NINTH DAY’S TRAVEL

NINTH DAY’S TRAVEL

In which the parties pass by and carefully examine the so-called Methodist Episcopal Church, assisted by the Presiding Elder and his amiable wife. Strange disclosures in the history of the Discipline.

WE will not detain the attention of the reader by giving a narrative of the evening visit to the city. We will not describe the magnificent capitol, the pride of Tennessee, at once the tomb and the noblest monument of the architect who conceived its plan, but died before he could witness its completion. We will not describe the city, with its beauties or its blemishes, as it lay spread out before them like a map, while they stood in the portico of this immense pile of massive rocks.

Nor will we stop to describe the ride round the plantation the next morning. We have no time to tell of the romantic scenery upon the river’s brink; the shaded avenues and terraced banks of flowers. We can hardly even pause to go with Theodosia to the whitewashed cabin of old “Aunt Rachel,” and hear her tell how, when her master was an infidel, she prayed year after year that God would shine into his heart, and show him what a blessed Saviour Jesus is; and how at last God heard her prayers, and scent him home a Christian. “O missis! if you only knowed how my heart cried when master used to go on so about the Bible, you wouldn’t blame old Rachel for shouting sometimes now, when I sees him study the blessed book so, day after day. O, de blessed Lord as done great things for us, missis. And now, if master could only see his way into the Church, seems to me I could say, like ole Simeon, ‘Lord, now thou lets me die in peace.’ But I hope he’s comin’ right bym-by.”

“Maybe you could tell him which the Church of Jesus is, Aunt Rachel.”

“Ah yes, missis, if they’d only ask the ole nigger, she’d tell them how to get into the Church.”

“What directions would you give?” asked Theodosia, greatly interested.

“O, I’d just say, Do as my blessed Jesus did. He was baptized himself, and he wants all his people to be baptized. Let then go down into the water, ’cordin’ to his commandment.”

“Then you are a Baptist, Aunt Rachel.”

“Yes, missis, I was baptized more ’an thirty years ago.”

“But we are studying now to see if the Methodist Church is not the true Church of Jesus Christ. What do you think about it, Aunt Rachel? Don’t you think there are as many Methodists in heaven as there are Baptists?”

“Why, no, missis, bless your heart! the Baptists has been agoing there ever since the days when John baptized in Jordan, and they tell me that the Methodists just begun a little while ago. The Methodists is mighty good people, missis; but they han’t been agoing to heaven so long as the Baptists have. I hope master will hunt out in that blessed book till he finds the good old way.”

“Your master has invited the Methodist minister and the lady to come over and spend the day with us, and they will make a Methodist of him if they can.”

“Ah, missis, the minister is a mighty good man. I loves to hear him preach about Jesus; I loves to hear him tell about heaven; I loves to hear him sing and pray, and they shall have the best dinner that ole Rachel can fix up; but they isn’t goin’ to make master be a Methodist, I knows that.”

“How do you know that, Aunt Rachel?”

“’Cause, missis, master goes by the book, an’ if the Methodist Church was in the book, people would have found it long time before they did.”

The Doctor had himself gone over to his neighbor’s, after supper, and explained to him in what position the discussion stood, and desired him and his good lady to come and spend the day, and bring with them a copy of the Discipline, and any other works which might assist in the complete understanding of the system called Methodism.

At an early hour the visitors came, not prepared for or expecting a debate, but ready to engage in social and kind discussion of any points of difference which might arise between them and those they came to see.

Doctor Thinkwell introduced the subject of conversation by saying that he and his other guests had found themselves embarrassed in their investigation of the claims of the Methodist Church to be the Church of Christ, by a fear that, in the absence of some one to represent her claims, who was familiar with her polity and interested in her welfare, they might do her some possible injustice. He desired to understand precisely upon what ground she stood, and to give her claims all the weight to which they could be any way entitled.

“If you expect me to enter into any labored defence of the Church of which I have the honor to be an humble minister,” replied the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “I hope you will excuse me if disappoint you; but if you merely want such information as I possess concerning the doctrines, the practice, the polity of the Methodist Church, I will take pleasure in telling you all that can be of service to your investigation. The Methodists, sir, are people who love the light. We do not wish to hide our principles from friend or foe.”

“I am glad to hear you talk so,” said Theodosia, “for I feel that we need more light upon this subject. I do not think we understand just what the Methodist Church is in regard to her organization and her membership. You must know, sir, that we think we have ascertained, from a careful examination of the Scriptures, that in the Churches established by the apostles, none were admitted to membership who had not professed a saving faith in Christ; or, in other words, that they were designed to be composed only of converted people. Now if this is so, you will see that we cannot recognize any organization as the true Church of Christ which does not adopt the same rule, and receive as members only those who have given evidence of genuine conversion. Now in talking about your Church yesterday, we were in doubt whether you did not admit the professedly unconverted; that is, those who have made no profession of saving faith.”

“I do not see how you could have doubted for a moment, madam, except from sheer ignorance of our practice. We are so cautious to admit none but true believers, that we require of all who would unite with us six months’ probation, in order that we may be sure of their piety. The great object of Mr. Wesley, as he again and again declared, was to secure a holy people.”

“And yet I am told he admitted infants to baptism, and expressly said, that by baptism they were made members of the Church.”

“Well, what if he did? Are not infants holy? Is it not of such that the kingdom of heaven is composed? Would to God that all our adult members were as pure and blameless as the little babes!”

“But do you treat them as Church members when they grow up? Do you not require them to join on probation, just like a sinner who had never been received at all? How is that? They are in the Church—made members by baptism, and yet you do not permit them to commune, or recognize their membership in any way whatever. And by requiring them to join the Church again, you virtually declare that they are not and never have been members. Please tell me, if they are members after they have been baptized, when do they cease to be members? At what age do you disown them? or in what manner is their membership abrogated? Do they lose it simply by growing up? If so, you seem to consider it a sin to grow. Please explain this to us first, and then I have a question to ask about the probationers, or seekers, as they are commonly called.”

The Rev Mr Stiptain moved his seat towards the table on which he had laid his bundle of books when he came in, and picking out a very small one, remarked, “I have here the Doctrines and Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, which does not differ materially from that of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or the Church North. This is our standard of doctrine and discipline, and if you wish to learn the exact relation of the baptized children to the Church, you will find it here, chap. iii., sec. iii., quest. 1, ans. 5: ‘Let all baptized children be faithfully instructed in the nature, design, privileges, and obligations of their baptism. Those of them who are well disposed may be admitted to our class-meetings and love-feasts; and such as are truly serious, and manifest a desire to flee from the wrath to come, shall be advised to join the society as probationers.’”

“But let me ask, sir, if you do not advise all persons who are ‘truly serious, and desire to flee from the wrath to come,’ to join the society as probationers, just the same as you do those who have beer baptized in childhood?”

“Certainly we do.”

“Then you treat the baptized and unbaptized exactly alike as regards admission to the Church; and yet you say the baptized were made Church members in their childhood, and have never lost their membership: how can they join societies as probationers for membership when they are members already, and have been from their very infancy?”

The Reverend Mr. Stiptain cleared his throat, and hitched his chair still nearer to the table, and seemed to be looking for another book. He did not try to answer the question,[9] and the kind-hearted host, to relieve his evident embarrassment, called his attention to the other portion of the extract which he had read from the Discipline.

“It seems,” said he, “that you ministers, or the members, are to ‘instruct the baptized children in the nature, design, privileges and obligations of their baptism.’ This instruction is, of course, to be given after they are old enough to understand; and as one of the chief ministers, you are, of course, familiar with the substance of what is to be taught to them concerning these points. If it will not trouble you too much, I would be glad to hear what is in your Church understood to be the nature, design, and privileges of baptism as conferred on infants. Of course you must mean something by it. The baptized child is, of course, understood to stand in a different relation to God, or to the Church, or in some way to be in a different condition from one that is unbaptized. What is the change effected by it? What does it really do, and for what purpose is it used? If we can ascertain this, it will go far to remove the doubts which seem to trouble Mrs. Percy. For if it is employed to make them members of your Church, then Church members we must consider them until they are disowned by an official act, as public and significant as that by which they are received. If it is employed for this purpose, and does not accomplish the purpose, it would appear to me to be not only a useless, but a very foolish ceremony. But if it is used, not for this, but some other purpose, please tell us what that other purpose is. I ask merely for the sake of information. You have, of course, given the instruction called for in the Discipline hundreds of times, and can readily tell us what it is.”

“I do not know that I can answer your question more satisfactorily,” replied the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “than by reading the explanations of the father and founder of our societies, the venerable Mr John Wesley. No Methodist will ever be counted as denying the true faith, or departing from the right practice, while he can present the unquestioned authority of Mr. Wesley for what he believes or does; and I therefore prefer to call your attention to his instructions, rather than my own. I have here Mr. Wesley’s own teachings on this subject; and as he was the author of the instructions in the Discipline, which I have read, it is very evident that it was his own teachings concerning the ‘nature, design, and privileges of baptism,’ that the Discipline refers to, and requires the ministers to inculcate.”

“That would seem to be almost self-evident,” said the Doctor; “and Mr. Wesley’s expositions must set the matter at rest at once and for ever. Please read them to us. We had ourselves referred to them, but only by memory.”

“They are,” continued the Presiding Elder, “to be found in his Sermons, and in the Doctrinal Tracts published by order of the General Conference, as a sort of Appendix to the Discipline. I have here the volume of Tracts; and this fact, that it is not only sanctioned by the Conference, but published by their positive order, and under their supervision, will be a sufficient guaranty to you and all concerned, that the book contains a fair and honest exposition of what are the real teachings required by the Discipline in the passage I have read.

“On page 242, Tract xii., we read, in the language of Mr. Wesley himself, ‘Concerning baptism, I shall inquire, What it is? What benefits we receive by it? Whether our Saviour designed it to remain always in his Church? and who are the proper subjects of it?’ ‘1. What it is. It is the initiatory sacrament which enters us into covenant with God.’”

“Never mind what it is,” said the Doctor. “We think we understand that already. But tell us what the benefits are which infants baptized according to the Discipline are expected to realize from it. Does it bring them into the Church? or leave them, like heathens, still in the world?”

“O, if that is all you want, you have it in a very few plain words, on page 248: ‘By baptism we are admitted into the Church, and consequently made members of Christ its Head.’ And again, on page 294, 8. 6, ‘Thirdly, If infants ought to come to Christ, if they are capable of admission into the Church of God, and consequently of solemn sacramental dedication to him, then they are proper subjects of baptism. But infants are capable of coming to Christ, of admission into the Church, and solemn dedication to God. [P. 255:] Therefore his disciples or ministers are still to suffer infants to come; that is, to be brought into the Church, which cannot be but by baptism. Yea, “and of such,” says our Lord, “is the kingdom of heaven.” Not of such only as were like these infants; for if they themselves were not fit to be subjects of that kingdom, how could others be so because they were like them? Infants, therefore, are capable of being admitted into the Church, and have a right thereto. Even under the Old Testament, they were admitted into it by circumcision; and can we suppose they are in a worse condition under the Gospel than they were under the Law? and that our Lord would take away any privileges which they then enjoyed? Would he not rather make additions to them? This then is a third ground: infants ought to come to Christ, and no man ought to forbid them. They are capable of admission into the Church of God; therefore they are proper subjects for baptism.’

“So again on page 266: ‘The children of the Jews were visible members of the Jewish Church under the covenant of Abraham, and as such were received into it by circumcision as the door of entrance. The children of Christians were never cut off from this privilege when their fathers were received into the Church, whether they were Jews or Gentiles, and therefore they are members of the Christian Church also, under spiritual promises and blessings.’

“I trust these extracts will make clear to you what were Mr. Wesley’s teachings on the point about which you ask for information.”

“Excuse me, Mr. Stiptain,” said Theodosia; “but is it not true that the Methodist Church now has departed from the doctrines of Mr. Wesley on this subject? Do they still hold, as he did, that baptism admits infants into the Church, and makes them members of it? Could you not direct our attention to some more recently published work, which would give us with certainty their present faith and practice in regard to this interesting point?”

“I am happy to say, madam, that I can. Here is our brother, P. D. Gorrie’s most admirable ‘History of METHODISM as it WAS and as it IS,’ recommended by two presiding elders, who examined it in manuscript, and who testify over their official signatures ‘that the facts therein stated are correct, as far as they have been able to judge,’ and recommend the work, especially to the members and friends of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as containing ‘much useful information in relation to the history, doctrines, and institutions of Methodism.’

“In this standard work, published in 1852, we have a plain and comprehensive statement of the present faith and teachings of the Church upon this point. And first, as to ‘the nature’ of baptism. Here, on page 170, I read as follows: ‘The nature of baptism. 1. It is a figurative ordinance, symbolical of our death unto sin, and our being born again from above; of being purified by the water of regeneration and receiving of the Holy Ghost.’”

“Pardon me for interrupting you; but do you understand that when an infant is baptized, its baptism signifies that it has died to sin and been born again from above; that it is, or has been, purified by the water of regeneration, and has received the Holy Ghost? This is all very appropriate and beautiful as applied to a converted man, but how can it be true of an unconscious babe?

“But go on sir; I ask your pardon; I ought not to have interrupted you.”

He reads again: “‘2. Baptism is a sign of profession, a rite which was instituted under the law and retained under the gospel, as the distinguishing mark or sign of a profession of faith. As the generic term, to baptize, means to purify and cleanse, not only is there in baptism a sign of inward moral cleansing, but a sign of outward moral conformity to the law of God and the rules of the Church on earth.’”

“So, when you baptize an infant,” said Theodosia, “it is a sign that it professes, or has professed, its faith in Christ, while yet it does not know its right hand from its left, and could not be made to understand that such a being as Christ ever existed. Please, sir, go on.”

“‘3. Baptism is also considered as the door of entrance into the Church. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,” “Repent and be baptized,” “Then were they baptized, both men and women,” “Then Philip baptized him,” are passages which clearly show that water-baptism is designed to be an initiatory rite, and that in this way men are generally to be received into the Church. We say generally, for we dare not say that no person can be a member of the household of faith without water-baptism, for we know act that the apostles even were ever baptized, except in the washing of feet; but, as a general rule, baptism is and ought to be the initiatory rite.’”

“That is enough,” said Theodosia, “to answer my question. If ‘baptism is considered the door of entrance into the Church,’ then all who have been baptized must be considered as having passed through the door and as being in the Church. It is true you speak as though you were doubtful whether people might not be born in the Church, or get into it in some other way, without going through the door; but there is no question that those who have gone through are actually in; and if they are in the Church they are Church members, and we must so consider them, until they are officially expelled by those who have the power of discipline.”

“If any of you have any doubt remaining,” said Mr. Courtney, very quietly, “it may be dispelled by turning to the 173d page.”

The Rev. Mr. Stiptain politely handed him the book, and he read as follows:

“‘That infants are scriptural subjects of baptism appears from the following considerations: “1st. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant, which included children as well as adults.” “2d. The eligibility of children to Church-membership. That infants were members of the Jewish Church is evident from the fact of their circumcision, which was the initiatory rite, or door of admission into the Church of God. Can we possibly conceive that the children of Christian parents are entitled to lesser privileges than were the children of Jewish parents; or would it be any inducement to a pious Jew of the present day to be told that although his children are members of the Jewish Church, yet, on his embracing Christianity and becoming a member of the Christian Church, his children must be thrust out until they attain to adult years? Does not our Saviour explicitly say in regard to young children, ‘Of such is the kingdom of heaven?’ The kingdom must mean, either the kingdom of glory, the work of grace in the heart, or the Church of Christ on the earth. Now, in whatever sense it is used in the text, it must include the idea of infant Church-membership. Is a young child fit for the kingdom of glory? Then why not for the kingdom of grace? If fit for the Church triumphant, then why not for the Church on earth? And was not the promise of God given to Christian parents and their ‘children, and to all that are afar off?’ If so—and there can be no reasonable doubt of it—then are infants entitled to the initiatory rite which will formally admit them into the visible Church of Christ; and to debar them that privilege is not only unwise, but unjust to the children whom God has given us.”’

“And here also, near the bottom of the 174th page: ‘Again, if children were fit subjects for circumcision, they are equally fit subjects of baptism. And if it be inquired, as it sometimes is, What good does it do a young child to baptize it? we might reply, What good did it do a young child to circumcise it? In the latter case it admitted the child to Church-membership, and in the former case it does the same. What more than this does it do in the case of an adult?’”

“You see, madam,” said the Presiding Elder, “that we Methodists do not entirely agree with you in regard to the teachings of the Scriptures about what constitutes a true Church. You think it excludes all but professed believers. We understand that it includes believers and their children, and in fact all children who have been baptized.”

“We do not need, for our own satisfaction, to recur to the evidence on which our rule is based,” she replied. “We settled it after a careful study of all the facts and arguments, including those presented by your author. We are now endeavoring to apply it to the various claimants for Church honors, and my only doubt was, whether yo Methodist Church did regard the baptized children as Church-members, or whether you baptized them for some other purpose.

“It seems, however, that I had no occasion to doubt at all. Not only the earliest, but the latest, expounders of your faith and practice clearly avow and contend for infant Church-membership.

“You expressly declare that baptism is the door of entrance into the Church; that infants are baptized because they are entitled to Church-membership, and that by baptism the child is admitted to Church-membership just as much as the adult.

“I cannot help wondering how they get out of the Church after they have been thus admitted, so that they have to join it on probation, just like the unbaptized heathen; or how you dare to refuse to commune with your own Church members, when you complain so much of us Baptists because we cannot conscientiously commune with those whom we do not recognize as members of the Church at all. But I can no longer doubt that people are made members of the Methodist Church without their own knowledge or consent, while they are little babies. And I will now, with your permission, propound my other question, which is this: Are those people called seekers, or probationers, members of the Methodist Church?”

“Certainly not, madam. That is, they are not full members.”

“I do not know, sir, that I precisely understand you,” replied Theodosia. “We did not, in our examination of the first Churches as described in the Scriptures, find any class of persons (so far as I can now recollect) who were Church members and yet not full Church members. They were either members or not members. They were either in the Church or out of it They were either entitled to all the privileges of Church-membership, or to none at all. Yet you SEEM to have a class who are neither in nor out of the Church; but I suppose they are either in one condition or the other. They are in the Church, or else they are not in the Church; and I would be glad to have some definite and reliable authority by which we can decide whether the probationers are really IN or OUT. If you do not feel prepared to say for yourself, could you not, as in the other case, refer us to some statement of Mr. Wesley, or other of your standard writers?”

“I would say, madam, that they are members of the society, but not of the Church.”

“That is certainly very explicit, and I am much obliged to you for so prompt a reply to a question which, I feared, you might think almost impertinent; and now if you will explain to me the exact difference between the society and the Church, will begin to understand the case.”

“The society, madam, consists of all the probationers and Church members considered as one body. The Church consists of those who have been members of the society for six months, and by the faithful observance of its rules have satisfied their class-leader that they would make good members, have been recommended by him, and then have been ‘examined by the minister before the Church in regard to the correctness of their faith, and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church.’ (See Discipline, chap. iii, ans. 3.)

“Then your society is not the Church, or any part of the Church, but, like a Sunday-school, or a Bible-class, an institution outside the Church for the instruction and training of those who desire membership; and you recognize none as Church members, and never admit them to Church privileges, until they have passed their six months’ trial, have been recommended, examined, and officially received. This is very different from what I had supposed. We were under the impression that all the members of ‘society’ were entitled to equal privileges, and all enjoyed the same rights, whether they had passed their ‘term’ or not.”

“You may rest assured, madam, that we count none as members of the Church except they have been received as I described. We intend to have a holy Church, composed of those who have not only professed their faith, but by sufficient trial have shown the truth of their profession.”

“Will you permit me to ask one question?” said Mr. Courtney.

“Certainly; a dozen, if you wish.”

“Please tell us, then, what are the privileges which those you call Church members enjoy, and which are not enjoyed equally by the seeker who joined the society but yesterday? Do you not invite them both alike to sit down at the table of the Lord, or rather to kneel down and partake of the holy sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Do you not permit and urge the seeker to have his children baptized, and made Church members, just as you do the parent who has passed probation?”

“We do, sir.”

“Cannot a class-meeting consisting in part or altogether (except the leader) of unconverted seekers, recommend a member for license to exhort, just as well as the so-called Church?”

“Undoubtedly it can.” (See Gorrie, p. 303.)

“Is it not the society, or a select number of it, before which the preacher in charge shall cite those who refuse to attend class, and a majority of whose votes shall decide whether they have been guilty of wilful neglect, according to chap iv., sec. iii., quest. 1, ans. 2, of the Discipline?”

“So I admit it reads, sir.”

“Is it not before the society, or a select number of them, that an accused member must be brought for trial, according to chap. iv., sec. iii., quest. 2, ans. 1?”

“It is so put down in the book, sir.”

“Then if the members of the society enjoy each and every privilege that a member of the Church does, what is the use of calling some of them Church members, and others members of society? You see I am likely to avail myself of your permission to ask a dozen questions instead of one.”

“I am glad you ask them, sir. Methodism seeks not to hide herself. Whatever she is, she is willing the world should know it.”

“What then, I ask again, is the practical difference between a member of society and a member of the Church? You call them by different names, but you treat them as though they were the very same. The only difference which I can discover is, that the member yet in his probation may be excommunicated without trial, by the decree of the class-leader, while one who has passed his term and been received, cannot be excommunicated except by the preacher, and that after a formal accusation and trial. Now if these seekers are not Church members, you are guilty of taking Christ’s ordinances out of the Church, and giving them to the people of the world. If they are Church members, then your Church consists, in many instances, to a large extent, of people who make no pretension to the possession of true religion, and no profession of true faith in Christ. In either case I should fear to call it the Church of Christ. But we are losing time from our general investigation. I presume we are all satisfied upon this point now. We must regard that organization as the Methodist Church in which the privileges of the Church are enjoyed, whether Methodists call it so or not. That is the Church which acts the part of the Church. This, in the Methodist economy, is the society; and ‘there is,’ according to the Discipline, chap. i., sec. 4, ‘only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies;’ and that is not faith in Christ, but only ‘a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins;’ which is understood to mean simply, that they are seriously concerned upon the subject of salvation, and willing to make some effort to secure it, and can be persuaded to join the class for that purpose.

“Our next mark will lead us to inquire whether the members of the Methodist Church have been baptized upon a profession of their faith?”

“I suppose,” said Mr. Stiptain, “that you Baptists will hardly admit that we have been baptized at all.”

“In regard to this point,” said Mr. Courtney, “there can be no room for doubt or cavil. If sprinkling or pouring is not baptism, few of you will pretend that they have been baptized. If only immersion is baptism, the Discipline will testify that baptism is required of none, but only permitted to those who prefer it; and if the directions of the Discipline could be fully carried out in practice, and all the infants could be baptized, there would be no such thing as baptism upon a profession of faith, since it is certain that little infants neither have nor profess to have a saving faith in Christ. These positions we have settled before, and it is now enough respectfully to say, that the Methodist Episcopal Church stands, in regard to this matter, just where we found her mother of England, and her grandmother of Rome. Not to waste our time, therefore, let us hasten on.”

