Letters to Thomas A. Morris, D. D., Senior Bishop of the M. E. Church

Preface

The first ten of the following series of Letters were published in the " Christian Record," commencing in November, 1859. In this way they were widely circulated and extensively read by the Christian brotherhood, and others who felt an interest in the important issues discussed. When we reached the tenth number in the series, we became satisfied that we would have to place them in tract or book form for general circulation. The voice of the brotherhood, as conveyed to us in numerous letters, seemed to demand this; and we yielded to the wishes of many brethren and friends.

These Letters as published in the "Record" produced quite a sensation upon some of the friends and admirers of Bishop Morris. We heard of one case, where a member of the M. E. Church borrowed the u Record" containing one of these letters, and when he had read it, he became so much excited that he threw it into the fire, in order to destroy the letter!

But this was an exceptional case. We have abundant evidence that many were induced, by reading these Letters, to search the Scriptures, and were led to embrace the truth. We have therefore added several new letters to the series, and revised the ten that appeared in the " Record," and now offer them to the public in this little volume, which is cheap and within the reach of all.

Let no one throw it aside, as unprofitable, because it

4 PREFACE.

is controversial. It isftrue, we have called in question many of the positions taken by the good Bishop, and fully sustained our objections, by the admissions of the most learned and able men in the M . E. Church and by Scripture testimony; but in doing so we have abused no one — we have always endeavored to distinguish between the system and the honest people who embrace it. We have used hard arguments and pleasant words, and trust that we have manifested the Christian spirit.

Our object has not been to wound the feelings of any one, but to arouse them to search the Scriptures. We love the good and honest of all denominations, and desire to see all united upon the " one foundation" according to the prayer of the divine Savior. Such union can not be consummated until sectarianism is made to give place to Christianity. Men must be brought to love God and the Bible more than party, before they will consent to such a union.

If these Letters should prove a means, by the blessing of God, of leading any to a candid investigation of the great issues involved, in the light of the word of God, we shall be fully satisfied that our labor has not been in vain. The blessing of God attend all who desire to know the truth! TFE AUTHOR.

LETTERS TO BISHOP MORRIS.

Letter I

Introductory — Under what circumstances we became acquainted with him — Read his book with interest — Buy the Discipline every four years — The Bishop's mature thoughts — The text very appropriate — One in spirit, though they may differ in fpeculative theology, forms of discipline, etc. — No sectarian or party names in the primitive church — Dr. Morris mistaken — The primitive Christians were all one — Dr. M. teaches that division is not incompatible with unity — Paul teaches that division among Christians is carnal — Are the Methodists one in heart with the other sects? — Calvin and Servetus differed in "speculative theology" — Were they one in heart?

My Dear Sir — A short time ago I saw it announced in your church organs, that a book was in press written by you, being a discourse delivered by you before the North Indiana and Pittsburg Conferences, both of which took action, requesting its publication ; and entitled,

" A Discourse on Methodist Church Polity. By T. A. Morris, D. D., senior Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church.' '

I determined to procure the work as soon as it came out ; and I have been fortunate enough to succeed. I was very anxious to read your book, from the fact that I have long known you by reputation, and I was introduced to you, and -spent a very pleasant afternoon with you and other friends, at the house of our mutual friend, Hon. Joseph A. Wright, then Governor of the State of Indiana. This I think was in the winter of 1853. I was then much pleased with your frank and manly bearing, and delighted with your candid and edifying conversation.

These circumstances, together with the fact that ycu are the senior Bishop in your church, prepared me to read your explanation and defense of " Methodist Church polity/' with candor, and without prejudice. And I may say to you, Doctor, without flattery, that I count myself happy in being permitted to study Methodism under so great a master.

It is true, I have read the writings of most of the great men of your church, such as Wesley, Clarke, Fletcher, Benson, Watson, Inskip's Methodism, and Jonathan Crother's "Portraiture of Methodism." I have also read and studied your Discipline, getting a new one every four years, in order to keep up with the changes and reforms made upon it by the General Conference. I have also been a pretty constant reader of the Western Christian Advocate for many years, and of course from all these sources of information I had enjoyed a fair opportunity of becoming acquainted with Methodism ; but still, I read your little book with peculiar interest.

