creditable. The German settlers of the eighteenth century were a temperate people. They did not
have the beer-loving propensity of the modern German, a habit which has made that element in
America a laggard in the march of prohibition. Again, the United Brethren put themselves on record
at a time when the drinking habit lacked little of being universal in this country.
It is often asserted that in the "good old days" liquor was purer than it is now, and that
although drinking was prevalent, intoxication was rare. The statement is echoed time after time, as
though its truth were unquestionable. And yet its only foundation is a mirage; an illusion of human
nature that is very aptly expressed in the following couplet:
Tis distance lends enchantment to the view, And robes the mountains in their azure hue.
The only solid fact in the statement mentioned is that in those "good old days,"—about which,
by the way, there is so much of humbug—the intoxicating element in liquor was generally alcohol,
and not so much as now, a compound of corrosive chemicals. Alcohol is alcohol, the world over,
and its effects on the human system are but slightly influenced by climate or race. Instead of
actual drunkenness being less frequent than now, it was more frequent. The authority for this
assertion is abundant and unimpeachable. Washington said in 1789 that drink was the ruin of half
the workmen in America. An eminent French visitor of the same period said that the most common
vice of the inferior class of the American people was drunkenness. The Continental Congress of
1777 passed a resolution that the state legislatures should at once pass laws "the most effectual
for putting a stop to the pernicious practice of distilling grain." But this resolution was too far in
advance of the public sentiment of the day and was laid on the table.
In our time it requires no high degree of courage to denounce the rum trade, for the simple
reason that the business is now under the ban of the best public opinion. But a century ago the
traffic was so strongly entrenched in the social customs of even the best classes of society that the
person presuming to antagonize it was called a visionary or a fanatic.
The decanter was then in almost every home. Temperance sermons were not preached, neither
were there any temperance societies. High church officials drank to intoxication. Drinking was
carried on at marriages, births, and burials. When a doctor visited a patient he was offered a dram.
Speaking in 1820, a pastor in the city of New York said it was difficult to make pastoral visits for a
day without becoming intoxicated. Dr. Daniel Dorchester quotes a minister of that period as saying
he could count up among his acquaintances forty ministers who were drunkards, or who were so
far addicted to the use of drink that their usefulness was impaired. Coming nearer home, all but
one of the eight deacons of a certain church were in 1839 actively engaged in distilling whiskey.
And this was within the present bounds of the Virginia Conference.
And yet we find the United Brethren Conference ruling,—as early as 1814,—that "every
member shall abstain from strong drink, and use it only on necessity as medicine." Seven years
later, the General Conference ruled that "neither preacher nor lay member shall be allowed to carry
on a distillery." Outside of our church there is in American history no ecclesiastical action on record
of earlier date than 1811. The one of 1811 took place in New England, and exerted very little
influence outside. It was not until 1826, when the American Temperance Society was organized,
that the evangelical churches of the United States put themselves on record as opponents of the
liquor trade. In 1841 came the adoption by the United Brethren of the rule which declares that "the
distilling, vending, and use of ardent spirits as a beverage shall be and is hereby forbidden
throughout our society." The Church thus became a total abstinence society, and such it has ever
since remained.
Nevertheless, the early restrictive legislation was not always heeded. The conference of 1831
took this action concerning one of its members: "Resolved, if Conrad Weast don't quit making
Chapter XV 58 Concerning Slavery and
Intoxicants