“Our next mark,” said Theodosia, “will lead us to inquire whether the Methodist Episcopal Church is an independent, local society, recognizing, in matters of religion, no authority but that of Christ above its own.”

“And this need not detain us as long as the last,” said Mr. Percy; “for it is a fact too notorious to require any proof that the Methodist societies are not independent organizations, but each is a part of a great establishment, somewhat like the Church of England, out of which it came, and after which it was mainly modelled. The local society of the Methodists is no more an independent Church than a local society of Roman Catholics is an independent Church. It is entirely dependent on persons outside of itself for the discipline even of its own members. It cannot determine for itself who shall be received or who excluded; who shall be commended or who reproved. The preacher sent to them without their own consent, sometimes against their urgent remonstrance, has all the power in his hands; they can do nothing but obey.”

“O no, Mr. Percy, not quite so bad as that. Did not Mr. Courtney himself say that the societies recommended the persons to be licensed, and that an offending member was tried before the whole society, or at least a part of it, selected by the minister in charge?”

“Certainly he did, but what of it? It serves to delude the people (if I may use the expression without offence to these good friends) with a shadow of authority without a particle of substance. There is the Church, or society, for example, in our little town. Last year they had a minister whom they dearly loved, and they sent up to Conference a unanimous and urgent request that he should be sent back to them. But he was sent to the opposite side of the State. One, who had been there some years before, and was far from being popular, and who had reasons why he himself did not desire to be forced upon them, was, against their wishes and his own, compelled to take the charge of their affairs, and they must accept his ministrations or have none; for so the bishop willed it.”

“I trust you will excuse me, Mr. Percy, if I say the society must have been very silly to ask what they knew could not be granted,” replied the Reverend Mr. Stiptain. “They must have known the rules, and, as good Methodists, could have gladly conformed to them.”

I grant all that, sir; but still, it shows how far the local society is from being independent They cannot say who shall or who shall not occupy the house which they have built with their own money, or who shall or who shall not be the instructors of themselves and their children in matters which concern their souls’ salvation. The bishop, whom they have probably never seen, and who knows nothing of them but by the reports of his subordinates, takes away or sends them ministers at his own discretion, and they dare not so much as complain, lest a worse thing come upon them.

“Now this minister, thus sent against their will, has, if I understand your system, all the power of discipline in his own hands, or in the hands of those whom he can commonly influence, to carry out his will. The society itself has no power at all. It seems to have, but it strikes me that when we look at the subject carefully, the illusion vanishes. Let us suppose, for illustration, that the son of Mr. Markman (the gentleman with whom this preacher had some difficulty when he was there before) has, during the past six months, joined the society on probation, and the minister has determined that he shall not be a member: he has only to whisper to his class-leader, who is appointed by himself, that this young man’s name had better be dropped, and the class-leader fails to report him for confirmation. He is virtually excommunicated, without accusation, without trial, and without fault.”

“O, no!” exclaimed Theodosia. “The class-leader would be too conscientious to comply with his request.”

“Then he would quietly remove him, and put another in his place; for it is his privilege and duty ‘to appoint all the leaders, and change them when he sees necessary.’ It would be strange indeed if he could not find some one who could be relied upon to carry out his wishes.”

“I am very sorry, sir, to see that you have so bad an opinion of us,” said Mr. Stiptain. “I am sure you never heard of one of our preachers thus abusing the power with which he has been intrusted for the good of the cause. Nor would such tyranny on his part be tolerated by those to whom he is responsible for his conduct.”

“I grant that it is not very likely to happen in the present generation, Mr. Stiptain. But organizations like the Methodist Church are long-lived, and power has a tendency to accumulate in the hands where it is lodged. I am not speaking of what has been done, or what is likely to be done just now, but of what may be done under the sanction of your Discipline. Your ministers are, doubtless, many of them very humble, pious people; but there may be among them some few who are proud, selfish, revengeful, and ambitious. Now I have, for the sake of argument, supposed this to be the case with the one of whom I am speaking. Do you not see how it would be in his power to shut this pious young man out of the Church, without any violation of the rules of discipline, and against the unanimous wish of the Church itself that he should come in?”

“I see, indeed, how the thing might possibly be done; but I can assure you it would cost the minister his license. He would never do it but once.”

“I do not see how you could reach him at all. He has no need to tell you all the motives of his conduct; and for the act itself, he did but what it was his privilege, nay, he will declare, it was his duty to do. Let us look at it a moment. We will suppose a case, merely to test the extent of the power of discipline which is in the hands of the membership, the Church, or society, or whatever you may choose to call it. We will suppose that this minister is a hypocrite—a thing, to my mind, not very improbable; that he is determined to shut young Markman out of the Church for the two years he is likely to remain in charge. He talks with the class-leader; and if he finds one too favorable to the young man, he changes him, until he finds one that will reverently obey him, as he has promised to obey his chief ministers. This class-leader may be an unconverted man—there are such people in the Methodist Churches. To give a show of justice to the proceeding, he may conceive and report to the preacher some vile slander affecting the young man’s religious if not his moral character. And the young man comes to the Church for redress; demands that the slanderer shall be tried and excluded. Do you think he could accomplish any thing against the preacher and the class-leader? Do you think the society could lift a finger for the young man’s rights?”

“Certainly,” exclaimed Theodosia; “the Church will call the slanderer to account, expel him from the society, and thus vindicate the character of the innocent.”

“Not at all, madam; the Church has no such power. She can accuse, or any member of her can accuse; but she cannot try or expel any more than she can receive.”

“Certainly you must be mistaken, Mr. Percy. Did we not read, on page 96 of the Discipline, that an accused member should be brought to trial ‘before the society of which he is a member, or a select number of them, in the presence of a bishop, elder, deacon, or preacher. And if the accused be found guilty by the decision of a majority of the members before whom he is brought for trial, and the crime be such as is expressly forbidden by the Word of God, and sufficient to exclude a person from the kingdom of grace and glory, the minister or preacher in charge is to expel him?’”

“Certainly we read, or might have read thus; but what does it amount to? As I said before, it seems to give the Church some shadow of authority; but look at it closely, and the illusion vanishes. The power is all in the hands of the preacher.”[10]

“I do not see how that can be, when the accused is to be tried by the society.”

“Let us trace out the progress of the trial in the case we have supposed, and you will see not only how it can be, but how it must be. As a lawyer, I have had some experience in these things.

“Young Markman accuses the class-leader of slander. To whom must the accusation be made? To the preacher in charge. It is his duty to try members. And what if he refuse to entertain the charge? What if he say, ‘Young man, go along about your business; I do not believe a word you say. It is much more likely that you, a mere probationer, should lie, than this good and pious class-leader.’ There the matter will rest. The leader is responsible only to the preacher, and if this slander were a part of his report as leader, there is no one else who has a right to intermeddle in the business.

“The preacher may try or refuse to try, as he sees best. Here is the decision of the Conference, as given by Gorrie, page 325, sec. 32: ‘Is a preacher at liberty to refuse to call an accused member to trial, when charges have been preferred by respectable members of the Church? He is, if there are sufficient reasons existing why he should not do so.’ And of that he is to be sole judge.

“But what if he should feel compelled by the force of public opinion to permit a trial? The trial must be before the society, or a select number of them. The preacher decides on bringing it before a select number. It is his privilege to do so; and he determines how many and of whom that select number shall consist. He sounds his men beforehand, and chooses such as are suited to his purpose. And if a majority of the committee thus chosen by himself do not bring in a verdict in accordance with his wishes, it will be strange indeed The accuser has no right to object to any one whom the minister may select; and lawyers know that clients never expect full justice from a ‘packed’ jury.

“But he not only selects his jury with the opportunity to sound every member of it beforehand; he also presides as judge. If the accused or the accuser object to any of the jury, it is his province to overrule his objections, if he see fit, and to pronounce them unreasonable. (See Gorrie, p. 323.) If any evidence come up which he prefers shall not be introduced, he is to decide the question whether it shall be admitted. (See as above, p. 327.) ‘Are questions relating to the admissibility of testimony questions of law? They are, and consequently the president or chairman of a trial must decide on the admissibility of the testimony.’

“Now, with power to select the jury, determine all questions of law, and decide on the admissibility of the testimony, what prospect is there that he will not have the case decided as he determines? But if it should be otherwise, ‘Who is to determine and award the punishment? The preacher.’ (See Gorrie as above, p. 323.)

“So, even if convicted, the case is still in the hands of the preacher, who is to determine what the punishment must be, and himself inflict or forbear to inflict it, as he may see best.

“But if the decision of his own ‘packed jury,’ with himself presiding as judge of the law and the admissibility of testimony, should be against his wishes; if he be so disposed, he can either simply refuse to carry out their verdict—for he is sole executive—or he can take the case out of their hands and carry it for a new trial before the Quarterly Conference, consisting of his brother preachers—who will find it hard to think him in the wrong—and of stewards, exhorters, and class-leaders, appointed by himself The Church or society has no power at all to DECIDE any case, unless they decide according to the wishes of the preacher; for we read in chapter iv., section 3, question 2, answer 4: ‘Nevertheless, if in any of the above-mentioned cases the minister or preacher shall differ in judgment from a majority of the society, or the select number, concerning the innocence or guilt of the accused person, the trial in such case may be referred by the minister or preacher to the ensuing quarterly meeting Conference.’

“Now, I ask, in all kindness and respect—but still I cannot help asking—if the semblance of power given to the society, in the trial of members, is not the veriest shadow, deluding them with the idea of authority, when they have none whatever? Let me, as a lawyer, have the choosing of my jury from persons whom I have already sounded; let me be the judge of the law, and receive or reject the testimony as it may seem best to me, and then let me decide concerning the punishment, and let it devolve on me to inflict it, and it will be very surprising to me if I should be at all desirous to appeal. But let me, in case should be dissatisfied, have the second chance before a tribunal interested in sustaining my authority, and a majority of whom had been appointed by myself, and with all of whom my official position would give me influence and importance, and I am sure I should not fail to get a verdict which should be perfectly satisfactory to my desires.”

“But,” exclaimed Theodosia, “if you, as a Methodist preacher, should act as you have supposed this one to do, the Church would take up your case, and convict you of connivance at sin and unfaithfulness in duty.”

“Not at all. The Church, that is, the society, can no more try a preacher than it can try Queen Victoria. The preacher is sent to govern the Church, not to be governed by it. It has no sort of control over him. He is not responsible to it either for his official or his personal misconduct. It can only call the attention of his presiding elder or his bishop to the case. And then, if it were some crime expressly forbidden by the word of God, the elder or the bishop would call together three other preachers and proceed to try him; and, if convicted, suspend him from preaching until the meeting of the Conference, when the preachers assembled would finally decide his case. A preacher, you see, can only be tried by preachers. But mere maladministration of Church discipline, attended, as it would be in the case supposed, by earnest declarations that he was all the time actuated by a sincere desire for the welfare of the Church, and had no sort of selfish feeling in the case, would hardly be regarded by his fellow-preachers as a crime. It would be a mere error of judgment. If it were noticed at all as a wrong, it would come under the head of ‘improper tempers, words, or actions.’ See Discipline, chap. iv., sec. i, ques. 5: ‘What shall be done in cases of improper tempers, words or actions?’

“‘Answer. The person so offending shall be reprehended by his senior in office. Should a second transgression take place, one, two, or three ministers are to be taken as witnesses. If he be not then cured, he shall be tried at the next Annual Conference, and if found guilty and impenitent, shall be expelled,’ etc.

“So you see that all the preacher would have to fear for this, his first offence of the kind, would be a private scolding from his presiding elder.[11]

“That it was the real intention of the Discipline to keep all actual power out of the hands of the people, and vest it exclusively in the preachers, is further evident from the fact that the bishops give it as a reason, a sort of apology, for permitting an appeal to be made to the Quarterly Conference, that it is mostly composed of preachers. Here is their language; let the people mark it:

“‘An appeal is allowed in all the cases mentioned in this section to the following quarterly meeting. For though the power of appeal be not mentioned in the last clause, which relates to the sowing of dissensions, yet it is certainly implied. Our work is at present in its infancy, in comparison to what we trust it will be, through the blessing of God us ministers, who have the charge of circuits, may not always be so aged and experienced as we might wish them. The appeal to the quarterly meeting is, therefore, allowed to remedy this defect. And this no one can object to. No one, we think, can imagine that the members of a class, or the members of the largest society, would form so respectable or so impartial a court of judicature as the presiding elder, the travelling and local preachers, and the leaders and stewards, of the whole circuit. But the point is quite out of the reach of debate, in respect to those who believe the sacred writings and sincerely reverence them. The New Testament determines, beyond a doubt, that judgment and censure, in the cases before us, shall be in the MINISTER. Nor could we justify our conduct in investing the Quarterly Conference with the authority of receiving and determining appeals, if it were not almost entirely composed of men who are more or less engaged in the ministry of the word, the stewards being the only exceptions.’

“Remember, this is what the bishops themselves say, in explanation of the Discipline; and shows how much authority the ‘people’ were to have. (See as above, pp. 337, 338.)

“You see, therefore, that the society, so for from being herself the independent executive of the laws of Christ, has nothing to do but pay the preachers and quietly submit to their control. So far from being independent, she is dependent on the bishop to say who shall preach in her pulpit, and who shall administer her ordinances, or whether she shall have any preaching or any ordinances. She is dependent on a preacher who is not of her number, who is not chosen by herself, and not responsible to her for his personal or his official conduct, to decide for her who shall be members of her communion, who shall be received, who shall be retained, and who expelled. Or if this power of his be in some slight degree shared with others, it is not with the society or the representatives of the society, but with the Quarterly Conference; that is, with other ministers equally independent of them, and with exhorters, stewards, and class-leaders, none of whom are appointed by the Church, but chosen over it by the ministers.”

“But their subjection is voluntary, is it not?” said the Rev Mr Stiptain. “They are not compelled to this abject submission, as you seem to consider it. Their bishops and preachers rule by their free consent.”

“So,” replied Mr. Courtney, “is the subjection of the Roman Catholic to the Pope a voluntary subjection—in this land, at least. But he must submit, or cease to be a Catholic; and the Methodist must submit, or cease to be a Methodist. Your system, you will permit me to say, IS A SYSTEM OF RULE for the ministry and subjection for the people. They may rebel. They may ask for the authority in God’s word which demands that they should bow the neck to the clerical yoke. They may ask what Jesus meant when he said, ‘Call no man on earth your master!’ They may inquire who gave the bishop authority to lord it over the heritage of God. They may demand to know by what right the Discipline has taken the authority from the Church—the local society of faithful men—and given it to the ministers, the bishops, or the Conference; but if anyone does this, he is liable to expulsion. He must, as a Methodist, be governed by the Discipline. Let any Church steadily refuse to receive the preacher sent by the bishop, or venture to employ one whom the bishop has not sent, or refuse to carry into execution any of the decrees of the Conference as contained in the Discipline, and you know she will not long be a part of the Methodist Church If she does not submit, she goes out of the connection. This is all the compulsion, thank God, that any religious organization can employ in this land of freedom. But enough of this. I presume that you, sir, will not contend that a Methodist society is a local, independent organization, or that the Methodist Church is made up of such organizations; and we may, therefore, go on to our next mark.”

“Which is,” said Theodosia, “that a true Church has Christ alone for its King and Lawgiver, and submits, in matters of religion, to no authority but his.

“Does the Methodist ecclesiastical establishment, whether we consider it as the collective whole, which is called ‘the Church,’ or as local congregations, called ‘societies,’ recognize any other lawgiver but Christ alone?”

“That question,” said Mr. Percy, “resolves itself into this other, namely, Does she recognize the authority of the General Conference to make rules which she, as a Church, is bound to obey? Are her ministers and her societies at liberty to disregard and pass by the discipline ordained by the Conference, and go to the Bible only for instruction, in regard to Church affairs? I would be glad, sir,” (addressing the presiding elder,) “if you could direct us to some reliable authority which would enable us to decide this question determinately before we go any farther.”

“I can hardly suppose it necessary,” replied the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “to remind you that Methodists go to the Bible for their faith and their practice. We appeal continually to the word of God, and it is our desire, in all things, to obey the Lord rather than men. For this we have been reviled. For this we have been persecuted. For this to-day our names are cast out as evil. No people have suffered more for conscience’ sake than the poor, despised, and slandered Methodists.”

“Then I understand you to say that you, as Methodists, owe no obedience to any law which was not enacted by Christ or the apostles, and which is not recorded in the word of God. So far, therefore, as the Discipline differs from the Scriptures, you are, as Methodists, under no obligation to obey its requirements, and, refusing to obey, would still be retained in the connection, and permitted to enjoy all the privileges of other Methodists. I am glad to hear it; for I confess we had formed a different opinion concerning this matter. We had imagined that a Methodist preacher especially was bound to ‘remember’ and ‘mind every point in the DISCIPLINE, great and small,’ whether he could find that point made out in the word of God or not; that he was not to ‘mend the rules, but keep them,’ whether he could find them in the Bible or not. In some Churches they have a custom of giving the young preacher a Bible when he enters upon his work, with instructions to study it, and be governed by its teachings. We were under the impression that in yours ‘the Annual Conference receives him as a probationer, by giving him the form of DISCIPLINE, inscribed thus: To A. B.: You think it your duty to call sinners to repentance. Make full proof hereof, and we shall rejoice to receive you as a fellow-laborer.’ (Discipline, chap. ii., sec. viii., ques. 1, ans. 3.) And that when you ‘receive him into full connection, you do it by giving him another copy of the DISCIPLINE, inscribed thus: As long as you freely consent to and earnestly endeavor to walk by these rules, we shall rejoice to acknowledge you as a fellow-laborer.’ (Discip., chap. ii., sec. viii., ques. 3, ans. 1.) We thought you never asked him whether he had studied the BIBLE or not; but that you were careful to inquire if ‘he had read the form of DISCIPLINE,’ ‘and was willing to conform to it;’ ‘if he knew the rules of the society, and of the bands, and if he conformed to them.’ In short, it has been our impression, that it was made his duty to obey the Discipline, rather than the Bible. We are rejoiced to hear that it is not so. We are glad that every member and every minister is free to consult the Bible for himself, and only regard the Discipline so far as he finds its requirements enacted in the Bible.”

“I wish, sir,” exclaimed Mr. Courtney, “that all your ministers and all your members could be made to understand it in this way. It might cause some of them to take the trouble to search the Scriptures, for those proof-texts on which the compilers of the Discipline rested its authority, and to which they have neglected to give us any reference. If they could all be induced to do this, with a firm determination to receive nothing as binding which they could not find plainly put down in the Bible, the system could not live a year. I would like, for example, to see them all begin to search for that text which confers the authority on your preachers to shut out from the Church those who give good evidence that they are true believers for six long months, (on the supposition that probationers are not members;) or to admit the unconverted seekers to Church-membership, on the supposition that they are. Of course, you believe there is at least some ONE such text, or else you could not consider this regulation of the Discipline as of any binding force. If it has NO scriptural authority, it must be null and void as a binding law upon the Church of Christ; and if it is actually OPPOSED to the scriptural law, then to enforce it, or obey it, is a fearful sin against God. It is organized, deliberate, systematic, and persistent rebellion against the express requirements of Him who alone has the right to make laws for his Church.”

“That is strong language, sir,” replied the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “to apply to the ministers and members of a Christian Church, which, I will venture to say, embodies as much of earnest piety, and gives evidence of as sincere love for the Saviour, and as much readiness to obey his will, as any body of people upon the earth.”

“I know it is. I made use of strong language because the sense demands it. I mean all that I said; and neither you, nor any conscientious man, will venture to deny that all I said is strictly and literally true, according to the plain and natural meaning of the words. I would respectfully ask you to say for yourself whether it would not be A FEARFUL SIN—an act of HIGH-HANDED REBELLION against Christ—for the misters of his Church to take it upon themselves to admit people to Church-membership whom HE did not authorize them to admit, and to shut out those whom he required to be admitted. And if you have a right to shut a true believer out six months, you have the same right to shut him out sixteen months or sixty months. It devolves, then, on you, as a Methodist minister, to show your authority, not in the Discipline, but in the WORD OF GOD. Of course, you think you have such authority. Such good and pious people as the Methodists would not knowingly rebel against the laws of the King in Zion. I would like to see you look for it. With your permission, I would like to help you look for it now! Here is the Bible. Will you point me to the text which is relied upon by Methodists as their authority for this law of the Discipline?”

So saying, Mr. Courtney handed him the Bible, and all waited for him to open it, and find the text.

“The makers of the Discipline,” replied the Elder, with out opening the Bible, “did not see fit to encumber it with references to the chapter and verse which contained what they considered the authority for each of its provisions, and consequently different persons might now rely upon different texts—some upon one and some upon another. Upon what texts the greatest number of Methodists would rely I do not know.”

“Well, I will be very easily satisfied: I only ask for some one upon which any of the Methodists can rely. I only ask for one command to admit the unconverted, or one command to shut out for six months the converted, who desire admission; or, in case that cannot be found, I only ask for one example in which saint or sinner, seeker or believer, was, by the apostles, admitted on six months’ probation. I only ask for one mention of or one allusion to a Christian Church, to which a part of the members were probationers and a part were full members.”

“Why, sir,” exclaimed the Elder’s lady, “I can give you an example of the admission of three thousand members before they had professed conversion. The Pentecostal penitents were only convicted. They were pricked in their hearts, and cried out, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ Now, Brother Gorrie, in his History of Methodism, page 172, says, ‘It is evident that these persons were not believers in the sense of being regenerate, unless regenerating faith precedes repentance for sin; for they were first to repent, and then to be baptized, for, that is, in order to the remission of sins, and thirdly, as the result of such repentance and baptism, they were taught to expect the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ Now, if Peter received the inquiring penitent, and baptized him into the Church to make him a Christian, why cannot we? We ask the sinner who desires salvation, to come into the Church and find it in the use of the sacraments, and the other means of grace; but if he does not find it in six months, we take it for granted that he is not in earnest, and so send him away unless he feels that he would like to try for six months longer.”

“I wonder,” said Theodosia, to herself, “if she could not show us how many of these three thousand were dropped by Peter’s class-leader at the end of six months; and how many were recommended by him for full membership?” But she was too polite to speak her thoughts aloud, and Mr. Courtney simply replied:

“The passage you refer to, madam, is itself convincing evidence that true repentance and a saving faith always go together; for although Peter commanded them to repent and be baptized, he did not baptize or receive into the Church any except those ‘who gladly received the word;’ and the glad reception of the word supposes faith in the word. Peter did not receive them as mere anxious, convicted sinners, inquiring what they must do—as your Church does. They were already serious; already anxious; already inquiring most earnestly; already they were crying out as most determined seekers. But this was not enough. They must not only be convicted of sin, they must also repent of sin, and true repentance implies true conversion, and necessarily implies true faith either as preceding or accompanying it. For salvation is again and again promised to the penitent, and yet the Lord expressly says, ‘He that believeth not shall be damned.’