Having finished the reading of your book, I have concluded to review it, in a kind and Christian spirit, in a series of Letters. I shall use pleasant words, and hard arguments, in opposing what I consider wrong in your discourse, or in Methodism as you explain and defend it. You have said some excellent things, and have said them well, and in a very plain and forcible manner, for which I award you all praise. Yet you have said some things to which, with the Bible in my hand, I am compelled to enter my protest.

This little book, you assure us, contains your "mature thoughts' ' on your church polity. No one acquainted with you will doubt your candor, or your ability to develop your church polity, and prove it to be of divine authority, if indeed it is so. Your fcook must therefore be received as a standard work, upon the subjects upon which it treats.

You have taken a very appropriate text. Let us repeat it : "For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ ;" Col. ii. 5.

After reading your text, you say, by way of introduction : " This Epistle of Paul is addressed ' to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse/ or to those who not only profess Christianity, but faithfully practice its precepts and experience its saving power. All such are one in spirit. They may differ in speculative theology, in forms of discipline, modes of worship, and in name, but they are one in heart."

We most cordially agree with you that the church at Colosse was a model church, not only professing the religion of Jesus Christ, but faithfully practicing its divine precepts and experiencing its saving power. But your next statement we can not receive. How do you learn that the Colossian brethren differed in speculative theology, forms of discipline, modes of worship, and in name ? Were they divided into Trinitarians, Arians, Unitarians, and Materialists, and still one in spirit f Were they divided in name, as Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans and Quakers ? Did some of them adopt the Discipline of the M. E. Church, another party the Westminster Confession of Faith, while others walked by the various rules of the Baptists, Lutherans and Quakers ? I know that you will not claim that such was the case in this model church at Colosse. Will you affirm that such a state of things existed in the primitive church ? Were they Methodists at Jerusalem, Baptists at Rome, and Presbyterians at Corinth ? No indeed, you know that no such divisions existed in the primitive church, and for many hundred years after the death of the Apostles.

From what premises then do you draw your conclusion, that Christians may differ as you say above, and still be one in spirit ? Does Christ or the Apostles intimate in a single instance, that Christians might be one in heart, while differing in " speculative theology, forms of discipline, modes of worship, and in name ?" Certainly, nowhere in the New Testament can such an intimation be found. But on the contrary, Christ prayed for his followers, "That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they may be one in us ;" John xvii. 21. Paul says, "Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you ; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment ;" 1 Cor. i. 10,

Thus you see that Paul and his Master were both opposed to such division as you say may exist, and still the parties be one in heart. And with them agrees every inspired writer. No, Doctor, you are mistaken. It is a naked assumption, without a shadow of authority from the oracles of God. You see professed Christians now differing in all these particulars, and in the goodness of your heart, you wish to excuse them, and throw over them the broad mantle of your charity, and, therefore, assume that these differences do not hinder them from being one in heart.

Let us look at this a little further, Your language, although perhaps you did not intend it, is calculated to make the impression upon the casual reader, that you had found in the church at Colosse, a model for all the division you mention. You say "All such are one in heart." " They may differ," etc. I need not say to you, jbecause as a Bishop you know, that not only the Colossian church, but all the primitive Christians walked by the same divine rule, the word of God, and all wore the same worthy name — the name Christian, from Christ their head and husband, which was given to the disciples, first at Antioch, by divine authority.

As to their order of worship, Luke tells us,

" They continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine and in fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." ~No division there, Doctor. The great apostle Paul differed with you amazingly in his estimate of division. You teach us that division is not incompatible with unity, and the spirit of Christianity ; Tvhile he rebuked the manifestation of the spirit of division in the Corinthian church, by saying, " I could not address you as spiritural, but as carnal." " For while one says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided ? Was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul V

Paul teaches that where such division exists, the parties so divided are " carnal and walk as men." While you teach that such differences may exist, among professed Christians, while they may still be one in heart, and "spiritual." Who shall decide when doctors disagree ? For myself, I prefer Dr. Paul, much as I love and admire Dr. T. A. Morris. And until you produce some better authority for division and sectarianism than your mere assumptions, I must continue to adhere to the old notion, inculcated by Christ and his Apostles, that union is divine, and that division or sectarianism is heresy I

12 LETTEKS TO

But is it so in fact, Doctor, that the differences you speak of do not break fellowship ? Are the Methodists " one in heart" and spirit, with all other sects and parties ? If they are, then we have been mistaken all our life ; and if not, then your language is calculated to mislead. You are a Trinitarian, and differ in "speculative theology," from Unitarians, Arians, Socinians, Pelagians and Universalists. Are you all one in spirit and in heart, notwithstanding these differences ?

John Calvin was a Trinitarian, and Servetus differed with him in some little matter of " speculative theology ;" yet Calvin had him burned at the stake for this difference ! Were they one in spirit and in heart ? Credat Judaes Apjpella; non ego I

Letter II

Importance of the word of God as a rule of faith — All profitable, and therefore essential — Stick to it for life — If wrong, change — Paul changed — Apollog changed — Martin Luther changed — The " Iron bedstead."

My Dear Sir — I see that you only make two points in the discussion of your text, viz. :

1st. Faith. 2d. Order. We only propose to examine a few things under your first head.

On page 10th, you say : "And here we endorse for every consistent Christian that he believes all Bible truth, especially all truth essential to vital Christianity. ,,

Now, sir, from the above statement, I infer that you do not hold all "Bible truth* * to be essential to Christianity ! That you hold to two classes of " Bible truths," one essential, and the other non-essential, and that even a good Christian may disbelieve the non-essential truths of the Bible without endangering the vitality of his religion !

But the great apostle Paul diners from you upon this subject. He says, " All Scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness : that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works ;" 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.

According to your statement, Doctor, some truths in the Bible are not essential, and are consequently "unprofitable!" But according to the apostle Paul, it is all profitable, and therefore essential. Our best lexicographers define the word essential to mean "necessary to." Any Bible truth that is not necessary to vital Christianity is non-essential, and vital Christianity would be just as perfect in every respect if all such non-essentials were left out of the Bible entirely ! Such non-essentials are not profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and can be of no value in making the man of God perfect unto all good works. Simply because they are unnecessary — u non-essential" to vital Christianity ! Are you prepared for this, Doctor ?

2. The next objection I have to your statement above is, that you seem to have two sorts of Christianity; the one you call "vital Christianity/ ' and the other I suppose is a lifeless or dead Christianity ! Where in all the book of God do you read of " vital Christianity ?" We had, in our simplicity, always supposed that the Christianity established by our Lord and his inspired Apostles, was a living Christianity, and that every thing taught by Christ and his inspired teachers was essential to it ! Have I been mistaken ? It would seem so, if you are correct. But I know I am not mistaken, when I affirm, that whatever claims to be from Christ that is not vital is a forgery and a libel on true Christianity.

3. Before leaving your first head, you say : " Before we adopt any system, we should be satisfied that it accords with the Bible, and then stick to it for life. ,,

Now, my dear Doctor, I must be permitted to differ entirely from you upon this point. There is not an honest sectarian in the land, no matter how heretical his religious creed may be, who is not satisfied that his " system accords with the Bible !" And the more ignorant he may be of what the Bible plan of salvation is, the more confident and dogmatical is he " in affirming that his u system accords with the Bible !" Yet, you would say to all such ignoramuses, because they are honest in their views and impressions, stick to it for life! But I would not. I would, however, give all such the instruction of the Savior, " Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they that testify of me."

You and I both believe that the Calvinistic " system does not accord with the Bible," but is contrary to it, and subversive of its teachings ; and yet we know that thousands, both in Europe and America, honestly embrace it, and are satisfied that it accords with the Bible. Yet, you would advise them to ''stick to it for life," notwithstanding you oppose it in your preaching, and regard it as a dangerous heresy ! A system which the eccentric Lorenzo Dow has reduced to an absurdity, thus :

" You can, and you can't, You will, and you won't, You shall, and you shan't, You'll be damned if you do, You'll be damned if you don't."

But still you would advise the honest Calvinist to "stick to his system for life" — to search no further — investigate no further — but " stick to it for life."