“But the question before us now is not whether Peter received unregenerate sinners and made them Christians by baptism, but whether he received them or any one on six months’ probation? with the understanding that, if all parties were not satisfied, they might quietly withdraw or as quietly ‘be dropped’ at the end of that time.

“But still that people were not, as sinners, taken into the Church by the apostles to be regenerated there, and made the children of God and the heirs of glory by some Church ceremony, but were added to the Church because they gave evidence that they were already converted, regenerated, and saved, you may learn from the last verse of the same chapter to which you referred, (Acts xi.,) where you read, ‘The Lord added daily unto the Church,’ not seekers, not probationers, but ‘such as should be saved,’ which reads in the original simply ‘the saved.’ They were first made safe by faith in Christ, and then admitted to the privileges of the Church, because they were already of the number of the saved, and not in order that they might become such. As these were added daily, of course it did not then require six months to get into the Church, and if any such regulation was ever made by the apostles, it must have been made after this.

“If we go to Samaria, and read that the multitudes of men and women believed and were baptized at once, we may be sure that there was no six months’ probation there. Nor do we hear of any thing of the kind at Antioch, or at Corinth, or at Ephesus, or at any place where any Church is mentioned in the Scriptures. Peter did not receive Cornelius on probation; Philip did not receive the eunuch on probation; Paul did not receive Lydia on probation; nor did he receive the jailer on probation. So soon as they gave evidence of faith in Christ, they were admitted at once to full membership, and until they had done this, none were admitted to membership at all.

“Now, madam, your good husband here thinks that, as a Methodist, neither he nor the bishops above him, nor the preachers below him, are bound by any law of the Discipline which is not based upon the word of God. I hope you will persuade him, therefore, never again to sanction the admission of a mere seeker in Church privileges as a probationer, and at once to admit every applicant who gives evidence of real faith to full membership. Though, if he should determine thus to obey the Bible rather than the Discipline, I foresee that it will cost him not only his eldership, but his membership. He cannot do it and stay in the Methodist Church; and no one knows that fact better than he does himself.”

“Of course, sir, I would not desire to remain in the Methodist Church unless I could conscientiously agree with it in doctrine, and conform to its rules. Every voluntary association has a right to determine for itself the terms of its membership, and require of those who come into it of their own accord that they shall continue to conform to its rules.”

“No, sir; I ask your pardon for seeming to contradict your assertion. But the Church of Jesus Christ has no authority to make or mend the terms of admission or of continuance in her membership. They were made for her by her Lord; she was constituted upon his terms, and must be always governed by them. If any association called a Church has made other terms of admission than those which =he= made, it is certainly not his Church, for into his Church all his people may surely come upon HIS terms.

“But, sir, this is only one point in regard to which you are bound to obey the Discipline rather than the Bible, the Conference rather than the Lord Jesus. Will you permit me to call your attention to another?”

“Certainly, and with great pleasure; I love to hear you talk. It is satisfaction to know just what you Baptists think of us. I have never heard it told so freely before. I hope you will keep back nothing that is in your heart, for, if I am not self-deceived, I sincerely desire to know and to obey the truth.”

“Then you will not get angry with me, sir, if I ask you to show me in the Scripture some authority for making attendance upon the class-meeting a condition of continuance in the Church, even after admission to full membership. Observe, it is not the institution of the class-meeting that I speak of, but the making attendance on it a condition of Church-membership. Did the Lord Jesus, by himself or his apostles, at any time or at any place enact this as a condition of membership in HIS Church? Did he or they ever by precept or example authorize you to drive one of his children out of HIS Church for not attending class? That the Discipline not only authorizes but requires you to do so, you will see by turning to chapter iv., section 3:

“‘QUESTION 1. What shall we do with those members of our Church who wilfully and repeatedly neglect to meet their class?’

“‘ANSWER 1. Let an elder, deacon, or one of the preachers visit them whenever it is practicable, and explain to them the consequence if they continue to neglect—namely, exclusion.’

“‘2. If they do not amend, let him who has the charge of the circuit, or station, bring their case before the society, or a select number, before whom they shall have been cited to appear; and if they be found guilty of wilful neglect, by the decision of a majority of the members before whom the case is brought, let them be laid aside, and let the preacher show that they are excluded for a breach of our rules, and not for immoral conduct.’”

“Yes, sir, you quote it correctly; you seem to know our rules almost as well as though you had been yourself a Methodist. And I will candidly state, for the information of your friends, that we are accustomed to enforce the rule wherever occasion may require; and have ever found it a most essential part of our Church discipline. If a member wilfully and pertinaciously neglects ‘class,’ he makes, as a general rule, a miserably poor Methodist; we have but little use for him.”

But the question with us just now is this: You say that, as a Methodist, neither you nor your members are bound to obey any law but that of Christ; and yet you say one cannot be permitted to remain in your Church who does not obey this law, which requires weekly attendance on the class-meeting. It follows, therefore, either that you are utterly mistaken in regard to the matter, or else that Christ Jesus, by himself or his apostles, instituted the class-meeting, and made regular attendance on it a condition of membership in his Church. If he did not, then you have made for your Church different terms of membership from those which he made for his; and your Church, consequently, must be one thing, and HIS Church another, and in one respect, at least, a very different thing.

“It is certain you make this a term of membership. It is certain that one cannot wilfully refuse or neglect to attend ‘class,’ and not be subject to exclusion from the Church; and the only question that remains for us to settle is, whether class-meetings were ordained by Christ, and regular attendance on them made essential to Church-membership.”

“If it will relieve your mind of any anxiety upon that subject,” replied the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “I will candidly confess to you that we, as Methodists, have never pretended that the institution of the class was of Divine authority. Our writers have again and again declared that it originated in a suggestion made by Captain Foy, one of the early converts to Methodism, and adopted from him by the venerable Wesley. Our brother, J. Miley, in his work called ‘Class-meetings,’ expressly says, that ‘we regard our class-meetings simply as a prudential regulation. Mr. Wesley himself so regarded and styled them. They are a usage which our Church has herself instituted.’ P. 73.

“So, also, our Brother Charles Key, in his ‘Class-leaders’ Manual’ declares very plainly that ‘it is not contended that this institution is of Divine appointment, or that in the specific form in which it prevails among Methodists, it had any existence in the primitive Church.’ P. 19.

“Our Brother Gorrie, in his excellent ‘History of Methodism as it was and is,’ says, ‘that the question whether Mr. Wesley ever designed to establish class-meetings as a term or condition of Church-membership, is a question which has not been largely discussed nor finally settled.’ Nor does it seem now of any consequence what Mr. Wesley designed. It certainly is a condition of membership, whether he designed it to be so or not; and we contend for it simply on the ground of its utility and necessity to the purity and prosperity of our Churches.”

“But what authority have you to make it a condition of membership, when Christ did not require it?” asked Theodosia.

“Those who become Methodists, madam, know our rules, and by uniting with us they agree to conform to them, and have no cause of complaint if they refuse and are expelled.”

“If you claimed to be no more than a mere human society,” said Mr. Courtney, “like the Sons of Temperance, or the Free Masons, or Odd-Fellows, you would certainly have the right to fix your own terms of membership, and those who did not choose to conform to them might stand aside. But you claim to be the Church of Christ and of God. The law of Christ requires all his people to unite with his Church, and requires his Church to receive and retain them on certain conditions established by himself. HE HAS DETERMINED what qualifications shall entitle them to admittance, and for what disqualifications they shall be expelled. But you seem to feel that you are wiser than your Master, and not only venture to make new terms and times of admission, but new conditions of continuance. You may call this wisdom; you may excuse it by saying that it is, in your opinion, for the good of the Church. But Christ will say to you, as you do to your preachers, ‘Do not mend MY rules, but keep them.’ You can never better the plans which Infinite Wisdom devised, and to add to or take from HIS conditions of membership in his Church, is wicked rebellion against the authority of the King. If your Church is the Church of Christ, then, when your conference changes the conditions of membership, it changes the conditions of membership in the Church of Christ—the conditions which Christ himself established. It sets itself above the King. It claims the authority to undo what Christ has done in his own Church. It abrogates and nullifies the law of Christ. It may have done it with the best intentions, but it is no less rebellion for all that. My overseer who disobeys my positive orders, and causes my servants to do so may plead that he thought my orders were unwise or imperfect, and that he was sure my interests would be best promoted by his arrangements. But it is no less disobedience on this account. It is his business to obey, and he must take it for granted that I am competent to take care of my own interests, and know what it is that I desire to have done.

“You may think you are wiser than your Master; you may think you are more competent to decide upon the terms of membership in his Church than he was himself; and so you may honestly endeavor to mend his plan and improve upon his requirements; but when you do it you reject his authority, you rebel against his government, nay, you usurp to yourselves the prerogatives of the Lawgiver, and put yourselves in the place of God.”

“But has not Christ,” asked Mrs. Stiptain, “given a certain liberty to his ministers to change and modify the unessential rites and ceremonies of his Church at their discretion?”

“I think not, madam; but if he had, these things, which determine the very right to membership, do not belong to unessential rites and ceremonies. They are vital to the very existence of the Church. Whatever Christ may have left undetermined concerning his Church, it is certain he did not leave undetermined the terms of admission or the conditions of membership. These were fixed and positive. These must be at all times and everywhere the same.

“If his ministers have a right to add one condition, they have equal right to add ten. If they may require attendance on ‘class’ once a week, they may, with equal propriety, require confession to the minister once a week, or the reading of a certain chapter of the Discipline once a week, or the taking of the Christian Advocate and Journal, or the observance of every Friday as a fast-day. And if they may add any new conditions, so they may change or dispense with the old. They may dispense with the profession of faith, and not only change the act of baptism but dispense with it, or any substitute for it, altogether. If they may change the terms of admission and the conditions of membership once, they may do it twice, or thrice, or seven times, or seventy times seven. To-day they may admit one class of people, and to-morrow declare them ineligible. To-day they may permit a portion of their members to enjoy all the privileges of the Church unconscious of any wrong, and to-morrow may pass a law that shall cast them out into the world and deliver them over unto Satan.”

“But you cannot suppose, sir,” replied the lady, “that there is the slightest probability that the Methodist Church would thus arbitrarily trifle with the privileges of her members.”

“If you will promise, madam, that you and your good husband will not get angry with me for my plainness of speech, I will engage to prove to you that they have done it again and again. I will show you from the different editions of your own Discipline that you have changed the terms of admission, or the conditions of membership, at least half a dozen times already, in the few years of your existence as a Church.”

“I am sure, sir, our curiosity itself will keep us in a good humor.”

“Certainly,” exclaimed her husband, “we will be very much obliged to Mr. Courtney for any information which he may be able to give us concerning the history of the Methodist Church; and as for his plainness of speech, we have already given him full proof that we are not offended by it. The truth is, I enjoy it: I love to hear a man speak right out all that is in his heart.”

“Then,” continued Mr. Courtney, “I will go on to talk freely. I know I am sometimes blunt, nay, almost rude of speech, and I thank you for your good-natured endurance of the hard things (as they may seem to you) which conscience squires me to say.”

“Never mind apologies, Mr. Courtney, go on with your argument.”

“Well, sir, your Church, as a Church, dates its existence from Baltimore, Maryland, about Christmas of the year seventeen hundred and eighty-four; it is yet, therefore, much less than a hundred years old. It was created then and there by sixty preachers, who say in the Minutes of the Conference published in 1785, ‘At this Conference it was unanimously agreed that circumstances made it expedient for us to become a separate body, under the denomination of the “Methodist Episcopal Church.”’ And again they say, ‘We formed ourselves into an independent Church.’ From this time, therefore, I will count the changes. If you claim an earlier origin, and will permit me to go back to what in your Discipline is called ‘the Rise of Methodism,’ in 1729, I will find many others. But as you did not claim to be a Church of Christ until 1784, I think it fair to make that our starting-point.

“Now here is a little book of 364 pages, published by Lane & Scott, No. 200 Mulberry street, New York, in 1851, styled the ‘History of the Discipline,’ by Robert Emory, who was, as I learn from the preface, himself a Methodist, and a Methodist minister, and who has certainly made a most valuable contribution to the literature of your denomination. That our friends here may understand precisely the character of the work, and see how much reliance should be placed upon the statements, I will read to you a portion of the

“‘PREFACE.

“‘When a young Methodist preacher enters, in accordance with the requirements of the direction of his Church, upon the study of its Discipline, he is curious to know when and by whom that Discipline was framed. He learns, indeed, from the book itself, that the General Conference has “full powers to make rules and regulations,” under certain “limitations and restrictions;” but who imposed those “limitations and restrictions,” and to what extent has the General Conference used its powers? There is internal evidence that the present Discipline was not composed at one time. At what periods, then, were its several parts introduced, and what modifications have they undergone? These are points not only of curious inquiry, but essential often to right interpretation; but they are points on which students, generally, can obtain no satisfactory information. In our civil governments the statutes are scattered through the several volumes of laws which have been published from time to time, and therefore these are all preserved; but in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Discipline, as revised at each General Conference, being in itself complete, supplants all that had gone before it, and the previous editions are cast aside as of no further use. This has continued until now nearly sixty years have elapsed since the organization of the Church, and the Discipline has undergone about twenty distinct revisions. Where, then, shall the student go to find these successive editions? If he resort to the libraries of the eldest preachers, they are not there: to the library of the Book Concern, they are not there: to the archives of the General Conference, still they are not to be found. Despairing of success in this pursuit, he may, perhaps, examine the Journals of the General Conference, (though, from the nature of the case, this is a privilege which few can enjoy;) but here he will find that all prior to 1800 are missing, and that those subsequent to that date convey no accurate information as to the changes in the Discipline; because in the alterations references are made to the chapter, section, question, page, etc., which cannot be understood without having a copy of the their Discipline in hand. And, moreover, because at each General Conference the subsequent publication of the Discipline is intrusted to a committee invested with powers (often largely discretionary) as to the selection, arrangement, and wording of the several parts; and no report of their proceedings is entered on the journal.

“‘The embarrassment which is here supposed in the mind of the student of the Discipline, is precisely such as the author himself experienced. In such a dilemma he endeavored to collect for himself a set of the different Disciplines. Having his lot cast amid the earliest seats of Methodism in this country, he had the good fortune of rescuing one old Discipline after another from its obscure resting-place, until at length, with one exception, the series was completed, and the rich gratification was enjoyed of tracing, in the original documents themselves, the progress of the Discipline from the first simple series of questions and answers to its present more elaborate structure of parts, chapters, and sections. The collection thus made could not be rendered universally accessible. The author has thought, therefore, that he would be doing a service to students of the Discipline generally, and especially to his brethren in the ministry, by publishing the results of his investigations in a condensed form. Such was the origin of the present work. In the preparation of it the author has aimed at nothing more than the most perfect accuracy in the statement of facts, and the most lucid arrangement which the nature of the case admitted.… The changes in the form and arrangement of the Discipline are noticed in the first book, and in the second, the changes in its contents. That these last might be stated as precisely as possible, the very words of the Discipline are quoted.’

“You see, therefore,” said Mr. Courtney, looking up from the book, “that we have here the very words of the Discipline, quoted by a Methodist minister for the instruction of his own brethren, and showing precisely what changes have from time to time been made. I propose to follow up these changes only so far as they modify the terms of admission into the Church, and the conditions of membership after admission.

“Let us now turn to page 26, and examine the Discipline of 1784, which was the first. And here at the very beginning is an announcement which shows how little the authority of Christ was regarded, and proves that though it was now to be called a Church of Christ, it was as much as ever the Church of Wesley.

“‘QUESTION 2. What can be done in order to the future union of the Methodists?

“‘ANSWER. During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the gospel, READY, IN MATTERS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT, TO OBEY HIS COMMANDS.’

“This neglect of all reference to the word of God or the authority of Christ, was in perfect harmony with the action of the first Conference held in America, some eleven years before. (See page 9.) ‘The Methodist societies were originally governed by the General Rules drawn up by the Wesleys in 1743, and by the regulations adopted in the Conferences which were held yearly from 1744. These regulations were first published in the Minutes from year to year. They were afterwards collected together and printed, with some slight alterations, in a tract entitled “The Large Minutes.” The same rules and regulations, so far as applicable to their condition, governed the Methodist societies in America from the time of their first formation, in 1766. At the first Conference in 1773, the preachers formally recognized “the doctrine and discipline of the Methodists,” as contained in the English Minutes, to be “the SOLE rule of their conduct.”’ (Ans. to quest. 2, page 10.)

“So, in determining their form of government, they made no references to the Scripture, but say that, ‘Following the counsel of John Wesley, who recommended the episcopal form, we thought it best to become an episcopal Church.’

“But this is nothing to our present purpose. We want the changes in the terms of admission, and conditions of membership. And, first, it appears on page 17, that those coming into the society were to be received only after three months’ probation; but as soon as the Church was formed she changed this law; and on page 35 we read, ‘How shall we prevent improper persons from insinuating into the society? Ans. Give tickets to none till they are recommended by a leader with whom they have met at least two months.’ This was all that was requisite for Church-membership for the first five years. Any one could be a member without further ceremony if the leader certified to his good conduct for two months, and the preacher would receive him. There was no baptism, no profession of faith, no examination before the society—nothing at all but the two months’ probation; but in 1789, the Conference decreed that they must wait four months longer, and the probation was lengthened to six months, where it now stands; but still there was no baptism, no profession, no examination before the society. No one was consulted but the preacher, and he decided on the recommendation of the leader after six months’ probation in the observance of the rules; and these rules, though they require strict morality, and the observance of external religious forms, say not a word about true repentance towards God, or faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

“Surely, Mr. Courtney, you must misunderstand the writer. He cannot mean to say that the Methodist Church admitted members without baptism, or any profession of faith, for five years.”

“Yes, madam, it did so—not for five years only, but FOR OVER FIFTY YEARS. It extended the probation at the end of five years; but it was not till fifty-two years after its organization at Baltimore, in 1784—not until 1836, that baptism was required as a term of membership. This doubtless seems very strange to you. It is strange, even to astonishment; but it is, nevertheless, most woefully true. Here is the book; you can read it for yourself. (P. 182.)”

“‘1856. It was now made a requisite for admission into the Church that the candidates have been baptized.’”

“If it had been a requisite before, how could it then, in 1836, have been ‘made a requisite?’

“So, you see, for fifty-two years the Methodist Church required, as terms of membership, only the two months’ probation for the first five years, and the six months for the other thirty-seven years; but during all the time, no baptism and no profession. And it was not until 1840, four years after baptism had been made a term of admission, that any profession of faith was required; for you may read on the same page, 182:

“‘1840. The following was added to the requisites for admission into the Church:

“‘And shall, on examination by the minister in charge, before the Church, give satisfactory assurances, both of the correctness of their faith and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church.’

“Now, without inquiring any further, we have three times seen a fundamental change in the conditions on which members could be received. How many more they may have made we need not now take time to examine. I will, however, call your attention to at least one more, which you will find on page 44, sec. 9: ‘No person holding slaves shall in future be admitted into society or to the Lord’s Supper, [they would not even admit him on probation,] till he previously complies with these rules.’ That is, the rules which we shall presently give at length, and which positively require the emancipation of the slaves, whether they desire it or not. This rule was suspended the next year after it was made, (see page 80,) but was not repealed till twelve years afterwards, when it was enacted that ‘No slaveholder should be received into society till the preacher who has the oversight of the circuit has spoken to him freely and faithfully on the subject of slavery.’ (Page 275.) It does not appear what the preacher was to say, nor whether it was necessary that what he said should have any particular effect on the slaveholder’s mind or conduct. But he could not come in till he had been talked to.

“But now, let us look at the conditions of continuance in this Church after members have actually been admitted. How many times these have been changed I cannot positively say; but I am sure I can point you to more than you would believe except upon the testimony of your own brother minster.

“In the first Discipline, adopted in 1784, we have already seen that to become a member, it was necessary to have been two months on trial; but now, what was required to remain a member? It would seem, from page 87, that members ‘must not marry unbelievers or unawakened persons.’ ‘Question 21. What can be done to put a stop to this? Answer. Let every preacher publicly enforce the apostle’s caution: “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” 2. Let him openly declare that whoever does this will be expelled from the society,’ etc.

“So here, at first, the penalty was expulsion; but, in 1804, (see page 187,) ‘the punishment for violating the rule was changed from expulsion to putting back on trial for six months.’ And after thirty-two years more, the penalty was, in 1836, (see page 188,) ‘entirely done away with.’ So, what was a sin demanding expulsion, was so much less sinful after twenty years, that it only required a second probation to atone for it; and after thirty-two years longer, had ceased to be a sin at all deserving punishment. She who married an unawakened man for her first husband, must have been expelled; and for marrying the second of the same sort, put back upon probation; and for marrying the third of the same sort had she lived long enough to do so, would have not even been reproved. Surely men are wiser than their Master! But excuse me; I will show you another of these changes in the condition of membership.

“Let us now turn to page 43 of this valuable book, and see what were the rules adopted by the Church, at the time of its organization, on the subject of slavery, and see if we can ascertain how many times slaveholding was and was not made a condition of expulsion. We have already seen how it affected the terms of admission; we wish now to inquire how it operated on those of continuance. I will read:

“‘Question 42. What methods can we take to extirpate slavery?

“‘Answer. We are deeply conscious of the impropriety of making new terms of communion for a religious society already established, excepting on the most pressing occasion; and such we esteem the practice of holding our fellow-creatures in slavery. We view it as contrary to the golden law of God, on which hang all the law and the prophets, and the unalienable rights of mankind, as well as every principle of the Revolution, to hold in the deepest debasement, in a more abject slavery than is to be found in any part of the world, except America, so many souls that are capable of the image of God.

“‘We therefore think it our most bounden duty to take immediately some effectual method to extirpate this abomination from among us, and for that purpose we add the following to the rules of our society, namely:

“‘1. Every member of our society who has slaves in his possession, shall, within twelve months after notice given to him by the assistant, (which notice the assistants are required immediately and without any delay to give in their respective circuits,) legally execute and record an instrument whereby he emancipates and sets free every slave in his possession who is between the ages of forty and forty-five, immediately, or, at farthest, when they arrive at the age of forty-five.

“‘And every slave who is between the ages of twenty-five and forty, immediately, or, at farthest, at the expiration of five years from the date of the said instrument. And every slave who is between the ages of twenty and twenty-five, immediately, or, at farthest, when they arrive at the age of thirty. And every slave under the age of twenty, as soon as they arrive at the age of twenty-five at farthest. And every infant born in slavery, after the above-mentioned rules are complied with, immediately on its birth.

“‘2. Every assistant shall keep a journal, in which he shall regularly minute down the names and ages of all the slaves belonging to all the masters in his respective circuit, and also the date of every instrument executed and recorded for the manumission of the slaves, with the name of the court, book, and folio, in which the said instruments respectively shall have been recorded; which journal shall be handed down in each circuit to the succeeding assistants.