4. But I will tell you, Doctor, what course I take with all honest Calvinists, and all other honest persons whom I find in error, and satisfied to remain so ; I would advise all persons, no matter how well satisfied they may have been when they embraced their religious systems, to " Search the Scriptures" — " Grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth" — "Be not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is." And if in the progress of their investigations they should learn the " way of the Lord more perfectly," and as a consequence discover that the system which they had hon* estly entertained for years as according to the Bible, and with which they had been satisfied , was wrong, I would advise all such to change — give it up, and " stick to it" no longer, but set themselves right without any unnecessary delay.

It is the duty of every man to embrace that system which not only accords with the Bible, but which is actually taught in it. This advice I would give to every sectarian in the land. No matter how long he may have been satisfied with his human systems, nor how prominent he may stand in his branch of the sectarian tree ; even if he has been dubbed " D. D." or " Bishop," (in the modern sense,) I would urge him to read and investigate, and if he finds that he has been mistaken, give it up. Let him not dare to "stick to it for life," through personal pride, or vain glory, but make haste to change, as an honest man convinced of error.

I know it is pretty hard for a popular man, and especially a preacher, who has been identified with a cause, or system, to give it up, and 2 frankly and honestly say, / was wrong. There are many little reasons which a man may use to quiet his conscience, so that he may " stick to the error for life," though convinced that it is an error.

When I was a student at the University, I was intimately acquainted with a Presbyterian minister, a Doctor of Divinity and a Professor. He had been satisfied that the system taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith was in accordance with the Bible ; and he had successfully maintained the system against the opposition for more than a third of a century. But the circumstances surrounding him were such, at the time to which I refer, (1839-1845,) that the learned D. D. heard a different system preached from the one he had espoused ; he gave heed to it, investigated the whole subject in the light of God's word, and w T ith an honest desire to know the truth. And the result was that he made the discovery that "sectarianism is heresy," and that he had been honestly mistaken in his theological system. He was in a fix ! Conscience said to him, change — be an honest man, and set yourself right. ^

But his pride of character, love of friends, attachment to old and long tried church arrangements, social institutions, and modes of worship, all appealed to him to hold on to the system of his fathers — " to stick to it for life." Said he to me one day, " I am now fully satisfied that you are right in the main. I have no doubt but you are right, in preaching faith as the simple belief of the truth, as revealed in the Bible. I am sure,*' continued he, " that you are right as to the design of baptism being ' for the remission of sins ;' nothing is more clearly taught in the New Testament. And the mode, too," said he, "I have no doubt John immersed the Savior in the Jordan, and that the disciples and early Christians immersed exclusively.' '

Well, said I to the Doctor, if that is your faith, had you not better change your position, and set yourself right before God and man ?

He very frankly admitted that it would be right ; but said he, after a moment's reflection, " I think it hardly worth while for me to change now. It would sound so strangely to my friends. I have been preaching infant sprinkling, and practicing it, too, for more than thirty years ; and during that time have sprinkled hundreds, if not thousands of babies, and if I were now, in my old age, to be immersed for the remission of sins, what would my old friends and acquaintances say of me V

And so the learned minister did not carry out fully the convictions of his mind ; though he did change his ecclesiastical relation, uniting with a church having more liberal views of Christianity, but not requiring immersion.

5. But we have some very eminent examples of this principle of change. Saul of Tarsus, afterwards Paul the Apostle, was a very religious man before his conversion to Christ. He tells us, that "touching the righteousness of the law, he had lived blameless." That he " had served God, in all good conscience, from his forefathers." That "he verily thought that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth." For many years he was entirely satisfied with his religious system, honestly believing that he was right and accepted of God.

But on his way to Damascus to persecute the Christians, he met the Lord Jesus, in the vision, and he was convinced that he was in error. Now what must he do ? If you had been at Damascus in the place of Ananias, you would have said to *him, a Stick to your system for life." Never change ! But Ananias said to him, " And now, why tarries t thou ? Arise, and be immersed, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." To this he submitted forthwith, which was an entire abandonment of Lis old system, with which he had been so long satisfied, and a complete change to a new system, the gospel of Christ, which he immediately preached in Damascus.