“‘3. In consideration that these rules form a new term of communion, every person concerned who will not comply with them, shall have the liberty quietly to withdraw himself from our society within the twelve months succeeding the notice given as aforesaid, otherwise the assistant shall exclude him from the society.

“‘4. No person, so voluntarily withdrawn or excluded, shall ever partake of the Supper of the Lord with the Methodists, till he complies with the above requisitions.

“‘5. No person holding slaves shall in future be admitted into society, or to the Lord’s Supper, till he previously complies with these rules concerning slavery.

“‘N. B. These rules are to affect the members of our society no further than they are consistent with the laws of the States in which they reside. [That is, if the instrument of emancipation could not be legally made and recorded, and would be of no binding force, it need not be done.]

“‘And respecting our brethren in Virginia that are concerned, and after due consideration of their peculiar circumstances, we allow them two years from the notice given to consider the expedience of compliance with or non-compliance with these rules.’

“Now did ever the veriest despot of any nation on the globe use language more peremptory than this? ‘Every member who has slaves shall legally execute and record,’ etc.; and, to be sure that the order is obeyed, the circuit-rider, as provost-marshal, is to keep a book with every name recorded; and, if they do not comply within the year, must cast them out—except the dear brethren in Virginia, who, I suppose, had no chance to hide behind the State laws, and they are graciously ‘allowed’ to live in sin two years instead of one.

“But it is not for the arrogance, or folly, or unscripturalness of the law that I called your attention to it; but to show you that they themselves openly avowed and fearlessly exercised the right to legislate for the Church of Christ, even to the extent of making new terms of communion, which Christ or his apostles never thought of making, and which they themselves presently receded from.

“I would like to have been present when the ‘assistant’ started round his circuit, with copies of the law and the slave-book in his hand, to make his ‘record.’ He comes to the house of a good old Virginia planter, who loves his servants, and who loves his Saviour, and has long been a member of ‘the society.’

“‘My dear brother,’ says the ‘assistant,’ ‘I suppose you are aware that we are now no longer societies, but a Church of Jesus Christ.’

“‘Yes, I have heard so, and think it a very good plan.’

“‘I have called in to get the names and ages of your servants. You know =we= passed a law that you must set them free so soon as they arrive all certain ages, specified in the document, a copy of which I now present you for your instruction.’

“‘YOU passed a law commanding me to free my slaves!’

“‘Yes, sir; and if you don’t promptly comply, I am positively instructed to excommunicate you from the Church, unless you will quietly withdraw, which you are at liberty to do if you see fit. Moreover, it is by this law made my duty to take down the names and ages of all the slaves belonging to all the masters in my circuit; so, as am in haste this morning, you will please furnish me the catalogue at once.’

“So saying, he draws up to a table, opens his book, gets out his pen and pocket inkstand.

“‘Now, sir, if you please. I am ready. Begin with the oldest, and let me have names and ages in regular order, down to the infants; and, remember, those born hereafter are born free; for so =we= have determined it.’

“‘=We=? whom do you mean by =we=?’

“‘The Conference, sir, consisting of the travelling preachers and bishops.’

“‘My dear brother, you know I have always been a consistent Methodist?’

“‘Yes, Brother A., I can certify to that.’

“‘And you had no fault to find with me until you passed this law, which could justify my exclusion from the Church?’

“‘Certainly not; nor have we now, if you will comply with our demands, and promptly free your slaves.’

“‘But my slaves and I have grown up together. I received them from my parents, and feel bound to care for them; and I conscientiously believe I can do more for their temporal and spiritual good, as slaves, bound to obey me, than I could if they were turned loose to prey upon society, as, like a set of lazy vagabonds, they would be sure to do. For a slave’s idea of freedom, you know, is mere release from any obligation to labor.’

“‘I cannot help what your conscientious convictions may be; =our= law must be obeyed, or you must leave the Church—quietly, if you will, forcibly if we must.’

“‘But, my dear brother, my slaves will most of them prefer to stay in their present condition. They are not only better off than “free negros,” but they have the sense to know it. You may go out and ask them, one by one; and if you can find any that are willing to leave their old master, you may take them with you, and let the Conference provide for their wants, temporal and spiritual, as faithfully as I have.’

“‘It does not matter, sir, whether they desire freedom or not; or whether they would be worse or better off by being free. You must set them free, or leave our Church; for so =we= have decreed.’

“‘Well, my dear brother, this takes me somewhat suddenly, and I would like to think about it.’

“‘Certainly, we give slaveholders in other States only a year, but to Virginians we allow two years, during which you may consider, and withdraw if you don’t choose to comply with our law, or be excommunicated.’

“‘O, I don’t want two years, I only want just time enough to search the Scriptures. I understand that the Methodist Church is the Church of Christ. Is that not so?’

“‘Certainly, we are the Church of Christ and of God.’

“‘But I have somehow gotten hold of the idea that Christ himself was the author of the laws of his Church. I am an old man, and may be old-fashioned in my opinions, but I don’t exactly feel that I am bound by your law, though I am entirely willing to submit to the authority of Christ. Did you find in the Bible that slaveholders could not be members of Christ’s Church? You are in a great hurry, I know, but please take a few minutes to show me the texts. I was a master, and had been for years, when it pleased God to convert my soul and make me a Christian. I very naturally went to the Bible to learn my duty as a master: I don’t see where else I could have gone. I read there that I must treat my servants kindly and justly, and this, you know, I have always tried to do. But I did not see any thing which seemed to contemplate the dissolution of the relation of master and servant, or, as it is in the original, master and slave. On the contrary, I found that the Christians who were slaves were to be obedient to their masters, and to do them good and faithful service; and especially they that have believing masters.’

“‘But, brother, you know the Conference has made the law, and the Churches must obey.’

“‘But what if I choose to obey God rather than the Conference? What if I deny the right of Conference to compel me to free my servants? What if I ask them to read the language of Paul to Timothy, sixth chapter, first and second verses: “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed; and they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful [literally, “believing”] and beloved, partakers of the benefit.” Paul said if any man taught otherwise than this, (verse 3,) “he is proud, [or, literally, “a fool,”] knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,” etc. What if I say that not only Paul but Peter recognizes the relation of masters and servants among Christian people and Church members, just as plainly as he does that of husbands and wives? What if I ask them to show me where Jesus ever sent his ministers out with a book under their arm to take an inventory of his people’s slaves, so that the Church might know if they were freed; or where Peter, or Paul, or John, or James, or any other apostle, made the manumission of slaves a prerequisite to communion with the Church of CHRIST.’

“‘O, as to that, we grant that it is a new term of communion, not made by Christ or the apostles. We expressly state in the law itself that it is new, and express our regret at the necessity for its enactment.’

“‘Then what if I respectfully decline to acquiesce in your new terms of membership, and prefer to be governed by the old law of Christ?’

“‘Then, sir, after two years you can no longer commune with the Methodists; and if you lived in any other State but Virginia, we would turn you out in one year. You may be thankful, sir, that you live in Virginia.’”

“I wonder, said the Planter, musingly, how it happened that Paul forgot, when writing to Philemon about his slave Onesimus, to tell him that if he did not file a deed of manumission in the county clerk’s office within one year, or in two years at most, he would be excommunicated from the Church, unless he saw fit in the meantime quietly to withdraw, and go back among the wicked people of the world.”

“Perhaps the Assistant found too many who preferred excommunication to obedience; for though the law was put forth with so much force of words, the next Conference resolved to suspend its execution for the present, and the matter stood thus for over ten years, when the Conference declared that they were more than ever convinced of the great evil of the African slavery which yet exists in the United States, and decreed as follows. Here is the law already referred to requiring the slaveholder to be talked to:

“‘No slaveholder shall be received into society till the preacher who has the oversight of the Church has spoken to him freely and faithfully on the subject of slavery.’

“It seems that after being told of the sin, he might bring it with him into the Church, and keep it there if he saw fit. But slaveholders could not occupy official stations in the Church without giving security for the emancipation of their slaves so soon as the laws of the State would permit; and if any member sold a slave, he was to be excluded. If any one bought a slave, he was to execute a writing to set him free at the expiration of a time fixed by the Quarterly Conference, or be excluded.

“In 1804, the Conference passed an act declaring that ‘the members of our societies in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee shall be exempted from these rules.’ So that what in other States was so great a sin as to exclude men from the Church of Christ, was in these four favored States no sin at all, or at least none that required the attention of the Church of Christ.

“This law was changed again in 1808, so as to permit and authorize each of the Annual Conferences to make their own regulations relative to buying and selling slaves.

“And in 1820 this was repealed, and other enactments made, which have since been remodelled again, until the chapter on slavery as it now stands in the Discipline was ordained. When the Conference North or South will see fit to enact some other new terms of membership in relation to this subject, no one can tell.”

“Let us thank God,” exclaimed Mr. Percy, “that the terms of communion in the true Church were made by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and must be always what they have ever been. The Church that changes then is not a Church of Christ. But what has all this long story about slavery to do with our investigation?”

“I introduced it,” said Mr. Courtney, “merely as one of many instances in which the Conference has claimed and exercised the right to make laws and change laws for the Church, affecting even the right to membership, and in which the Church had recognized its right, and thus I show that she has OTHER lawgivers besides Christ.

“I might have showed you this from her changes of her laws concerning baptism. In her first Discipline the Conference said, ‘Let every adult person and the parents of every child to be baptized have their choice either of immersion or sprinkling,’ [nothing said of pouring,] and let the elder or deacon conduct himself accordingly.

“Some years after this, in 1786, it was decreed that pouring also might be used; and the same authority that left out pouring at first, may, if pouring be a mode of baptism, with equal propriety leave out immersion at the next meeting.

“In their first Discipline a law was made authorizing and requiring the rebaptism of certain persons, but now you have no such law.

“‘Question 46. What shall be done with those who were baptized in infancy, but now have scruples concerning the validity of infant baptism?

“‘Answer. Remove their scruples by argument if you can; if not, the office may be performed by immersion or sprinkling, as the person desires.’

“In 1786 this was repealed; so that if a Methodist preacher should now venture to be an Anabaptist, [rebaptizer,] he does it on his own responsibility, and without authority of either the word of God or the Discipline.

“But why need we delay upon the application of our test? The Roman Catholic Church itself is not more abjectly subject to the popes and councils than is the Methodist Episcopal Church to the bishops and Conferences. In fact, in almost every essential feature of their organization there is a remarkable resemblance between the two.”

“I have,” said Mr Percy, “been struck with that fact as we have gone along, and have amused myself by drawing a parallel between them, thus:

The Roman | The Methodist Episcopal Church. Catholic | Church. | --------------+------------------------------------------------------ 1. Its | 1. Its government is episcopal. It is ruled by government is | bishops. episcopal, | or the rule | of bishops. |

2. Its laws | 2. Its laws are made for it by the bishops and are made for | Conferences. it by the | popes and | councils. |

3. Its laws | 3. Its laws are executed by the preachers. are executed | by the agency | of the | priests. |

4. The people | 4. The people have nothing to do with the making or have no share | the execution of their laws. in the making | or the | execution of | their laws. |

5. The pope | 5. The bishop is elected by the preachers. is elected by | the | cardinals. |

6. The pope | 6. The bishop sends the preachers to any appointment sends the | that pleases him. priests to | any | congregation | he sees fit. |

7. The people | 7. The society must receive the preacher sent by the must have the | bishop, or have none. priest that | is set over | them, or | none. |

8. The people | 8. The people have no voice in deciding who shall be have no voice | received as members. It is done for them by the in | class-leader and the preacher. For although since determining | 1840 there is an examination in the presence of the who shall be | society of the candidate for full membership, he received as | must have been recommended by the leader, and it members it is | is the preacher who decides whether the examination decided by | is satisfactory, and receives him.” the priest. |

“Well, I declare,” exclaimed the Methodist lady, “we ought to be obliged to you for your good opinion of us. I have always understood that we did not stand very high in the estimation of Baptists, but had no idea before that you counted our bishops no better than the pope, and our people no better than Roman Catholics.”

“Excuse me, madam, but I neither said nor meant any such thing. I say nothing at all of the personal goodness or badness of your bishops or your people. They may be, and I have no doubt many of them are, devotedly pious, self-denying men. It is not the personal character of you ministers or members that I am speaking of, but of the constitutional character of that organization called the ‘Methodist Episcopal CHURCH.’ And of that I do say, and I wish that every Methodist in all the land could hear me say, and would by hearing be led to examine into the subject, and see for himself if I do not tell the simple truth when I say that in these eight particulars, at least, it is remarkably similar to that of the Roman Antichrist, the MAN of SIN and SON of PERDITION.

“I might extend the parallel much farther, but I have confined it to the point we are now investigating, that is, whether the Methodist societies, as such, have any other lawgiver but Christ, and are obliged to submit to any other government than his.”

“I think, sir,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “that you rather exceeded your authorities when you added your last item to the parallel which you arranged with so much lawyerlike ingenuity. The testimony, sir, will not sustain that allegation, whatever may be the case with the other seven. Look at the Discipline, sir: you cannot surely be so blind as not to discover that it gives to the society itself the right to judge as to who shall be full Church members; for otherwise, why should the Discipline provide that the candidates should be examined ‘before the society?’ If the preacher is sole judge of the matter, why bring it to the notice of the society at all?”

“I do not know, sir, unless it were for the mere purpose of deluding the members with the idea that they have some sort of power, while, in fact, they have none. If you think I misunderstand the purport of the Discipline, perhaps you will admit the explanation of your own bishops. In their notes on the Discipline, (chap. i., sec. 10,) as quoted by your own brother, Emory, in this ‘History of the Discipline,’ pp. 304⁠–⁠307, we read, ‘5. He [the minister] is also to receive members on trial, and into society, according to the form of Discipline. If this authority were invested in the society, or any part of it, the great work of revival would soon be at an end.’… ‘Glory be to God, all our societies throughout the world, now amounting to upwards of one hundred and sixty thousand, have been raised under grace by our ministers and preachers. They and they only are their spiritual fathers under God, and none can feel for them as they do. It is true that on great revivals the spiritually halt, and blind, and lame, will press in crowds into the Church of God; and they are welcome to all that we can do for their invaluable souls, till they prove unfaithful to convincing or converting grace. And we will not throw back their souls on the wicked world, while groaning under the burden of sin, because many on the trial quench their convictions, or, perhaps, were hypocritical from the beginning. We would sooner go again into the highways and hedges and form new societies, as at first, than we would give up a privilege so essential to the ministerial office, and to the revival of the work of God.’… ‘The Master of the house [God] said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and “bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind; and the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.” He obeys his God without asking permission of ANY SOCIETY whether he should obey him or not And the Lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled. Luke xiv. 21⁠–⁠23. The servant answers not his Lord, I will comply with thy command so far as MY SOCIETY or my leaders and stewards will permit me.’… Again: ‘Now what pastors called and owned of God would take upon themselves this awful responsibility [that of the pastoral office] if OTHERS could refuse to their spiritual children the grand, external privilege of the gospel, or admit among them the most improper persons to mix with and corrupt them? Truly, whatever the pastors of other Churches may do, we trust that ours will never put themselves under so dreadful a bondage. It is in vain to say that others may be as tender and cautious as the pastors; for the pastors are the persons responsible to God, and, therefore, should by no means be fettered in their pastoral care.’ And again: ‘If ministers are to be the judges of the proper subjects of baptism, which is the grand initiatory ordinance into the visible Church, how much more should they have a right to determine whom they will take under their own care, or whom God has given them out of the world, by the preaching of his word. For ministers to spend their strength, their tears, their prayers, their lives, for the salvation of souls, and [then] to have both themselves and THEIRS under the control of those who never travailed in birth for them, and, therefore, can never feel for them as their spiritual parents do, is a burden we cannot bear. Thus it is evident that both reason and Scripture do, in the clearest manner, make the privilege or power now under consideration [that of receiving members into the Church] essential to the gospel ministry.’

“I trust you will not accuse your own BISHOPS of misapprehending the design and the practical working of the system.”

“I think,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “that we may venture to pass on to our next test or mark. We are spending more time than we need to occupy with this. The main fact, that is, that the Conference has power to make laws which the members must obey, or cease to be members of the Church, will not be disputed; and that is all that is essential to our present purpose.”

“What is our next test, Mrs. Percy?”

“It declares that in a true Church all its members must have become such, not by birth, not by the act of their parents, not by a law of the State, but by their own voluntary act.”

“If, as we have seen, infants are made members of this Church by baptism, it is certain that she has not this mark; but, as she virtually repudiates her own act, and denies in practice her own teachings, I hardly know,” said Mr. Percy, “whether to mark her black or white on this test.”

“We have determined already,” said Mr. Courtney, “from their own authorities, that they themselves consider the baptized infants as Church-members; and it is on this ground, and for the very purpose of making them Church-members, that they baptize them. Now, if they make them Church-members, and then practically disown them, by refusing to permit them to enjoy the privilege of membership, this shows their inconsistency; but it cannot disannul the act which makes the children of the Church members, or make them not Church-members. We, therefore, must count them members, although they who received them, and made them such, see fit to ignore their own act, and treat them in all respects as though they were not and never had been.

“It is only one of the many inconsistencies into which Pedobaptism drives those who practice it. The Methodist Church is guilty of the double inconsistency of receiving to her communion, and treating in all things as though they were Church-members, those whom they say are not, namely, the seekers, and of shutting out from their communion, and treating in all respects as though they were not, those who they say are Church-members, made such by baptism in their infancy. We cannot stop to reconcile them to themselves; and they would not probably thank us for our trouble, if we should try to do so. Let us hasten on with our investigation.

“What is the next mark, Mrs. Percy?”

“It requires that a true Church shall hold as articles of faith the fundamental doctrines of the gospel.”

“Here,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “we shall need your assistance, neighbor Stiptain, unless my friends are more familiar with the doctrines of your Church than I am. I know that it is generally counted among the so-called evangelical or orthodox Churches, and that many of its ministers and members give evidence of devoted piety; but what your standards may teach as Christian doctrine, I am not so well informed; and you know, in such a discussion as this, we can only recognize those as the doctrines of any Church which that Church herself acknowledges and publishes by her own acts. Perhaps you will do us the kindness to tell us where we can find a statement of your acknowledged doctrines.”

“With the greatest pleasure, sir. You will find our articles of faith in the Discipline; and what are not mentioned there, in Wesley’s Sermons and Watson’s Institutes, and other works published by consent or order of Conference. Our Brother Gorrie has well said, in his History of Methodism, (p. 135:) ‘The doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church are principally embraced in the twenty-five Articles of Religion, found in the Book of Discipline. These articles are nearly the same with those of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.’

“When the Reverend John Wesley set apart Dr. Coke to the office of Superintendent of the societies in America, and instructed him to organize said societies into an independent Church, he prepared a Prayer-book, or Sunday service, for the use of the infant Church, in which Prayer-book the Articles of Religion were contained as now found. excepting the one relating to rulers, which was framed at the organization of the Church in 1784, and shortly after was printed in the form of Discipline; since which time no change of any importance has been made in the articles referred to.’ ‘We have stated in substance,’ our brother goes on to say, ‘that these Articles embrace the most of the doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church. We do not say that all the doctrines of the Methodists are clearly set forth in the same.… Still, what is not clearly stated and taught in the same is stated and taught in the other standard writings of the Church, such as Wesley’s Sermons, and Watson’s Institutes.’”

“It occurs to me,” said Mr. Percy, “that in regard to the other claimants whom we have already tried by our rules, we asked but one question under the present head, and that was, Whether they held that salvation is by faith alone, or whether they held to a sort of sacramental salvation through or by the observance of the ordinances of the Church? It is very true that this is not all that is essential to Christianity; but as this doctrine is contained in the very annunciation of the gospel, we have taken it for granted that if this were wanting, all else would be but vain pretension. Now, in the Roman Catholic Church there is an open avowal of the necessity of works and sacraments for salvation. And while the Church of England, in the form of words used in her Articles of Faith, teaches that we are justified by faith only, and not for our own works or deservings, her liturgy and many of her ministers evidently teach, and her people believe, that we can come into that relation to Christ which is expressed by faith, and which secures salvation, only by means of the sacraments of the Church; and as this exalts the reception of the sacraments to the condition of an essential means of salvation, so that no one can have any assurance of eternal life who has not been baptized, and thus properly qualified for heaven by the priest and his ceremonies, we were disposed to doubt whether the High-Church party of the English Church really could be said to hold this fundamental gospel truth; and, consequently, we marked her but half white. Now, the question may arise, whether a large portion of the Methodist Church do not hold the same error, in much the same form. Do they not hold, for instance, that baptism, instead of being the sign that the person baptized professes already to have been born again, is the means or instrumentality by which he is born again? Do they not hold and teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and consequent baptismal salvation?”

“I never heard that they did,” said the Doctor, “and do not see why you should have any suspicion that such is the case.”

“Simply,” replied Mr. Percy, “because I find this doctrine plainly taught in express words in those books which they are constantly publishing, and their preachers are daily scattering all over the country, as their standards of doctrine.”

“I wish you would tell us what books,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “for I am sure no Methodist author could publish such sentiments without being at once repudiated by the Conference. Baptismal regeneration is certainly no part of our creed.”

“So Mr. A. Campbell says it is no part of his, and yet he uses such words in telling what he does believe that candid inquirers cannot understand him to mean any thing else. And just so, you will permit me to say, the acknowledged standards of your Church use language of the same sort; insomuch, that if it does not mean to teach the doctrine that baptism is for the ACTUAL washing away of sins, (and not merely the symbol which signifies that they have been washed away,) I do not know what it does mean.

“If I should tell my people that by baptism they were admitted into the Church, they would understand that I meant what I said; that I intended to affirm, and did affirm that it was by baptism that they were made Church members, and that in such a sense, that if they had not been baptized, they would not have been Church-members. And then if I should go on and say, further, that in the ordinary way there was no other means but baptism of entering into the Church, or into heaven, they would still understand that I meant what I said, and that I intended to teach, and did teach, that as they could not enter the Church without baptism, no more could they enter heaven without it. If I should say that we, who were by nature the children of wrath, were made the children of God by baptism, you and all who heard me would think I meant just what I said.

“If I, or any Baptist, should say that we are regenerated and born again by the water of baptism, people would think we meant what we said; and I am sure they would have good reason to suppose that we believed in and taught baptismal regeneration.

“If I, or any Baptist, should say that infants in the ordinary way could not be saved unless their original sin be washed away by baptism, you would think we meant to teach the doctrine of baptismal salvation.

“And now, if I should write a tract, or a sermon, and the Baptist Churches should direct it to be printed and published, and should instruct their ministers and their people to give it as large a circulation as possible, and should send forth one edition of it after another, earnestly commending it to the Church and to the world, would you not think that these Churches held and taught the same doctrines which you would have understood me to teach?”

“Of course we could not help thinking so.”