Apollos, the eloquent preacher of the baptism of John, with which he had been satisfied for years, and which he had zealously and successfully preached at Corinth, being "taught the ^ r ay of the Lord more perfectly/' by Aquilla and Priscilla, surrendered, and gave it up. But if you had been there, you would have advised him to change not ! "Stick to it for life !"

Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk, and for many years fully satisfied that the system which he had honestly embraced accorded with the Bible. But afterwards, as you know, he was convinced by reading the Bible that he was mistaken. What was he to do now ? You would have said to him, "Stick to it for life." Well, suppose he had taken your advice, and continued to maintain in the Romish Church that system which he was now fully convinced was wrong, what would have become of his honesty — of his conscience — of his manhood — of the glorious Reformation itself, which he so effectually promoted by changing f Did Luther do right, when he gave up his old system, and became a reformer ? We all say that he acted wisely and nobly. He did just what every other man should do when he finds that he is wrong. But your advice, my dear sir, would have kept Luther and Calvin, and all the early reformers, in the old apostate hierarchy ! You would have said to them : Gentlemen, I know your system is wrong, but as you have been satisfied with it, I advise you to " stick to it for life!"

6. Time would fail me to speak of John and Charles Wesley, and many other prominent men in your own church, all of whom changed. If Wesley and his colaborers in the work of developing and bringing out Methodism, had taken your advice, and " stuck to their old system for life," where would your Methodism have been to-day ? Why, nowhere. It could never have been inaugurated.

But let these examples suffice. If we we^e all infallible, then we might talk about "sticking to it for life. ,, But as imperfection is an attribute of our common humanity, we are liable to err, and may be honestly mistaken, and satisfied with a false system. Therefore, before your advice can be admitted as wise and safe, you must strike out humanity, and insert divinity.

7. But 1 will now give you what I consider the wisest and safest course for every one to pursue. All Protestants admit that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; and upon the admission of all parties, human creeds and systems contain much that is erroneous — mere trash.

To make sure work, then, and save us from the trouble of chanoino- afterwards, we should be very particular ; and instead of embracing a human system, supposed to accord with the Bible, let every one be certain to embrace the system taught in the Bible. To make sure of this, let him embrace the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as a system of faith and practice. He may not understand it all when he embraces it, but let him determine to study it, and to learn as much of it as he can. He may then " grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth," as long as he lives. He may then " stick to it for life," and though he may learn many things as he advances, yet ail would be in harmony with what he learned at first, and consequently he would never be under the necessity of changing. Is not this the safest course, Doctor ?

8. But the votaries of human creeds and systems are cramped in their investigations. The creed is the " iron bedstead." If found to be too short for it, they must be stretched ; and if they grow too long, by learning more Bible truth than is in the creed, they must be cut off to suit the measure.

But as all these matters will come up again under your second head, I will press it no further now.

Letter III

Order — Government of some sort in the church is reeded — Without government, all would be confusion — Corrupt practices would creep in — What sort of government shall we have? human, or the divine? — Specific form of government — Prudential rules and regulations — God's appointment must be obeyed — The Bible the constitutional law of the church — Branches of the church, etc.

My Dear Sir — We now come to the second division of your subject, which is " Order." This you discuss as applying to church polity and discipline. Now, in my judgment, the Apostle has no sort of reference to any thing of the kind, in the passage you quote as your text. He simply refers to the order of their worship, as a congregation of the Lord. He says : " Though absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the steadfastness of your faith," etc. From this passage and its context, it is evident that the Apostle is speaking of their public worship, and not of the exercise of discipline, as you seem to teach. But we shall let that pass. You commence the discussion of this branch of your subject by saying, on page 11th :

" The term order, in this connection, properly applies to church discipline, and its administra^ tion. It will be conceded by all competent . judges that government of some sort or other in the church, is requisite to her peace and prosperity. This is true of all associations, whether voluntary or involuntary. What would be the condition of your family without family government ? Or of your schools without strict rules of propriety and order ? Or of your State, without wholesome laws duly administered ? Or of your army, without strict military discipline ? And what would become of the peace, purity and prosperity of the church, without * rules and regulations' strictly enforced ? All would be in a state of anarchy and confusion, doomed to wreck and ruin, corrupt practices would creep in, confidence would be destroyed, and hatred would supersede peace and love."