“How then, let me ask, can you help believing that the Methodist Church holds these same doctrines? for what I have supposed myself to say, Mr Wesley actually did say. I merely transposed the words. And what I have supposed our Churches to have done, the Methodist Church has actually done, and is still doing every day. The Conference has directed Mr. Wesley’s tract on baptism to be published; they encourage if they do not actually require all their preachers to circulate it, and their members to read it. This tract contains such language as this. I will read it to you, or you may read it for yourself. You will find it on page 251 of the volume of Doctrinal Tracts, published by the Book Concern:—

“‘If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism, seeing IN THE ORDINARY WAY THEY CANNOT BE SAVED UNLESS THIS BE WASHED AWAY BY BAPTISM. It has already been proved that this original stain cleaves to every child of man, and that hereby they are children of wrath and liable to eternal damnation. It is true the second Adam has found a remedy for the disease which came upon all by the offence of the first. But the benefit of this is to be received through the means which he hath up pointed, THROUGH BAPTISM IN PARTICULAR, which is the ordinary means he hath appointed for that purpose, and which God hath tied us, though he may not have tied himself. Indeed, where it cannot be had, the case is different; but extraordinary cases do not make void a standing rule. This, therefore, is our first ground: infants need to be washed from original sin, and, therefore, they are proper subjects of baptism.’

“If Mr. Courtney, or I, or any Baptist, should thus teach that children or grown people could only be cleansed from sin (whether original or actual) by baptism, and could not ordinarily be saved without it, we would certainly be accused of teaching salvation by water. But when Mr. Wesley does it, some people can see no harm in it.

“So on page 248 you may read as follows:

“‘BY BAPTISM we who were by nature the children of wrath =are made= the children of God. And this regeneration which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith: being grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace. This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, “Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John iii. 5. By water, AS A MEANS, the water of baptism, WE ARE REGENERATED OR BORN AGAIN.’

“Let any Baptist talk thus, and he would surely be thought to teach that men were regenerated and made the children of God and the heirs of glory ‘by water,’ by ‘THE WATER OF BAPTISM.’ And I cannot help thinking that this is what the words mean as Mr. Wesley wrote them, as the Conference approved them, as the preachers circulate them, and as the people read them. I presume that Mr. Wesley and the Conference understood the English language, and knew what these words would signify to those who read them; and I suppose, therefore, that they meant to teach what the words express; and, therefore, that the Methodist Episcopal Church does hold, as an article of faith, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.”

“But, my dear sir,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “you have overlooked the foot-note at the bottom of page 249, which shows that the Conference did not intend to endorse Mr. Wesley’s views on this point.”

“No, sir, I did not overlook the foot-note; I can see nothing in it which denies that they heartily coincide with Mr. Wesley in doctrine, though they don’t seem to like his frank and open expression of it. I will read the note, that we may see what it amounts to:

“‘That Mr. Wesley, as a clergyman of the Church of England, was originally a High-Churchman in the fullest sense, is well known. When he wrote this treatise, in the year 1756, he seems still to have used some expressions in relation to the doctrine of regeneration which we at this day would not prefer. Some such in the judgment of the reader may perhaps be found under this second head. This last sentence, however, contains a guarded corrective. It explains also the sense in which we believe Mr. Wesley intended much of what goes before to be understood.’

“Now, does this sound to you like a bold and absolute disapproval of the false and abominable doctrine? Does it say, This, though asserted by Mr. Wesley, is not scriptural nor true? Does it say we are not regenerated and born again by water baptism? No, sir; they very cautiously say he seems to have used some expressions which they at this day (when the doctrine has become odious to many) would not have preferred. The reader may be like us, one who abominates the wretched and soul-destroying delusion; and, therefore, they seem to think HE may, perhaps, think there are some objectionable sentences. Is this the way honest men and earnest men would have expressed their dissent from the doctrine if they had not connived at it?

“But the last sentence, they say, ‘contains a guarded corrective,’ and explains the sense in which they think Mr. Wesley should be understood. What that sentence, therefore, does not correct, they leave uncorrected; and except so far as that sentence modifies his meaning, they leave the reader to suppose that they agree with and approve of Mr. Wesley’s doctrine. Now what is that ‘last sentence?’ It is this: ‘Baptism doth now save us if we live answerable thereto—if we repent, believe, and obey the gospel: supposing this, as it admits us into the Church here, so into glory hereafter.’ Let us see now what is the force of this explanatory ‘last sentence.’ If you repent, believe, and obey the gospel, will your obedience, your faith, and your repentance save you? No; but if you have these, your baptism will save you. It is not the penitence, faith, or obedience, but the baptism, that admits us into the Church here, and it is baptism that is to admit us ‘into glory hereafter.’

“This sentence does not intimate that any one can ordinarily be saved without baptism as a means, but only that baptism of itself is not all that is needful to salvation. It does not contradict or nullify the statement made before, that ‘by baptism we are made the children of God;’ that by the water of baptism we are regenerated or born again; that ‘herein’ (that is, in baptism) ‘a principle of grace is infused which will not be wholly taken away unless we quench the Spirit of God by long-continued wickedness;’ but it only intimates that this new birth, this principle of grace, this sonship to God, obtained by water baptism as the means, will not be of any use to us unless we repent, and believe, and obey the gospel, while it leaves us to infer that the repentance, faith, and obedience, would be of just as little use without the baptism.

“But to show, once for all, that the Conference did not intend to expurgate the writings of Mr. Wesley, and free them from this heresy, but that they continue heartily to commend them, including those which teach this perversion of the gospel with the rest, look at the volume of his sermons published for the Conference, and specially required to be studied by every minister of the denomination. The doctrine is there as plainly as here, and it is there sent forth entirely unguarded by any note of explanation or denial. See p. 405, vol. i., Wesley’s Works, Sermon XLV.:

“‘From the preceding reflections we nay, secondly, observe, that as the new birth is not the same thing with baptism, so it does not always accompany baptism. They do not constantly go together. A man may possibly be born of water, and yet not be born of the Spirit There may sometimes be the outward sign where there is not the inward grace. I do not speak now with regard to infants. It is certain our Church supposes that all who are baptized in infancy are, at the same time, born again; and it is allowed that the whole office for the baptism of infants proceeds upon this supposition. Nor is it an objection of any weight against this, that we cannot comprehend how this work can be wrought in infants; for neither can we comprehend how it is wrought in one of riper years.’ Now what could be made plainer than this—that as regards infants they are always born again, and, consequently, made heirs of God when they are baptized? An adult may possibly be baptized without being regenerated, but can he be regenerated without being baptized, or without having been baptized? Is not baptism the means by which the adult must be born again, if he be born again at all? Is there one way by which infants are regenerated, and another by which adults are regenerated? But if Methodists could accomplish what they desire, and this teaching of their standard sermons is true, there would be no such thing as being born again in adult age, unless one can be born again the second time; for they would, if possible, regenerate all while they are yet infants.

“But to make the matter still plainer, and, if possible, set it for ever at rest, I will show you that what Wesley taught so plainly a hundred years ago, and the Conference has been publishing and commending, and absolutely requiring her ministers to study, in order that they might preach, ever since the Methodist Church has had any existence, is taught, in substance, in one of the most recent and most popular works of the denomination; which, though not published by order of the Conference, must have received their approbation, since it is expressly provided in the Discipline, part 2d, sec. 8, that ‘Any travelling preacher who may publish any book of his own, shall be responsible to his Conference for any obnoxious matter or doctrine therein contained;’ and this work has not only called for no censure from the Conference, but has been specially commended by two presiding elders, and by the Conference papers. I refer to the book which has been so often quoted in our conversation—The History of the Methodist Church, by the Rev. P. Douglass Gorrie. I will show you that he, in 1851, teaches baptismal regeneration, though not as plainly, yet quite as really and unmistakably as did Mr Wesley in 1756. Mr. Gorrie teaches just as Mr. Wesley and Mr. A. Campbell teaches, that baptism, instead of following faith in Christ, to signify, symbolize, and seal the new birth already experienced and now openly professed, is THE INSTRUMENT OR MEANS by which sins are actually remitted, and pardon actually obtained. He says, (p. 173,) speaking of those baptized upon the day of Pentecost, ‘Now it is evident that these persons were not believers in the sense of being regenerate, unless regenerating faith precedes repentance for sin; for they were first to repent, and then to be baptized for, in order to, the remission of sins. And, thirdly, as the result of such repentance and baptism, they were taught to expect the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ Now this rendering of the little preposition ‘eis,’ for, ‘in order to,’ is very significant. When Christ told the leper whom he had cleansed, to go and show himself to the priest, and offer the gifts that Moses commanded, (‘eis,’) for his cleansing, no one understands him to mean that the gifts were to be offered in order to procure his cleansing, but as an expression of the fact that he was already cleansed, and for the formal public and official recognition and proclamation of that fact. So, when Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins,’ it is not in order to obtain the remission of their sins, but to give public expression to the fact that their sins had already been remitted on their true repentance, which is always accompanied by true faith; since the Lord has expressly said, that without faith no one can be saved, and yet has promised salvation to the true penitent. The baptism was like the offerings of the leper—for the formal public and official recognition and proclamation of the fact that their sins had already been remitted, and for their consequent public reception into the number of the children of God. This is the explanation which is given and received by those who deny the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But those who, like Mr. A. Campbell and Mr. Wesley, teach that baptism is the means of regeneration, or that it is itself regeneration, or that in some way or other there is some such connection or relation between them, that regeneration and remission of sins are experienced in or by baptism—these persons are all accustomed to render this word as Gorrie has done, ‘in order to,’ so that it may signify that it is by baptism as a means, or medium, that remission of sins is secured. And that this is what he means in the passage we are considering, is evident from the object for which he introduces it, which is, to prove that the unconverted penitent, that is, the convicted sinner, may be baptized while unregenerate; for Peter, as he thinks, told these unregenerate sinners to be baptized ‘for,’ that is, ‘in order to’ obtain the remission of their sins. But in speaking of the case of Paul in the same connection, he expressly declares that it does prove that baptism is the means or instrumentality by which pardon is obtained. By a penitent Mr. Gorrie has explained (p. 172) that he means persons who are convicted of sin, but yet unregenerate; and now he says, ‘Another example of the baptism of penitents is given in the case of the Apostle Paul. After being arrested by the light and voice from heaven, he fasted and prayed in blindness, natural and spiritual, for three days. In this condition Ananias finds him. His natural sight returns, but spiritual darkness remains; and then Ananias says to him, Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. From this example it appears that baptism is both a means and seal of pardon and consequently that true penitents may and ought to be baptized.’

“Now no one denies that true penitents, in the sense of regenerate penitents, ought to be baptized; but in that case how can baptism be the means of their pardon, since they have been already pardoned the moment they repented? But he would have us understand that Paul, though penitent, had not been pardoned, and could only be by baptism as the means.

“You have all, it seems to me,” said Mr. Courtney, “given yourselves a great deal of needless trouble. If your object had been merely to determine whether the Methodist Episcopal Church believes and teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, either as regards infants or adults, you need not have gone outside the Discipline itself. Mr. Wesley, in the passage you have cited, does not more clearly avow it in regard to infants, than the Discipline teaches it in regard to adults.”

“It is very strange, sir,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “that you can see things in the Discipline which Methodists themselves have always been ignorant of.”

“Methodists, my dear sir, may have read the words or heard the words so carelessly, that they have never attended to their natural and necessary meaning; but you yourself have taught, and your people have heard you teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration every time you have gone through your office for the ministration of baptism, either for an infant or adult. But not to waste our time in talking about the infants since Mr. Wesley settles that beyond all cavil, let me call your attention to the formula for the baptism of such as are of riper years, chap. v., sec. 2. Remember, the question about which we are at issue is this: Whether baptism is to follow regeneration as an open and formal profession of it on the part of the candidate, and an official recognition of it on the part of the Church, or whether it is to be employed as the means or in instrumentality by which, or upon which, or in connection with which; regeneration is either effected or secured. Now, as Wesley says that the whole office for infant baptism proceeds on the supposition that infants are regenerated when they are baptized, so I say that the whole office for the baptism of those of riper years proceeds on the supposition that those coming to baptism are yet unregenerate, and that it is expected and understood that by baptism, or in baptism, they may and will become regenerate.

“1st. ‘The minister shall use the following, etc.: Dearly beloved brethren, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, (and that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and they that are in the flesh cannot please God, but live in sin, committing many actual transgressions,) and that our Saviour saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost, I beseech you⸻’ What? To thank God that he has in his great mercy already renewed and regenerated these persons, and so fitted them to be received as members of his kingdom? Not at all. ‘I beseech you call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that he will grant to these persons that which by nature they cannot have: that they may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ’s holy Church, and be made lively members of the same.’

“2. Having thus entreated the brethren to help him pray, he goes on, and in their name offers the following prayer: ‘Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all that need, the helper of all that flee to thee for succor, the life of them that believe, and the resurrection of the dead—’ We return thee hearty thanks that thou hast regenerated these persons and freely remitted all their sins, in token whereof they have come to be baptized according to they appointment? No such thing. But, ‘We call upon thee for these persons that they [in] coming to thy holy baptism MAY RECEIVE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS BY SPIRITUAL REGENERATION.’

“Do they not come _un_regenerate that they may in baptism receive regeneration and remission of sins? And then again, after giving God thanks that they themselves, the Church, have been called to the knowledge of his grace and to faith in him, and praying that this may be increased and confirmed, the prayer turns again to the candidates as follows: ‘Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons, THAT THEY MAY BE BORN AGAIN, and be made heirs of everlasting salvation, through our Lord Jesus Christ,’ etc.

“Now, on the supposition that ‘these persons’ are still in sin, still _un_converted, still _un_regenerate, and that baptism is the ordinary means appointed by God for their conversion and salvation, the whole thing is very appropriate. In that case it is very proper and fitting that the minister should pray that they may now be born again, and, coming to baptism, may receive spiritual regeneration and the remission of their sins. But on the supposition that they were already regenerate, had already been born again, and had already received the actual remission of their sins, this is all simple foolery. Nay, it is worse: it is a solemn mockery. It is not merely absurd, it is absolutely wicked. It is asking God to do in baptism what the candidates expressly profess by their coming to his holy baptism has been done for them already, and which they come thus to acknowledge before the world, and have it officially recognized by the Church.”

“But,” said Theodosia, “you do not suppose the Methodists as a general thing believe in this sacramental salvation?”

“It is likely,” replied Mr. Courtney, “that they as a general thing never have cared or thought any thing about it. They leave their preachers to do their thinking for them and the preachers as a general thing are content to repeat the thoughts of Mr. Wesley, without giving themselves the trouble of deciding whether they were right or wrong. But they ought to think; and if they do not believe and are unwilling to teach what their standards express, it is a duty which they owe to God, to their people, and themselves, to expurgate their Discipline and their standards of this pernicious error; and until they have done it, we must take it for granted that they do believe and heartily endorse what they permit to remain as the public and acknowledged teachings of their official documents.

“But let us go on; we are making but little progress. What is the next mark in our little tablet?”

“The true Church is that which begun with Christ, and has continued to the present time.”

“Is this true of the Methodist Church?”

“As I am here by request of my friend and neighbor merely to give such information as I may have and you may need,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “I do not feel and have not felt that I am called upon to make any defence of the Methodist Episcopal Church; but if I should feel disposed to engage in any discussion of the main question which seems to engage your attention, I am sure I would object to your tests, and especially to this. Why, sirs, there is no Church in existence now, except the great Church universal, which began with Christ and has continued to the present time. The Church of Rome did not begin, according to Protestant computation, until the year 606. The Church of England began in the reign of Henry the Eighth; the Presbyterian Church dates from John Calvin, at Geneva; and we are proud to say that the Methodist Episcopal Church began with John Wesley in 1739, if we count his societies as the beginning of it, and the Church proper was first organized at Baltimore in 1784. Though the others may be older than she is, they are none of them so old as your test requires in order that they may be considered as true Churches of Christ.”

“Our test,” replied Mr. Courtney, “is based upon the prophecies, which foretold that Christ’s Church should be perpetual until he came again. We know nothing of any visible universal Church, and, therefore, we suppose there must be yet upon the earth, and always have been, some examples of that local visible Church which Christ established by himself or his apostles. We do not mean to say that any particular local society of Christian people must have existed from the days of Christ in order that it may be counted as a Church. We know that the Church at Jerusalem has been supplanted, the Church at Antioch has long ago been destroyed, the Church at Rome has apostatized, and Satan’s seat is now where once Christ reigned. But just such Churches, in all essential characteristics, as these were in the days of their purity, we believe have, according to the prophecies both of the Old Testament and the New, been in existence all the time since Christ, and still exist. To them he has all the time intrusted the execution of the laws and the administration of the ordinances of his visible kingdom. Now, as the jury may very properly be said to have begun at a certain time in England, and to have continued ever since, although no individual jury has, perhaps, ever continued for a year, and most of them only for a day; so the Church, as an institution of Christ, might be said to have continued to the present time, although no particular example of it had continued for a year. What we mean, therefore, is, that the true Church for which we are looking must be an example of that institution which Christ set up, and which he and the apostles called the Church, and not something entirely different from it, originating with some one else long since that time, and called by the same name. Now, if your Methodist Churches were each one independent of the Conference, and independent of all other Churches; if they consisted of believers only, and these believers had all been baptized, if they had the same membership, the same terms of communion, the same ordinances, the same organization, and held the same doctrines with the Church at Jerusalem, and the Church at Antioch, and the Church at Ephesus, and the multitude of Churches that in the apostles’ days were scattered throughout all Judea, and Samaria, and Asia, we would concede to you that you began with Christ; for in that case you would have nothing that you got from Wesley, and nothing that Wesley got for you from the Church of England, but only what you got for yourselves from the Bible; and you would not be what Wesley made you, or what your sixty preachers made you at Baltimore in 1784, but what Christ made you when he gave in his word the constitution of his Church. But now you are what Wesley made you, and what the Baltimore Conference of preachers made you. You have received the constitution and the laws which characterize you as the Methodist Episcopal Church, and distinguish you from other so-called Churches, not from Christ, but from Wesley and the Conference. The simple fact that you recognized the authority of Wesley and the Conference to make laws for you, is itself conclusive evidence that you do not as a Church belong to Christ, but to Wesley and the Conference.”

“You are entirely mistaken, sir,” said Mrs. Stiptain, “if you think the Methodists are bound to follow Mr. Wesley any further than he followed Christ. It is true, we have a great regard for his memory, and a great respect for his teachings; but it is because we consider him such an able expounder of the Scriptures that we receive his doctrines. It is not, however, on his authority, but on the authority of his Master and ours, that we are ready to obey his requirements and those of the Conference. If they could not give us good scriptural proof of all that they taught, I am sure we should be under so obligations to obey.”

“Then, madam, it has never occurred to you that the very things about which the Discipline made for you by Mr. Wesley and the Conference is most rigid in its demands are those concerning which there is least Scripture to sustain them?”

“No, sir, it never did, nor does it now.”

“Permit me, then, to call to your wind that there are several scriptures which teach, both by precept and example, the duty of attending on the regular meetings of the Church, to worship God upon the Sabbath. And there are several which at least strongly intimate the duty of Christian people to assemble for social and united prayer in the prayer-meeting; and not a single text which commands or intimates the existence or the necessity for the class-meeting, And yet your Discipline permits people to stay away from the meeting for public worship, and from the prayer-meeting, with perfect impunity. You have no rule which requires them even to make an excuse for their absence; but if they venture to stay away from the CLASS-MEETING, you are bound to exclude them from the Church.

“Permit me to rewind you further, that since your Conference has, in some years, required conditions of membership and terms of admission into the Church which they have abrogated or changed in other years, they could not possibly have Scripture authority for their varying and contradictory requirements, unless the Scriptures are changeable and contradictory. If, for example, it was such a sin to hold slave in 1784, that no one by Scripture authority could be permitted to come into the Church of Christ until he had made a deed of manumission, and had it recorded in the county clerk’s office, and no one who was in the Church could remain there more than a year, or two years at farthest if such was the Scripture requirement in 1784, it must have been the same in 1785, when the preachers were advised to suspend the execution of the law; which, on the supposition that the law was founded on God’s word, would be to refuse obedience to God’s word. And the same rule will apply to every instance in which they have made terms of admission or conditions of membership, and then have set them aside or changed them. The word of God is not thus double-tongued; what it once says it stands to for ever; and the same terms and conditions upon which people were received and permitted to remain as Church-members in the days of the apostles, must be the terms and conditions of membership now and ever, till Christ comes again. If the Conference have changed them six times, then it is certain that five times at least they must have departed from the Scriptures; and yet, as a Methodist, you must have followed them every time. But this is wandering from our subject. We were going to look at the origin of the Methodist Church, though I do not know but we have seen enough already to govern the application of our test.”

“I find in my mind,” said Theodosia, “some little confusion of ideas about this matter. You constantly speak of the Methodist Church as originating with Mr. Wesley; and when I associate it with Mr. Wesley, I locate it in England. And yet you all agree that it began in 1784, at Baltimore, in Maryland, in this country. How could it begin with Mr. Wesley, in England, and yet begin in Baltimore?”

“Your difficulty,” replied Mr. Courtney, “arises from your not making the necessary distinction between Methodism and the Methodist Episcopal Church. The Discipline dates the rise of Methodism from 1729, when John and Charles Wesley are said to have first discovered that people could not be saved without holiness, and began to try to be holy and induce others to be so. This was nine years before the conversion of either of them. John had already been for some time a minister of the Church of England, and Charles was also made one before his conversion. Now, the simple fact that these two unconverted young men began, in 1729, to try to get to heaven by an exact and regular method of living, has caused this to be received as the beginning of the system of Methodism. And there are some people who think: that, as a system, it is now what it was in the beginning, namely, a methodical attempt to get to heaven by external observances and strictness of living. The first society of Methodists was composed of Mr. Wesley and two or three students at the university, who agreed to associate together for the more effectual prosecution of their classical studies, and the better attainment of a correct moral and religious character. These other young men, we presume, were, like himself, yet unconverted. They used to meet, not so much to pray and praise God, and read his word, as to study the classics and read to each other passages of the heathen poets of Greece and Rome. These young men, because they studied by rule, were nicknamed Methodists. The society does not seem to have laid any claim to be regarded as a religious society. Whether Mr. Wesley formed any more such I do not know. In 1738, some nine years after this, by the advice of a Moravian bishop, or pastor, he and a few others formed a religious society, which was composed partly of Moravians and partly of Church of England men; and shortly after this, he was led to see that he could not make himself holy, and to trust his soul to Christ for salvation, as was also his brother Charles, about the same time. In 1739 the first regular society was formed, the foundation of the first Methodist preaching-house was laid in England, and the class-meetings were instituted; and this therefore should be regarded as the beginning of the system. The object of the class-meeting was to collect so much a week from every member, to pay for the chapel.

“At first, societies were formed wherever Mr. Wesley preached, and all who chose united with them. The only condition was a desire to do so. But, in 1743, Mr. Wesley prepared and published his ‘rules for the societies.’

“In these rules he says, ‘There is only one condition previously required of these who desire admission into these societies, namely, a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins.’ But it was expected of those who would continue in the society that they should continue to give evidence of this desire by a life of strict morality, and the observance of the external requirements of religion.

“These societies were not Churches of Jesus Christ; their members did not so regard them. Mr. Wesley was very careful that they should not be so considered. They were no more Churches of Christ than a temperance society, or a missionary society, or a Bible society, is a Church of Christ. Mr. Wesley was a member and a minister of the Church of England, and he regarded his societies, not as a rival Church, but as a part of that Church.

“But how can that be ascertained? Why, in the first place, it has never, that I know of, been denied; and, in the next place, Mr. Wesley himself said it was so again and again. Here, in the ‘History of the Discipline,’ which we have had occasion to refer to so often, (page 57,) you may read the official instructions which he gave to his preachers: ‘Exhort all who were brought up in the Church to continue therein. Set the example yourself, and immediately change every plan that would hinder their being at Church at least two Sundays in four. Carefully avoid whatever has a tendency to separate men from the Church; and let all the servants in our preaching-houses go to Church once on Sunday, at least.’

“‘Is there not a cause? Are we not unawares, by little and little, sliding into separation from the Church? O, use every means to prevent this. 1. Exhort all our people to keep close to the Church and sacrament. 2. Warn them against niceness of hearing, a prevailing evil. 3. Warn them also against despising the prayers of the Church. 4. Against calling our society the Church. 5. Against calling our preachers ministers, our houses meeting-houses: call them plain preaching-houses, or chapels,’ etc.

“‘Question. But are we not dissenters?’

“‘Answer. No. Although we call sinners to repentance in all places of God’s dominion, and although we frequently use extemporary prayer, and unite together in a religious society, yet we are not dissenters in the only sense which our law acknowledges, namely, those who renounce the service of the Church. We do not, we dare not, separate from it.’

“Thus Mr. Wesley talked in England. How did the preachers talk in America? Let us turn to page 10: ‘At the first Conference, held in Philadelphia, June, 1773, the fol lowing rules were agreed to by all the preachers present:

“‘1. Every preacher who acts in connection with Mr. Wesley and the brethren who labor in America, is strictly to avoid administering the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

“‘2. All the people among whom we labor to be earnestly exhorted to attend the Church, (of England,) and to receive the ordinances there.’

“And, six years later, on page 13:

“‘Question 10. Shall we guard against a separation from the Church, directly or indirectly?

“‘Answer. By all means.’

“And again, in 1780, page 14: ‘Question 12. Shall we continue in close connection with the Church, [of England,] and press our people to a closer communion with her?

“‘Answer. Yes.’

“But after the Revolutionary War the Church of England was not so popular as it once was in this country. Most of its ministers, on the breaking out of hostilities, had taken sides with England, and had been obliged to leave America or remain under a load of odium which would prevent their usefulness. And it was now conceived that it was necessary to constitute these Methodist societies into a CHURCH; which was done partly by Mr. Wesley, and partly by the sixty preachers who met in Baltimore in 1784. They had, as members of the Church of England, been accustomed to think that there could be no Church without a bishop; and, consequently, Mr. Wesley furnished them a Prayer-book and Liturgy, and made a bishop for them, and authorized him to make another. This was his part. Then the two bishops called together their clergy into a Conference at Baltimore, and the bishops and the sixty preachers unanimously determined that they were a Church; and, as a Church, laid down the rules by which the bishops and the preachers were to govern the people. These rules were put forth as the form of Discipline, and published in 1785, and, with sundry modifications, are what is now known as the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. This Discipline, for the most part, was that by which Mr. Wesley and his preachers had before governed the societies. So that the Methodist Church, as first formed, was simply the Methodist preachers with the addition of a pair of bishops, who resolved that they were a Church, and thus became one. And so it was decided in the great Methodist lawsuit that the bishops and travelling preachers are now the Church.

“What had before been the rules of the societies, now became the rules of the Church. What were before the terms of admission into the societies, became the terms of admission into the Church.

“As it had been only needful for one to profess a desire of salvation, to come into the society, so this was all that was needful to come into the Church.

“As they had not been permitted to continue in the society over three months unless they gave evidence of a continuance of the desire, so it was determined that they should not continue in the Church; but the term of probation was shortened to two months; and, after some years, lengthened again to six.

“In one thing the societies had been, as the newmade Church thought, very guilty. They had, apparently, connived at slavery. Slaveholders, who desired to escape from hell, had been as welcome to come into the societies and try to get religion as other people. But the Church would none of them. It resolved that no slaveholder should come in, even upon probation, however earnestly he might desire salvation, until he had first made a deed manumitting all his slaves; and that no one who was in society, and had passed probation, could remain over a year, except in Virginia, and not over two years there, unless he made the deed of manumission and had it recorded. This was the most important change which the Church made in the previous arrangements of the societies; and from this they fell back before a year had passed.

“The Methodist Church, therefore, may be regarded as the continuation of Mr. Wesley’s societies, with the Church of England left off, and the bishops added on. As societies, they date from Mr. Wesley, in England; as a Church, from the two bishops and sixty preachers in Baltimore, Maryland.”

“I thank you, sir,” said Theodosia. “I now see how it was that my mind was confused. Shall we go on to our next test?”

“In one minute, if you will. I only want to call attention to the fact that the bishops themselves acknowledged, soon after the organization of the Church, and up to the present time continue to acknowledge, that the Discipline and order of their Church is not only of modern date, but is not founded on the word of God, nor formed with any reference to the teachings of the Scriptures. In 1789, five years after the Discipline was formed, the bishops sent out with it an ‘Address to the Methodist Societies in the United States,’ commencing as follows:

“‘Dearly-beloved Brethren: We esteem it our duty and privilege most earnestly to recommend to you, as members of our Church, our form of Discipline, which has been founded [not on Scripture, but] on the experience of fifty years in Europe, and of twenty years in America, as, also, [not on what they had learned from Jesus in his word, but] on the observations and remarks we have made on ancient and modern Churches. “‘Signed by ‘THOMAS COKE, ‘FRANCIS ASBURY.’

“Now, in the Address appended to the Discipline of the Church, North, published in 1854, we find the following: “‘We esteem it our duty and our privilege most earnestly to recommend to you, as members of our Church, our FORM OF DISCIPLINE, which has been founded on the experience of a long series of years; as, also, on the remarks we have made on ancient and modern Churches. “‘Signed by ‘BEVERLY WAUGH. ‘THOMAS A. MORRIS. ‘EDMUND S. JANES. ‘LEVI SCOTT. ‘MATTHEW SIMPSON. ‘OSMON C. BAKER. ‘EDWARD R. AMES.’

“And in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, published in 18406, there is a similar Address, in which the same remarkable acknowledgment is made:

“‘We esteem it our duty and privilege most earnestly to recommend to you, as members of our Church, OUR FORM OF DISCIPLINE, which has been founded on the experience of a long series of years; as, also, on the observations and remarks we have made on ancient and modern Churches. “‘Signed by ‘JOSHUA SOULE. ‘JAMES O. ANDREW. ‘WILLIAM CAPERS. ‘ROBERT PAINE.’

“The Methodists are, therefore, taught by their own bishops, both the first and the last, that their Discipline is based not on the Bible, but on the ‘experience of a long series of years’—explained by the first of them to be fifty years in England and twenty in America—and ‘on the observations’ which the bishops had made ‘on ancient and modern Churches.’

“I am now ready, Mrs. Percy, for the next test.”

“It is,” said she, “that no true Church of Christ ever persecutes for conscience’ sake.”

“As the Methodist Church was organized in this land of religious freedom, and has never had the power to persecute, we need not take any time to settle the fact that she has not been a persecutor, and may at once pass on to the next.”

“Which is,” said Theodosia, “that no apostate Church can be a true Church of Christ.”

“It seems to me,” said Mr. Percy, “this need hardly require more time than the test we have just passed. Like the Church of England, out of which she came, the Methodist Episcopal Church has never possessed the characteristics of a true Church, and, therefore, could not have lost them; she never had any other baptism, or ordination, than she could get from the Church of England, and which England got from Rome, and that, as we have seen, (pp. 245⁠–⁠256,) is that of Antichrist itself.

“We may, therefore, pass at once to the Presbyterian Church, as soon as I have finished my diagram of this.”

DIAGRAM OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Methodist Church. | | Episcopal Church. --------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- 1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | It consists in part of professed believers in | | baptized infants, and of Christ. | | unconverted seekers. See | | pp. 306⁠–⁠317.

2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | Most of its members have baptized upon a | | not been baptized at all, profession of their | | since sprinkling and faith. | | pouring are not baptism; | | or, if at all, in infancy, | | without personal profession | | of faith. See pp. | | 317⁠–⁠330.

3d. It is a local | ████████████ | It is subject to the organization, and | | preacher. It cannot even independent of all | | decide who shall be its own others. | | members. It is subject to | | the bishop. It cannot even | | choose its own pastor. It | | is dependent for its very | | existence as a church. See | | pp. 330⁠–⁠342.

4th. It has Christ alone | ████████████ | It is obliged to submit to for its King and | | the Laws of Conference in Lawgiver, and recognizes | | matters affecting even the no other authority above | | right of Church-Membership. its own. | | See pp. 342⁠–⁠374.

5th. Its members have | ██████ | It regards baptized become such by their own | | children as members; and so voluntary act. | | far, they do not come in, | | but are brought. Its | | acting members, however, | | are those who have been | | received again with their | | own consent. See p. 375.

6th. It holds as articles | ███ | It holds and teaches of faith the fundamental | | salvation by faith; but the doctrines of the gospel. | | doctrine is disguised and | | partly nullified by that of | | baptismal regeneration. See | | pp. 376⁠–⁠378.

7th. It began with | ████████████ | It was conceived and Christ, and has continued | | established by Mr. Wesley to the present time. | | and other men, and began | | in 1784, by the authority | | of two bishops and sixty | | preachers.

8th. It never persecutes | | It has never had the power for conscience’ sake. | | to persecute.

9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | It was, as coming out of can be a Church of | | the Church of England, Christ. | | apostate in its very | | origin. See p. 401.

“The principles which we have already settled and illustrated,” said Mr. Courtney, “will enable us to dispose of the other claimants with but a few words upon each of our tests; we need, indeed, scarcely do more than show their real marks in the diagram.

“The =Presbyterian Church=, for instance, we all know, does not consist of believers only; for it is true, as Dr. Samuel Miller, formerly professor in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary at Princeton, New Jersey, said: (p. 257 of his Letters on the Constitution and Order of the Christian Ministry:)

“‘Every one who has read our Confession of Faith, knows its doctrine on this subject to be that all who profess the true religion are members of the visible Church; that the children of such persons, by virtue of their birth, and of course anterior to baptism, are also members of the Church, and baptism is only the appointed seal or solemn recognition and ratification of their membership.’

“We all know, moreover, that if sprinkling and pouring are not baptism, few of the members of this Church have been baptized at all, and scarcely any have ever been poured upon or sprinkled upon a personal profession of their faith; and, according to this plain declaration of Dr. Miller, neither the profession of faith nor baptism is necessary to Church-membership. It is only necessary to have been born of parents professing the true religion.

“Our first two tests, therefore, can very readily be applied. Nor need the third give us much more trouble, for the Confession of Faith expressly teaches that the local societies, commonly called Churches, are not separate and independent organizations, but parts of the whole establishment which is known as the Presbyterian Church. See chap. x., p. 418. ‘The Church being divided into many separate congregations these need mutual counsel and assistance, in order to preserve soundness of doctrine, regularity of discipline, etc.; hence arise the importance of presbyterial and synodical assemblies.’ Again, on p. 425, chap. xii., see the explanatory note:

“‘The radical principles of Presbyterian Church-government and discipline are: That the several different congregations of believers, taken collectively, constitute one Church of Christ, emphatically called the Church; that a larger part of the Church, or representation of it, should govern a smaller, or determine matters of controversy which arise therein; that, in like manner, a representation of the whole should govern and determine in regard to every part, and to all the parts united, that is, that a majority shall govern; and, consequently, that appeals may be carried from lower to higher judicatories, till they be finally decided by the collected wisdom and united voice of the whole Church.’

“So far, therefore, is each separate congregation from being an independent Church, that it is, by the very genius of Presbyterianism, necessarily considered as but a part of that whole which is emphatically called the Church, and which is to decide for them all questions of doctrine and discipline which may arise in any of these parts. It is, simply, an integral part of a great confederation, having no separate rights of its own, but in all things subject to the control of that assembly which claims to be the representative of the whole Church.

“And so in regard to the fourth of our tests. We can very readily decide from the Confession of Faith itself, and with but little loss of time, that each of the local Churches, and every member of them, is bound to receive and obey the decrees of the judicatories above them.

“The truth is, a Presbyterian society, as such, has little if any more ecclesiastical power than an Episcopal, a Methodist, or even a Roman Catholic society possesses. It cannot determine for itself who shall be received as members of its own communion. It cannot determine for itself whether a wicked violator of God’s laws shall or shall not continue in their number and fellowship. It cannot decide for itself who shall be called to preach the gospel in its own pulpit. It cannot decide for itself that one who has proved himself unworthy, and alienated their affections, shall not, in spite of their most earnest protest continue to sustain to them the relation of a pastor.”

“Surely,” exclaimed Theodosia, “you must express yourself somewhat too strongly. I was for months a member of the Presbyterian Church, and did not become conscious of any interference with my liberties, or those of others.”

“And I,” said Mr. Percy, “was a member of it still longer than you, and I never felt that there was any restraint upon my liberties; and yet it does not follow that the power to restrain did not exist. Many a citizen may live and die in the dominions of a despot without ever having been the victim of despotic power; but the power existed nevertheless. Our question is, whether the local Presbyterian Church, like the Church at Jerusalem, or the Church at Corinth, or the Church at Ephesus, can, under Christ, decide for itself all questions of order and discipline relating to its own internal affairs; or whether there is a power outside itself, and above its own, that can determine these things for it, and to the decisions of which it must submit, or cease to be a Presbyterian Church? The way to find the true answer to this question is not to refer to our personal experience or observation, but to look at the written constitution of the Church. We have learned from the Scriptures that it was the ekklesia, the Church in her assembled capacity as an official body, which was to receive members to her own communion and fellowship; but the constitution of the Presbyterian Church places this power in the hands of the pastor and his advisory council, the elders, of whom there may be only one or two. It is not the Church, but the session, consisting of the pastor and two ruling elders, (if there be as many,) which ‘is charged with maintaining the spiritual government of the congregation.’ The session is ‘to receive members into the Church, to admonish, to rebuke, to suspend, or to exclude from the sacraments those who are found to deserve censure.’ Pp. 416, 417. And for its faithfulness or unfaithfulness, it is responsible not to the Church, but to the presbytery.

“And except in the first particular, the reception of members, the session has not final jurisdiction, for the presbytery has power to hear appeals from their decision, to examine, approve, or censure what they have done, and reverse what it does not approve. But the presbytery is responsible not to the Church, but to the synod, which may examine into and censure or repeal its decisions. And the synod is not responsible to the Church, but to the General Assembly, whose decision alone is final.

“It is, therefore, the General Assembly that has the power to decide who shall and who shall not be members of the separate and particular Churches. It can never in any instance be finally determined by the Church herself, but must be decided for her either by the session, presbytery, synod, or General Assembly.

“And now in regard to the calling or the dismissal of a pastor, nothing can be plainer than the requisitions of the constitutional rules. The Church may earnestly desire a certain minister to take the charge of them. That minister may be very anxious to do so. The Church may meet and give expression to their desire by a formal vote, and embody it in a written request to the said minister to come. But they cannot send it to him; they dare not so much as officially to ask him to come until they have received the gracious consent of the presbytery under whose care the preacher may be, and also of that in which the Church may be located. See page 439, sec. ix.: ‘The call, thus prepared, shall be presented to the presbytery under whose care the person called shall be; that if the presbytery thinks it expedient to present the call to him, it may be accordingly presented; and no minister or candidate shall receive a call but through the hands of the presbytery.’…

“‘If the call be to the licentiate of another presbytery, in that case the commissioners deputed by the congregation to prosecute the call, shall produce to that judicatory a certificate from their own presbytery, regularly attested by the moderator and clerk, that the call has been laid before them, and that it is in order.’

“So again on pages 444, 445, we may read, ‘No bishop [that is, pastor] shall be translated from one Church to another, nor shall he receive any call for that purpose, but by the permission of the presbytery.’… ‘The presbytery being met, and having heard the parties, shall, upon the whole view of the case, either continue him in his former charge, or translate him, as they shall deem to be most for the peace and edification of the Church.’

“Then turn to page 448, and read as follows: ‘When any minister shall labor under such grievances in his congregation as that he shall desire leave to resign his pastoral charge, the presbytery shall cite the congregation to appear by their commissioners at their next meeting, to show cause, if any they have, why the presbytery should not accept the resignation. If the congregation fail to appear, or if their reasons for retaining their pastor be deemed by the presbytery insufficient, he shall have leave granted to resign his pastoral charge, of which due record shall be made.… If any congregation shall desire to be released from their pastor, a similar process, mutatis mutandis, shall be observed.’”

“I think,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “you have clearly made out your case, and we may pass to the next mark upon our tablet.”

“Which is the fifth,” said Theodosia, “and requires that the members of a true Church should have become such by their on voluntary act.”

“But in this Church, as we have seen,” said Mr. Courtney, “they are, according to the testimony of Dr. Miller, to which I might add that of others of their standard writers, born into the Church, if they chance to be born of parents who professed the true religion. It may be more satisfactory to us, however, to look at the Confession of Faith for ourselves. If you will turn to page 146, you may gain further evidence.”

“‘Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.’

“But does this baptism make these unconscious and involuntary recipients of it Church-members? and that, too, without any additional and voluntary act of their own? Turn to page 450, and you will see: ‘ALL BAPTIZED PERSONS ARE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH—are under its care and subject to its government and discipline; and when they have arrived at the years of discretion, they are bound to perform all the duties of Church-members.’”

“That certainly is as plain as words can make it,” said the Doctor; “and we may pass on to the next test, which is, if I do not forget, that ‘A true Church must hold as articles of faith the fundamental doctrines of the gospel.’”

“And here, I am happy to say,” said Mr. Courtney, “we can mark this claimant all white. If every thing about her were as unexceptionable as her system of theology, we would have little to find fault with. But when we come to our seventh test, and ask for her beginning, we can only trace the Presbyterian Church of the United States back to 1789, or five years later than the organization of the Methodist church, at Baltimore. It was in that year that the establishment was completed or finished, by adding on to what it had before, that which now constitutes its peculiar characteristic, that is the GENERAL ASSEMBLY, which previous to that time had no existence.

“In the year 1788 the Synod of New York and Philadelphia arranged the present plan of government, by sessions, presbyteries, synods, and a General Assembly, and, dividing itself into four synods, gave place to the General Assembly, which met the next year; and thus began the present order of Presbyterianism in America.”

“But how, then,” asked Theodosia, “can the Presbyterian Church be said to have begun with John Calvin, at Geneva?”

“Just as the Methodist Church began with Wesley, and yet began at Baltimore. John Calvin suggested, defended, and put in practice, to some extent, the outline of the system, and the doctrines that have generally been associated with it. These were condensed and embodied by the famous Westminster Assembly of Divines; and Presbyterian churches—that is, churches governed by presbyters and synods—were established in Switzerland, Scotland, and England; and the ministers and members coming to America brought their principles with them. Societies were organized here, and sessions and presbyteries, and then synods, appointed to rule ever them; and the arrangement was completed at length in 1789, by the formation of the General Assembly. But, whether we date the beginning of the system in Philadelphia with the first General Assembly, or at Geneva with John Calvin, or somewhere else, a hundred or a thousand years before John Calvin was born, is of no consequence at all to our present argument. It is enough for us to know that no such system was established by Christ or the apostles. The Church at Jerusalem was not a part of something ‘called emphatically the Church;’ but was complete within itself. So was the Church at Antioch, and at Corinth, and at Ephesus; and so were all the Churches of which we read in the Scriptures. They each one ruled its own members, and did not submit to the control of any ecclesiastical bodies outside themselves. They were subject alone to Christ and to the apostles, speaking in the name of Christ, and by inspiration of his Spirit: when they performed an act of discipline, there was no presbytery, no synod, and no general assembly above them to reverse or confirm the sentence given in the ‘ekklesia’ itself. The brother aggrieved was to tell the ‘ekklesia’—not the session, or the presbytery, or the synod, or the general assembly: such things as these did not exist. Christ did not ordain them, and gave no authority to them. When the ekklesia—the local Church—had decided, that was the end of the matter; nor could its decision be reversed by any authority but its own. If any of these judicatory bodies, high or low, existed outside the local Church in the apostles’ days the writers of the Scriptures neglected to mention them. We may be sure, therefore, that whenever or wherever a Church was first organized, consisting of a multitude of local societies, so confederated as to form collectively that thing called the Church, which was ruled by presbyteries, synods, and a general assembly, it was some time after the completion of the Scripture-record; and that is all our argument requires.”

“Our next test,” said Theodosia, “is the eighth: It never persecutes for conscience’ sake.”

“The Presbyterian Church of the United States, or, perhaps, I should say Churches—for there are now three of them, commonly called the ‘Old School,’ the ‘New School,’ and the ‘Cumberland’—have none of them, since the completion of their organization, had the opportunity or inclination to persecute. The Presbyterian Churches in Europe, where they had the power, have been thus guilty; and so the Presbyterians who settled New England were at one time largely imbued with the spirit of persecution. But the Presbyterian Church proper of the United States, I am happy to say, has from the first declared that her judicatory ‘assemblies ought not to possess any civil jurisdiction, nor to inflict any civil penalties. Their power is wholly moral and spiritual, and that only ministerial and declarative.… The highest punishment to which their authority extends is to exclude the contumacious and impenitent from the congregation of believers.’

“We give them our hand on this, and pass to the next and last of our tests. Is it an apostate Church? It is not apostate in the sense that it was once a true Church, and has since lost the characteristics that made it such; but, like the Episcopal and Methodist Churches, it was apostate in its very origin. It came out of Rome as truly as either of the others; and when it came out, it brought with it the baptism of Antichrist, and the ordination of Antichrist. As the popish councils had introduced the baptism of babes, with the substituted professions of sponsors, so they went still farther, and baptized them without any profession at all, but only on a promise from those who brought them. The pope had by his decree changed immersion into pouring, and they, instead of restoring Christ’s baptism, went still further, and, on the authority of that ‘godly, learned man, John Calvin, of Geneva,’ changed pouring into sprinkling, which was never used for baptism before. (See Dr. Wall, as quoted in first volume, p. 177.) They reformed upon the doctrine, and reformed upon the manners, and reformed upon the morals of the Church of Rome; but they did not cast Rome away and go back to the Bible and search there for the original model, as we have done, and confine themselves to it; or look for the Church in the wilderness, where Rome, the great dragon, had driven her, and receive from her that Christian baptism and that Christian ordination which Rome, as ANTICHRIST, could not confer. They were content to protest against Rome, and denounce its fearful hierarchy, as the very man of sin and son of perdition; but to this very day they dare not officially declare that the baptism and ordination of this Antichrist are not true and valid Christian baptism and good and lawful Christian ordination; for to do so would be utterly to invalidate their own, since Calvin and his co-presbyters were all baptized and all ordained by Antichrist. The question came up in 1854, in the New School General Assembly, which met at Buffalo, whether, as Presbyterians, they could recognize the baptism of the Roman Catholics as valid Christian baptism; and while they denounce that Church as the very ANTICHRIST foretold in the Word—while they know that it has been in every age the great enemy and bitter and bloody PERSECUTOR of the true followers of Jesus—they did not dare to decide that it could not and did not confer the sacraments of Christ. Its hands, all reeking with the blood of martyred saints, conferred the only baptism which those men ever received who gave baptism to the Presbyterian Church; and when they venture to decide that this was not and could not be true Christian baptism, they, by that act, decide that they have never been themselves baptized.

“The facts concerning this discussion should not be forgotten. The question which had been referred to the Assembly for its decision was a very simple one, and to an uninterested spectator would have seemed very easy of solution. It was in substance this: Is baptism and ordination conferred by the Church of Rome valid and lawful Christian baptism and ordination? It was referred to a special committee to examine and report. The majority of this committee reported that our standards declare the pope to be Antichrist, and the baptism or ordination of Antichrist could not be Christian baptism or Christian ordination. But a majority of the Assembly voted for the indefinite postponement of the whole subject, which was simply a refusal to decide the question either way. And the reasons given for this course were, that if they ventured officially and authoritatively to deny that Rome was a true Church, and her baptisms and ordinations lawful and valid, they would by that act officially unchurch themselves, since their own ordinances came to them through Rome. If the baptisms and ordinations of Rome are invalid, then Luther and Calvin were neither baptized nor ordained, and so of all who constituted the first Churches of the Reformation. If they were unbaptized, then they were not true Churches, since no company of unbaptized believers, however pious, has ever been regarded as a Church. If their ministers were unordained, then, according to Presbyterian usage and authority, they had no right to baptize or to ordain others; so the Churches never could have received through them the ordinances of Christ, and therefore must be now without them.

“If they had said, We cannot tell: the people would ask them, Why? for to the simple common sense of any honest mind it must seem plain as the sunlight that the enemy of Christ, the beast, the dragon, the man of sin, foretold as Antichrist, who should usurp the seat of Christ, and by his assumed authority wear out his saints and destroy his people, could not be Christ’s executive, could not be authorized by HIM to confer HIS sacraments.

“They therefore determined to postpone the further consideration of the whole subject, and cut all notice of it out of their permanent records, so that the people might forget it. But the people will not forget it. The question will come up again. It must be true that popish baptism either is or else that it is not true and valid Christian baptism. If it is, then the Roman Catholic is the true Church of Christ, and they were excommunicated in the persons of their founders, the Reformers. If it is not, then they came out of an apostate Church, and as it had no power to confer Christian baptism, it could not have given it them, and they had no other. If Roman Catholic popish ordination was not true Christian ordination, then Luther and Calvin, and the other ministers of that day, were not ordained, and if unordained could not ordain others, nor confer Christian baptism. If it was true ordination, then Rome was the true Church, and Luther and Calvin and their associates were deposed and excommunicated, and no longer authorized to act officially, and all their official acts are, therefore, null and void. In either case their followers have no baptism, no ordination, no sacraments, and no Church, unless that may be a Church which has no baptism, or that be baptism which is conferred by one who is not a minister, which is contrary to the teaching of the ‘Confession of Faith,’ page 498, ‘Baptism is not to be administered but by a minister of Christ,’ etc.

“But we need not dwell on this. We have seen enough to understand that from the very first this Church had not the scriptural characteristics of a true Church of Christ. Let Mr. Percy finish his diagram, and we will pass on to the LUTHERAN CHURCHES.

“We need not stop to examine the Methodist Protestant Church, for it is younger than its mother, whom we have examined, and does not differ from her in any thing essential to our argument. Nor need we give any separate consideration to the Cumberland Presbyterian, of which the same thing is true. And the Lutheran Churches need occupy but little more time than will be necessary to construct the diagram to show at a single glance just what they really are.

“Those in this country are the descendants of those in Europe, and like them, so far as differing circumstances will permit. From them they received their ordinances and their organization, and if they are not true Churches, these cannot be. We need only say of them what we presume their most devoted members will not deny: they not only receive infants as members, but where they have the power, as in Germany and Sweden, compel the parents by force of fines and imprisonments to bring their infants to be made members. They cannot, therefore, endure our first two tests, nor yet the fifth or eighth.

DIAGRAM OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Presbyterian Church. | | Church. --------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- 1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | It consists of believers professed believers in | | and their offspring, and Christ. | | all persons baptized in | | infancy. See p. 403.

2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | The children of baptized upon a | | Church-members are regarded profession of their | | as members even without faith. | | baptism at all. P. | | 403⁠–⁠408.

3d. It is a local | ████████████ | It is a great organization, and | | confederation, of which independent of all | | each local society is but a others. | | part. P. 404.

4th. It has Christ alone | ████████████ | It is ruled by sessions, by for its King and | | presbyteries, by synods, Lawgiver, and recognizes | | and a General Assembly. P. no other authority above | | 405⁠–⁠407. its own. | |

5th. Its members have | ████████████ | Its members are most of become such by their own | | them born such without voluntary act. | | their knowledge or consent. | | P. 403.

6th. It holds as articles | | It holds for the most part of faith the fundamental | | to all the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. | | doctrines of salvation. P. | | 408.

7th. It began with | ████████████ | It is of comparatively Christ, and has continued | | modern origin, and came to the present time. | | through John Calvin and the | | Reformers of Geneva out of | | Rome. The American | | organization was completed | | in 1789. P. 409.

8th. It never persecutes | ██████ | In Calvin’s day, and for conscience’ sake. | | afterwards in Europe, it | | persecuted, but the | | American organization | | proper never has. P. 410.

9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | It was apostate in its can be a Church of | | origin, as coming out of Christ. | | Rome, and has never had the | | characteristics of a true | | Church of Christ. See pp. | | 411⁠–⁠414.

“The local societies are not independent, but each makes a part of a confederacy, which, where it is practicable, is coextensive with the nation. They have not, therefore, our third mark. And, like the Presbyterians, they are subject to the rule of ecclesiastical assemblies above the local Church, and where it is practicable they are joined to the state, and, like the Church of England, own subjection to the civil power. Christ is not, therefore, their only king and lawgiver. Its confession teaches baptismal regeneration as plainly as the Prayer-book of the Church of England, Wesley’s Sermons, or the Discipline. And the body of her communicants in Europe (though not in this country) evidently rely upon a sacramental salvation. It did not begin with Christ, but came out of Rome in the time of Martin Luther. It was, like the Church of England, a persecutor in its very beginning, while Luther himself yet lived, and gave direction to its action. And, like those we have examined, though it has not apostatized since it began, it was apostate in its very origin. It has not lost the characteristics of a true Church of Christ, because it never had them. It has from the first been destitute of all the characteristics of a true Church but one: it did at one time hold the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, and many of its members do hold them still.”

“I can hardly feel satisfied,” said Theodosia, “with the character you have given us of Luther. He may have been led into occasional acts of violence, but that he was a systematic and deliberate persecutor, or that he sanctioned by his precepts or example the claims of those who have since endeavored to compel men to receive his doctrines by the penalties of the civil law, I can hardly believe.”

DIAGRAM OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.

Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Lutheran Church. | | Church. --------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- 1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | It consists, so far as professed believers in | | practicable, like the Christ. | | Church of England, of the | | whole population, made | | members by baptism in their | | infancy.

2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | Its members have mostly baptized upon a | | been made in infancy, profession of their | | before they knew there was faith. | | a Christ.

3d. It is a local | ████████████ | Each society is but a part organization, and | | of a great ecclesiastical independent of all | | establishment. others. | |

4th. It has Christ alone | ████████████ | It is subject to for its King and | | ecclesiastical Lawgiver, and recognizes | | judicatories, and in no other authority above | | Germany, where it its own. | | originated, and in Sweden, | | is connected with the | | state.

5th. Its members have | ████████████ | Its members are made such become such by their own | | in infancy, and, where it voluntary act. | | has the power, by | | compulsion of the law.

6th. It holds as articles | ██████ | It once held to salvation of faith the fundamental | | by faith alone. Some of its doctrines of the gospel. | | members do still, but its | | standards teach baptismal | | regeneration, and many of | | its members trust to the | | sacraments for salvation.

7th. It began with | ████████████ | It began with Martin Christ, and has continued | | Luther, and came out of to the present time. | | Rome.

8th. It never persecutes | ████████████ | It persecuted even in for conscience’ sake. | | Luther’s day; and in every | | country where it has the | | power, if fines and | | imprisons Baptists to the | | present day. Pp. 416⁠–⁠422.

9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | In was, as coming out of can be a Church of | | Rome, apostate in its Christ. | | origin, and never has had | | the marks of a true Church.

“Luther,” said Mr Courtney, “was a very great and, in some respects, a very good man; and his persecution of others serves to show how very far good men and wise men may go astray from the requirements of God’s word, even while they hold and teach that it, and it alone, is to be the guide of every man, both as regards his faith and practice.

“I wish this blot were not upon his name. I wish that neither he nor Calvin had procured the death of others, for doing what they themselves had done and commended; that is, for simply thinking and deciding for themselves in regard to the teachings of the Word concerning their religious faith and practice. We may excuse them if we can, or as we can; but the facts are recorded in letters of blood, and must remain for ever a perpetual monument of the truth that the Churches founded by either one or the other were not and could not be true Churches of Christ; since they both began in blood; and when they had the power to wield the secular sword, did not spare to plunge it to the heart of those who ventured to read the Scriptures for themselves, and differ from their masters.

“But if you doubt about the facts, you will find an admirable summary of them in Luther’s case recorded in Orchard’s ‘History of the Foreign Baptists,’ and sustained by references to the most reliable historical authorities:

“‘Luther had no great objection to the Baptists in his early efforts. He encouraged the Muncer of notoriety, who was a Baptist minister, and so highly esteemed by Luther as to be named his Absalom. Their united efforts greatly increased persons of the Baptist persuasion. When the news reached Luther of Carolstadt rebaptizing, [that is, baptizing those that had only received popish baptism,] that Muncer had won the hearts of the people, and that the Reformation was going on in his absence; he, on the 6th of March, 1522, Jew like lightning from his confinement, at the hazard of his life, and without the advice of his patron, to put a stop to Carolstadt’s proceedings. (Maclean’s Mosheim, vol. iii., p. 45.) On his return to Wittemburg, he banished Carolstadt, Pelargus, More, Didymus, and others, and only received Melancthon again. (Ivimey.).… The success and number of the Baptists exasperated him to the last degree. He became their enemy, notwithstanding all he had said in favor of dipping, (while he contended with Catholics on the sufficiency of the word of God;) but now he persecuted them under the name of re-dippers, rebaptizers, or Anabaptists.… His half measures, his national system, his using the Roman liturgy, his consubstantiation, his infant baptism, without Scripture or example, were disliked by the Baptists. Yea, the Picards or Vaudois hated his system, and he hated all other sects.’ (Pp. 344, 345.)

“And again: ‘The tones of authority assumed by Luther, and his magisterial conduct towards those who differed from him, made it evident that he would be the lead of the Reformers.’ (Robinson’s Researches, p. 542.) He and his colleagues had now to dispute their way with hosts of Baptists all over Germany, Saxony, Thuringia, Switzerland, and other kingdoms, for several years. Conferences on baptism were held in different kingdoms, which continued from 1516 to 1527. The support which the Baptists had from Luther’s writings made the Reformers’ efforts of little effect. At Zurich, the [Lutheran] Senate warned the people to desist from the practice of rebaptizing; but all their warnings were in vain. These efforts to check the increase of Baptists being ineffectual, carnal measures were selected. The first edict against Anabaptism was published at Zurich, in 1522. in which there was a penalty of a silver mark set upon all such as should suffer themselves to be baptized, or should withhold baptism from their children. And it was further declared that those who openly opposed this order should be more severely treated. (Ger. Brandt’s Hist. Ref., vol. i., b. ii., p. 57.) This being insufficient to check immersion, the Senate decreed, like Honorius in 413, that all persons who professed Anabaptism, or harbored the professors of the doctrine, should be punished with death by drowning. (Miln. Ch. Hist., chap. xvi. Neal’s Hist., vol. v., p. 127.) It had been death to refuse baptism, and now it was death to be baptized. Such is the weathercock uncertainty of state religion. In defiance of this law, the Baptists persevered in their regular discipline; and some ministers of learned celebrity realized the severity of the sentence. MANY BAPTISTS WERE DROWNED AND BURNT. (Milner, Brandt, Ivimey.) These severe measures, which continued for years, had the consent of the Reformers, which injured greatly the Lutheran cause. (Rob. Res., p. 543.) It was the cruel policy of Papacy inflicted by brethren. Wherever the Baptists settled, Luther played the part of a universal bishop, and wrote to princes and senates to engage them to expel such dangerous men.”

“But was it not against the so-called madmen or fanatics of Munster, commonly called Anabaptists, that these severe measures were directed? Was it not against the disturbers of the public peace, rather than those who held to adverse sentiments in religion, that these sanguinary measures were directed?”

“Not at all, madam. All this was years before the Munster rising; and consequently could have had no reference to that affair. These laws were passed in 1522. In 1525 there was an insurrection of the peasants, but they were Papists, and not Baptists. In 1520, Erasmus, the friend of Luther, said of the Anabaptists, (that is, those whom we now call Baptists.) ‘These persons are worthy of greater commendation than others, on account of the harmlessness of their lives; but they are oppressed by all other sects.’ And it was not till 1535 that the famous rising at Munster occurred. The disturbances began two years before, (see Orchard, p. 361,) between Lutherans and Papists; and ‘while things were in this confused state, some persons of a fanatical character came into Munster, who gave out that they were messengers from heaven, invested with a Divine commission to lay the foundations of a new government, a holy and spiritual empire, and destroy and overturn all temporal rule and authority, all human and political institutions.’

“These were the people who are called Anabaptists by the historians of those times; and whose excesses and fanatical proceedings were the occasion of great distress to the Baptists in the succeeding years, and of much reproach to the denomination even to the present time; and yet it does not appear that they had more than one single article of faith or practice in common with those with whom they have been so generally confounded. They were no more Baptists than the Mormons of our day are Baptists. The Mormons immerse those whom, they receive into their community, and the Baptists immerse those whom they receive; yet the Mormons and the Baptists are very far from being the same people. So it was with these madmen of Munster: they baptized anew all who came from other sects to them, and so do Baptists rebaptize, if infant sprinkling is to be counted baptism; but here the resemblance ceases. ‘They were for repeating even adult baptism, not performed among them; yea, that which was administered among themselves when they removed from one society to another; nay, even in the same community when an excommunicated person was received again. Besides, if what is reported of them is true, as it may be, their baptism was performed by sprinkling, which we cannot allow to be true baptism. It is said that when a community of them was satisfied with the person’s faith and conversation who proposed himself for baptism, the pastor took water into his hand and sprinkled it on the head of him who was to be baptized, using these words: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ See Ivimey, vol. i., p. 15.

“But whether these madmen were Baptists or not, it was not against them that these bloody laws were passed, at the request of Luther; for they were made, and many by their authority were drowned and burnt, before the disturbances at Munster had been dreamed of. And under similar laws, our brethren are liable to-day to suffer persecution in every nation where the Lutheran Church by union with the state has power to persecute.”

“But what do you say to the so-called CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES, which are scattered throughout our country?” asked the Rev. Mr. Stiptain. “Do they come up to your high standard, or rather down to your low standard?”

“They come nearer to it than any we have examined,” said Mr. Courtney, “but yet they are not true Churches. In so far as they make members of little babes, they cannot have our first, second, or fifth mark. They have the third and fourth, and some of them the sixth, though many hold to a sort of sacramental salvation; and some have fallen into Unitarianism, and denied the Lord that bought them.

“Consisting, as they do, of professed believers, and their children, they are not full examples of the Church founded by Christ, for the first Churches, as we have seen, were not composed of such materials; and, therefore, they have not the seventh.

“Some of them, in the early settlement of New England, were bitter persecutors of the Baptists and the Quakers: and they, at least, had not the eighth. And as they all received their baptism and ordinances from the hands of those who had no other than the ordinances of the apostate Roman Church, and, moreover, have none of them had all the characteristics of a true Church at any period of their existence, we will be obliged to count then as we have the other claimants, as apostate in their very origin.”

“It seems to me,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “that you have now wound yourselves up so completely in the web of your own tests, that you can never get out. You have already cut off almost all that claim to be the Church of Christ, and unchurched almost the whole of Christendom; and if you apply your rules, and require that a true Church shall be in all respects what those tests call for, you will cut off every other; and it must follow that Christ has now no Church on earth, and never has had since the great Roman apostasy. The Greek Church, and the Armenian, can, of course, expect no more favor than the Roman Catholic and the English, and not quite so much as the Presbyterian, and the Methodist, and Lutheran.”

“As they do not belong to this country,” replied Mr. Courtney, “we will not need specifically to consider their claims, except we should fail to find any example of a true Church here.”

“You are not hopeless then? Well, I trust you may succeed; but, for my own part, I can see no prospect of your doing so. It is time for us to return home; but if you will all come over to my house on Monday, I will gladly do-what I can to help you look, and would like to be present at the finding,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain.

“If you will go to meeting with us to-morrow,” said Theodosia, “perhaps we may be able to show it to you.”

“I cannot do that, as I must attend my own appointment; but we expect you all to dine with us on Monday, and tell us what you have seen. If it is a Church which has all your marks, I am almost willing to promise to join it myself.”

DIAGRAM OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH.

Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of the Congregational Church. | | Church. --------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- 1st. It consists only of | ████████████ | They consist in part of the professed believers in | | baptized children of Christ. | | believers.

2d. Its members have been | ████████████ | Its members have mostly baptized upon a | | been made in infancy, profession of their | | before they knew there was faith. | | a Christ.

3d. It is a local | | Each Church controls its organization, and | | own affairs, and makes no independent of all | | part of any ecclesiastical others. | | establishment.

4th. It has Christ alone | | It is not responsible to for its King and | | any Lord but Christ, and Lawgiver, and recognizes | | knows no laws but his. no other authority above | | its own. | |

5th. Its members have | ████████████ | Its members were mostly become such by their own | | made such before they could voluntary act. | | know what was done to them.

6th. It holds as articles | ██████ | Some do hold the true of faith the fundamental | | doctrines, and some have doctrines of the gospel. | | Unitarianism, and some | | sacramental salvation, | | baptismal regeneration, | | etc.

7th. It began with | ████████████ | The Church, which began Christ, and has continued | | with Christ had no infant to the present time. | | or involuntary members. | | These, therefore, cannot be | | examples of it.

8th. It never persecutes | ██████ | Some of them have for conscience’ sake. | | persecuted, most of them | | never had the power, and | | now would have no | | disposition to do it.

9th. No apostate Church | ████████████ | They were apostate in their can be a Church of | | origin, having never had Christ. | | all the characteristics | | essential to a true Church.

This was on Saturday evening. The Doctor had been accustomed to go into the city upon the Sabbath to the Episcopal church; but, in compliment to his guests, he had ascertained that it was the time of the regular monthly meeting at a little Baptist meeting-house not far from his residence, and had determined to go there.

The services had already begun, and they were singing the first hymn when our party arrived. After singing, the pastor read a portion of the Scriptures in a plain and simple manner, and then offered an extemporaneous prayer in a subdued and earnest voice, which showed by its natural and beseeching tones that he was in solemn earnest, as he plead with God that he and his people might not only be led to know but heartily to do the will of God as made known to us in his most blessed word.

Then, after another hymn had been read and sung, not by a choir, but by the whole congregation, he commenced his sermon.

Up to this time, the attention of Dr. Thinkwell had been somewhat distracted by the contrast which the rude and simple building, the uncarpeted aisles, the uncushioned and unpainted pews, or rather benches, and the unfashionable and cheap attire of most of the hearers, persecuted to the luxurious and tasteful adornments of his city church. Nor was the contrast less striking between the free and natural outgushings of the heart in earnest and simple words of praise and prayer, and the artistic musical parade, and the formal reading to God a select portion of the Prayer-book.

But from the moment that the preacher announced his text there was no more wandering of his mind. There was a strange fascination in the tones of his low yet most intensely earnest voice, and in the gaze of his large eyes—which, instead of being fixed upon his manuscript, seemed to be looking right into the very souls of those who sat before him—that at once enchained all his faculties in an attitude of undivided attention. The subject, too, was one in which, just at this time, he could not but feel a most absorbing interest:

Avoidable Ignorance Is No Excuse For Error or For Sin.

“There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, But the end thereof are the ways of death.”—PROV. xiv. 12.

The preacher began by saying, “It is a common opinion, that it matters little what a man believes, if he is only sincere; and that it is of not much consequence what he does, so that he does what he thinks to be right. But such is not the teaching of the word of God; and however plausible it may seem at the first glance, it has no more foundation in reason than it has in Scripture. Reason as well as revelation requires right faith, right opinions, and right conduct, since ignorance will no more excuse a man, or procure for him an exemption from punishment, if he break the natural laws of God, than if he violate his moral obligations. To illustrate this, take an event in common life.

“A merchant was about to venture on a distant voyage. He had been reared on the land, and knew but little of the perils of the sea. His mind had been engaged in other studies, and he knew little of the art of navigation, or of the qualities and capabilities of ships. He trusted to his agent to purchase and equip the vessel, and to employ the officers and crew. He sent on board his precious freight, designed for traffic in the distant lands; and when all was ready, one lovely summer day he went on board himself, and a fair and gentle breeze wafted them quickly out to sea. O, it was delightful to sit upon the vessels deck, and gaze abroad far as the eye could reach upon the bright expanse of waters; to mark the ripple of the waves, and watch the parting foam about the prow, which told how fast they were progressing towards their destined port. O, it was grand to watch the setting sun sink slowly down until he almost rested his glowing check upon the placid ocean, sending across its surface the gorgeous yellow light which, mingling with the waters, caused them to resemble that wondrous vision of the Revelation, ‘a sea of glass mingled with gold.’

“It was a glorious sight, when the sun was gone and the red twilight had faded, to look up and see the stars of God come out, one after another, and take their places in the blue canopy of heaven, till all the sky was bright with twinkling glory, and then to look down and see another heaven reflected in the deep—not still and quiet as the one above, but trembling in the gently-moving flood—‘As if each wave had leaped up to the sky and caught a star, and held it struggling in its cold embrace.’

“The wind is fair, and only strong enough to waft them on in safety. The merchant is happy; he feels that he is on the way to fortune. He sleeps in quiet; no dream of storms, of rushing waters, of great sea-monsters, and dark caverns in the bottom of the deep, disturb his slumber. He counts his gains, he builds his splendid house, he spreads his sumptuous feast, he enjoys the applause of his numerous friends. He is a rich, and consequently a great and a happy man. Such is his pleasant dream.

“But while he sleeps the wind has lulled. That deep and ominous stillness, which to the sailors’ watchful senses always forebodes the storm, has spread itself over the sea. The sails flap idly on the mast. The ship rocks lazily in the slight swell of the subsiding waves.

“The man upon the lookout sees a little cloud. It rises and spreads with a thousand strange fantastic shapes. All hands are called to fit the vessel for the coming storm, and scarcely have they done so when down it comes, screaming and howling across the waves. He hears its shrieks as it tears its way through the rigging of the vessel; he starts from his pleasant dream of wealth and grandeur; he rushes out to see what is the cause of all the commotion which has startled him.

“The storm is upon them in all its terrible strength; but if his ship were sound, if his officers were competent and his sailors true, there is no danger, for the sea is wide. There is no hidden rock, and there is no danger of running ashore; set her before the wind, and let her drift. But now, for the first time, he discovers that his vessel is old, her timbers sprung, her planks rotten, and the first blow of the storm has opened her seams so that the water rushes in on every side. He finds that the officers, incompetent and timid, have lost all presence of mind, and know no more what to do than he does himself.

“Now tell me, will God hold back the wind? Will God sustain the vessel? Will God preserve the merchant or his wealth because he verily thought in his heart that his agent had been honest, that his officers were skilful, that his ship was sound, and all things safe?

“Never! never! The natural laws will have their course. The ship goes down at sea: fishes feed upon the men who risked their lives so heedlessly, and her rich freight is added to the treasures of the deep. God will not change his laws because the man was ignorant of them, or because he disregarded them. If he would have gone safely, he should have provided securely. His vessel should have been staunch, and his officers competent. He may have thought they were so; but to insure his safety, they must have been so in fact.

“So in the gospel of salvation, God requires certain conditions to be fulfilled in order to make safe the voyage of life. If he would reach the haven of the sons of God, become a king and priest in the heavenly Jerusalem, he must comply with the conditions of the gospel. It is not enough for him to do what he thinks right; he must do what is right in fact. It is not enough for him to think that he does right, but he must actually do it. If he risks his deathless soul in any other vessel than the good ‘old ship of Zion,’ if he sails under any other officer than Jesus, the true and only Captain of our salvation, he has no right to hope that he will escape the storms and tempests of God’s wrath. It is not enough that he means to go safely; it is not enough that he thinks he is safe; it is not enough that he really believes that he is in the gospel ship and has Jesus for his Captain—it must be so as a matter of actual fact. If he deceives himself, or is deceived by Satan, or deluded by his spiritual advisers, it matters not how honest or how confident may be his conviction that he is safe. His hopes may be as bright, his confidence as firm, and his conscience as easy as that of the real Christian—his sun may shine brightly, his breeze may seem fair, the sea gentle and calm; but when the dark clouds rise, when God appears in the thick darkness of his anger, and blows upon him with the horrible tempest of his wrath, ‘then the expectation of the wicked shall perish, and his hope shall be like the giving up of the ghost.’

“But we are not left to infer this doctrine from what we see in nature: God teaches it, as plainly and as forcibly as words can speak, in every part of the Scriptures of truth.

“The Bible gives no license to men to set up their own standard of duty or of faith, of doctrine or of practice. It is the common complaint of the Scriptures against those whom God condemns, that they walked every one according to the imagination of his own heart; that they followed after their own devices. They substituted other things for the commandments of God. They may have been sincere; they may have been honest; they may have thought they were right: ‘For there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.’ But it is not enough that the way seems right, it must be right in fact. It must not only seem right in their sight, but it must be right in the sight of GOD.

“His language is, ‘If thou wilt diligently hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight.’ Exod. xv. 16. And again, ‘Thou shalt do that which is right and good in the sight of the Lord, that it may be well with thee.’ Deut. vi. 18. And again, ‘Ye shall not do after all that ye do this day, every man what is right in his own eyes.’ Deut. xii. 8. ‘Thou shalt observe and go all these words which I command thee,… that it may be well with thee when thou doest that which is right in the sight of the LORD THY GOD.’ Deut. xii. 28.

“God requires certain express and specific acts as the condition of salvation. If man substitutes some contrivance of his own, however honest may be his conviction of the efficacy of the substitute, he will assuredly perish. It may seem right, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

“God says, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.’ And, to show the nature of the faith, he further says, ‘that it works by love and purifies the heart;’ that ‘If any man be in Christ,’ by this faith, ‘he is a new creature: old things are passed away, and all things have become new.’ ‘Except a man be born again, he shall not see the kingdom of God.’ This is God’s way.

“But man says, ‘If you will confess to the priest, and perform penance, you shall be saved.’ Another says, ‘If you will be sprinkled in your infancy, and confirmed by the laying on of the hands of the bishop when you are so many years of age, and keep all the outward forms and ordinances of the Church, as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer, you shall be saved.’ Another says, ‘You have no more to do but to go before the Church, declare your belief that Jesus is the Son of God, be immersed in the baptismal waters, and so wash away your sins, and you shall be saved.’

“Others, rejecting even the outward and external form of godliness, as well as denying the power thereof, say, ‘It is enough that you are correct in your general deportment; that you do not steal, or lie, or cheat, or swear; that you are no murderer or extortioner, nor guilty of any vile, abominable, and outrageous sins. It is enough, in short, that you are a moral and a respectable man.’

“Thus men substitute their own devices for God’s requirements. Thus they forsake the fountain of living waters, and hew out for themselves broken cisterns that can hold no water. Thus they make the gospel of God of no effect, by their own contrivances. They may be honest, they may be sincere: they may really think and be fully persuaded that in these things they have eternal life; but it is still true that he that believeth not on the Son of God shall perish. It is still true that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. It is still true that except a man be born again he shall not see the kingdom of God. It is still true that he who is not renewed in the temper and disposition of his mind; who does not live soberly, and righteously, and godly—denying himself all ungodliness and every worldly lust—trusting in Christ, and in him only, for salvation, shall not be saved. This is God’s way. God’s way is the way of penitence and of faith. God’s way is the way of love and of obedience. No human substitute will answer in the place of this ‘Thou requirest not sacrifice, else would I give it. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.’

“Man may imagine that many things would be agreeable to God, and would propitiate his favor, but God will himself dictate his own terms of peace; and we have nothing to do but to follow, implicitly, the very letter of his commandments. While we do this we are safe. When we go beyond this, or fall short of this, or turn aside from this, we are in great danger of the wrath of God.

“‘If any man,’ says John, ‘shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book.’

“‘What things soever,’ said God to his people, ‘I command you, observe to do it. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish therefrom.’ And you will find, by examination of the word of God, that some of the most remarkable and most terrible inflictions of summary punishment by the direct interference of the hand of God were for sins of thoughtlessness, forgetfulness, or ignorance; eases in which the offenders might very plausibly have pleaded that they meant no harm; if, indeed, they may not have claimed that they really thought they were doing God service.

“Look at the case of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron. God had brought his people out of Egypt, and had led them through the wilderness to the foot of Sinai. There he gave them his law, and there he instructed Moses in what manner he should order the visible worship of God.

“As they were yet to wander many years, they could build no permanent temple; but in its place they had erected a most extensive and magnificent tent, which they called the tabernacle, or tent of the congregation. Its curtains were of blue, and purple, and fine-twined linen and needlework, so arranged that it could be easily set up and taken down, and carried with them in their journeys. Within it was the ark of the covenant, covered with gold; the mercy-seat of pure gold, the cherubims of gold overshadowing it with their wings; the table and the bowls and dishes, spoons and covers, all of gold. There was the golden candlestick, the golden altar of incense, and the great altar of burnt-offering, overlaid with brass. All now were finished; so were the splendid garments of the priests—of blue and purple and needlework, woven in with gold; the ephod, the breastplate, and the signet, all were complete. And Moses had set all in order: had consecrated Aaron and his sons; and now, for the first time, the regular daily sacrifice was to be offered up according to the ordinance of God, which was to be repeated till the great Sacrifice should come.

“When Aaron, assisted by His sons, had offered it, he lifted up his hand towards the people and blessed them. God accepted the sacrifice, and showed himself with most peculiar glory in the sight of all the people. And there came fire from before the Lord and consumed the offering upon the altar.

“The people had been gazing on this scene with the most intense interest. It was a time of wonderful things with them, and this was not the least wonderful. When they saw it they shouted, and fell on their faces in adoration of the God who had thus accepted their early worship.

“All this was well. Thus far all had been done as God commanded Moses, and farther than this he had not commanded. But two of Aaron’s sons took each of them a censer, and would make an additional offering, which the Lord commanded not, strange fire which God had not directed or required. They were priests as well as Aaron. They had been sanctified and consecrated at the same time that he was; and they might have thought that while the people were in a devotional frame it would be well to continue the worship a little longer, and give it some slight variety. God had not forbidden it, and they might not see any harm in it. But no sooner did they wave their censers before the Lord than God smote them, and they died. Fire came out from before the Lord, and devoured them there in the sight of a the people.

“A similar event happened to Uzzah some ages afterwards. The same ark which was here for the first time placed in the tabernacle had been carried about with the people in all their wanderings. It had stood in Jordan while the people filed past it on their entrance into Canaan. It had remained there in the place which God appointed, until, for the wickedness of the people, God gave them into the hand of their enemies, and the ark of God was taken. God afflicted the Philistines. They were so much distressed, that of their own accord they sent it home. The cattle which drew it stopped on the borders of Israel, at Bethshemesh; and some years after David the king went to bring it up to his own city with a splendid retinue of thirty thousand chosen men, the flower of his army. They set the ark upon a new cart and brought it out. And when they came to a rough place in the road, the oxen shook the ark, and Uzzah thought it was about to fall, and he put forth his hand and took hold of it to steady it; forgetting that, according to God’s law, none but a priest might touch it, and even a priest only after such purification and preparation as God had commanded; and for this forgetfulness, for acting on the impulse of the moment, and touching with unhallowed hand the ark of God, God smote him that he died.

“And a much more fearful punishment than this was inflicted upon the people of Bethshemesh, where the ark stopped first on its way home from the land of the Philistines.

“The people received it with great joy, and offered sacrifices and burnt-offerings, but there were some whose unhallowed curiosity led them familiarly to look into the ark. They were probably not conscious of any great crime. It was a strange sight; they had never seen the like before; they might never have another opportunity; and what great harm could there be in simply looking into the ark to see if possible what was the secret of its wondrous power? Yet for this, God smote them that they died, even fifty thousand and seventy men; and the people of Bethshemesh said, ‘Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God?’

“Another instance teaching the same great lesson is to be found in the history of Saul. True, the punishment was not immediate death, as in the other cases; but it was the departure of the favor of God, the loss of his kingdom, and his final death by the hands of the Philistines.

“This history may be found in the fifteenth chapter of first Samuel.

“God sent Samuel the prophet to Saul the king with an express and positive command, ‘Go, smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’ Saul might have thought the command unreasonable. He might have pretended to be more merciful than his Maker, as some infidels have done since his day, and said that it seemed hard and cruel; but he could not and did not fail to understand the nature and extent of the commandment.

“He set himself with great earnestness to carry it into execution. He gathered an army of more than two hundred thousand, and set out on his mission. They smote the Amalekites with a great slaughter; but so far from doing all that God commanded, he spared Agag the king, and all the best of the cattle.

“And Saul returned again to Samuel and said, ‘Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.’

“He thought he had really done all that was important which the command required. He had slain the people, wasted their country, and had only saved a few sheep and cattle, and even these he spared for a religious purpose.

“‘The Lord,’ said Samuel, ‘sent thee on a journey, and said, Go, utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed. Wherefore then didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord, but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord?’

“And Saul said, ‘Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag the king of the Amalekites, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal.’

“Now, what said the answer of God to him? Was it sufficient that he had done all that he thought important, and in the trifle that he left undone he had so good a motive? Was it enough to say he had done what he thought was for the best? No such thing. ‘Nay,’ said Samuel, ‘hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken is better than the fat of rams; for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath rejected thee from being king.’

“Thus does God teach, both by precept and example, that what he requires is simple obedience to his commandments; that which is right in itself, right in point of fact, right in the sight of God; and not what sinful, ignorant, fallible man may fully believe to be right.

“God requires right faith, right opinions, right views of duty, and right practice. And he does not leave us to blunder on in the dim light of our own conceptions of duty, but requires us to come up to the truth of the gospel, and walk in the glorious sunlight of his revelation.

“He requires us to exert our reason, to employ our talents, to use our learning, and by every means which he has placed at our command to learn what is the true meaning of the Word; but when we can once learn what God commands, no reason of expediency, no suggestion of propriety, no authority of Church or state, of kings or bishops, priests or pastors, can justify even a momentary departure from the very letter of his requirements.

“We may not substitute our reasonings for simple faith, or our self-will for unquestioning obedience. We may not see any good reason for the command; but it is not our province to ask why God commands, but only to inquire if he does command. We may think we see strong and numerous reasons in opposition to what he ordains; but it is not our place to sit in judgment on our Maker. We are but creatures of a day, and we know nothing. He is the infinitely wise God, and knows all things. Our business is not to question, but simply to obey. This is, in fact, the HIGHEST REASON. For if God governs his rational and moral creatures at all, it is as a moral governor. He takes cognizance of their character as right or wrong. His government is a government of law; and being infinitely wise and good, he cannot make a law which is not infinitely right; and, of course, any substitute for if must of necessity be wrong, however better it may seem to our weak and sinful reason. If God is wiser, and holier, and better than we are, then it is in accordance with the highest reason that we should do what is right in his sight, and not what is right in our own sight, or what would seem best according to our judgment. It follows, then, that if he has required that all believers shall be immersed, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; if this is the act which was performed by John upon the Saviour; if this was the act performed by his own disciples, under his direction, when the Pharisees heard that he made and baptized more disciples than John; if this is the act which he directed his disciples to perform on all who should believe even to the end of the world, there must be the best of reasons for it; and who will have the temerity to say that it is inconvenient; that it is not genteel, that it is indelicate; or that from any other cause it is IMPROPER, and may be dispensed with? Have men grown better and wiser than their Saviour? Are they more sensitive to any impropriety or any indelicacy than the immaculate Son of God? Will they venture to change the ordinance of God, and make the command of God of no effect by their extreme gentility?

“If God commands immersion, will men pretend to say that sprinkling or pouring a little water on the head is better, because it better symbolizes what God meant to represent? as though they could tell better than God himself what was the most fitting emblem of the thing which baptism was meant to signify.

“If God commands immersion, and the apostles and early Christians practiced it; if pouring first, and sprinkling afterwards, were substituted in its place by man, by the authority of popes, and cardinals, and bishops, who will have the hardihood, when he has been informed that such is indeed the fact, to continue to obey man rather than God? O, not for worlds would I take such responsibility upon my soul. And whether it be either right or wise to obey man rather than God, judge ye.

“If God commands to baptize only believers, who will have the presumption to add their infant children also to the law? We may see a hundred reasons for it; but if God commanded it not, do we not stand on the same ground with Nadab and Abihu? To the law and to the testimony: if it be not according to this word, if it be not in the commandment, who will venture to perform in the name of the Lord that which he hath not required at your hand?

“If God has instituted only ONE ORDER of pastors or ministers of his word, and has placed them all on an equality, who will have the audacity to lord it over God’s heritage? to set up a class of bishops above their fellows, to rule and govern in the Church of God according to their sovereign will and pleasure?

“If God placed the spiritual authority in the Churches, in the assemblies of believers; if they are authorized to receive members, or to expel, who will undertake to improve upon his plan, and place the authority in the hands of sessions of ministers, of class-leaders, of priests, of deacons, of bishops, or popes? Men may see many reasons of convenience or propriety for one course or another; but they have no right to think what is most convenient; they have no right to think what is most proper; they have no right to think what is best fitted to any particular people, or any particular time. All they should dare to do, all they have any right to do, is to determine WHAT DID GOD ORDAIN; what was the teaching of JESUS CHRIST the KING; what was the practice of the apostles and those whom they instructed.

“Do not tell me that these are trifles—that they are nonessentials. The word of God knows nothing of any trifling commandment of Almighty God. I know nothing of any non-essential which makes any part or parcel of God’s laws. Who authorized you to determine what part of God’s commandment is essential, and what is non-essential? If God thought any thing sufficiently important to mention it in his law, who authorized you to say that it is not sufficiently important to require your obedience? Surely you are not wiser than the Omniscient! Shall I set up my puny intellect, and try to grasp the eternal bearings of the most trifling precept of God’s law?

“But the very expression ‘unessential’ is, in this connection, a fearful perversion of language; since what God has once commanded becomes, from that very fact, most tremendously essential, for it is terribly essential that God shall be implicitly obeyed. Saul thought, if he slew the people he might spare the cattle. They had not sinned, and it could not be very important about them. This was to him, it seems, a non-essential; but it lost him the favor of God; it lost him his kingdom, and cost him his life. It was not for him to say what he must do, and what he might leave undone. God meant what he said; he meant all he said. He had doubtless a good reason for every part of the commandment, whether Saul could see it or not. It was not for Saul to inquire for reasons; God’s command is enough, without reasons; God’s command is enough, against reasons; or, rather, God’s command is of itself the highest conceivable reason for every thing, small or great, which he commands. Never tell me then of essentials, or unessentials. Every thing that God commands is of necessity essential. There is, there can be, no such thing as an unessential in the religion of the Bible. If it is not commanded, it makes no part of religion. If it is commanded, it is not for you, or me, or any mortal man on earth, or any angel in the court of heaven, to say that it unimportant and need not be observed.

“Let us then, my hearers, be careful that we conform both in our religious experience and in our Church order to the very letter and spirit of the law of God. And to do the with any assurance that we are doing it, each man must study for himself this holy book. Here is the law; here is the ordinance. What is not here may be indeed a non-essential But if it be here, we may not question; we need not ask for reasons; we may not conform to the counsels of priests or of pastors; we want no argument of convenience or propriety for or against. It is enough for us that we can find a ‘thus saith the Lord.’ But at the same time it is right and necessary that we should not only look but search for the true meaning of God’s word. The Saviour says not, Read the Scriptures, but ‘Search the Scriptures,’ examining with the greatest care and most intense scrutiny. Dig in its mines of wealth, as for hidden treasures; avail yourselves of all the helps within your reach; compare scripture with scripture; obtain the sense of the word as it was written in the original language, so far as it is practicable to do so; and learn it not to gratify a prurient curiosity, but simply that you may obey. Let the language of your heart and of your life be, ‘Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?’ ‘All that the Lord hath said, that we will obey.’ ‘Ye shall not do that which is right in your own eyes, or in the eyes of priests, pastors, teachers or bishops, cardinals or popes; but ye shall do according to this commandment—that which is right in the sight of the Lord thy God, that it may be well with you, that you may live and not die.’

“God grant us all obedient hearts, and a true knowledge of his way, for Christ’s sake! Amen.”

When the preacher had finished his discourse, he remarked that there was some business requiring the action of the Church. While the congregation sang a hymn he came down from the pulpit, and took his place as president or chairman of the Church-meeting, and announced that at the last meeting a certain brother had been found guilty of unchristian conduct, and he had been instructed to see and converse with him, and ascertain whether he showed any symptoms of repentance, and induce him, if possible, to appear before the Church, and make such confession as would remove the scandal of his offences from the Church. He had seen and conversed with him, but he pertinaciously refused to make any acknowledgment of wrong, or to appear before the Church.

“I move, then,” said an aged brother, “that we, as a Church, formally withdraw from him our fellowship, and count him as no longer one of us.”

The motion being duly seconded, and briefly discussed, was unanimously carried, and the clerk so entered it upon his record.

“If there are any persons present,” said the pastor, “who desire to unite with us by letter from other Churches, or by profession of their faith and baptism, let them come forward while we sing.”

One young man came up and took a seat near the chairman. He was much affected by the responsibility which attended the act he was about to perform, and could not restrain his tears.

When the singing had ceased, the pastor remarked, probably for the information of the strangers who were present, and who might be presumed to be ignorant of Baptist usage, That the word of God required but one prerequisite for admission into the visible kingdom and Church of Christ, and that was personal and saving faith in Jesus Christ the Saviour. But as—according to Romans xiv. 1, “Him that is weak in faith receive ye”—it is the duty of the Church to decide whether they have this faith, and not to reject any, even though their faith be weak, so it is the duty of the Church to refuse those whom she may judge to have no faith. We are, therefore, accustomed to require of those who ask admission among us such an explanation of their views and feelings, and such an account of their religious experience, as will enable the Church to judge whether they truly have any portion of that real and saving faith which works by love, and purifies the heart and brings forth good fruit in the life. This is the more needful, since persons are often self-deceived, mistaking a temporary concern about their soul’s salvation for genuine conversion to God, and the regeneration of the Spirit. We do not receive people into the Church or baptize them in order that they may be born again, and made the children of God; but because they give us satisfactory evidence that they have already been born of God, already belong to Christ, and are already qualified, by their love to him and to his people and his cause, to take part in the privileges and responsibilities of his visible kingdom. Baptism is with us a mere formal, official, and public recognition of a previously existing fact, which is symbolized in the ordinance, namely, that the person baptized has died unto sin, as Christ died for him, and has arisen to a new life of righteousness, as Christ came forth from death.

He then proceeded to ask the young man such questions as would elicit the evidence of his conversion to God. And when his answers were not loud enough to be heard by all the Church, he repeated the substance of them, so that all might be capable of judging.

When he was satisfied for himself, he inquired if any member wished to ask any thing more; and, as no one spoke, a motion was made and seconded, to the effect that the pastor be authorized to baptize him, and that after his baptism he be received as a member of the Church. The votes being taken, and found unanimous, the congregation adjourned to the neighboring stream, and there he was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and on coming up from the water, the members gave him at once the right hand of fellowship, in token that henceforth they counted him as one of themselves.

Scarcely a word was spoken by our little party as they returned home. The solemn scene which they had witnessed called up to the minds of Mr. Percy and Theodosia a crowding host of sad yet tender and pleasing recollections and emotions, which could find no utterance in words. Dr. Thinkwell was debating in his own mind whether he had not done wrong by refusing at once to go up and unite with this little company, as the true Church of Christ; but while he could see at a glance that it had most of the marks which in the Scriptures they had found to characterize a true Church, yet there were one or two which he could not at the moment, and with the information he then possessed, feel certain that it could certainly claim; but when he came to reflect, he found that these were such as did not depend ENTIRELY upon the Scripture, though they were scriptural marks, and it had been distinctly understood and expressed, when they were making up the tablet, that a true Church, though it must possess these marks, could be easily known without them. These were the last three tests, each of which requires some knowledge of history to make its application certain. He comforted himself, however, with the reflection that one month’s delay would not probably be of very great consequence, and would give him the opportunity to make his investigation complete in every particular, and his decision, as a consequence, final, and subject to no annoying doubts; and doubts had thus far been the bane of his religious life—not doubts about his own acceptance in Christ, but uncertainty about what was his duty to believe and to perform.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us