vi. 63, they did for many centuries, both in the Greek and Latin

Chapter 569,311 wordsPublic domain

Churches, communicate infants, and give them the Lord’s Supper; and I do confess they might do both as well as either.’”

“The whole history is told,” said Mr. Courtney, “in a few words by the learned Johannes Bohemius, who wrote in the twelfth century. ‘In times past,’ he says, ‘the custom was, to administer baptism only to those who had been instructed in the faith, and seven times in the week before Easter and Pentecost catechized. But _afterwards_, when it was thought and adjudged needful to eternal life to be baptized, it was ordained that _new-born children_ should be baptized, and godfathers were appointed, who should make confession and renounce the Devil on their behalf.’ But enough of this—perhaps too much, as it has turned our minds away, for the time being, from the main object of our conversation. Let us now proceed to look for our scriptural marks of a true Church of Christ in the English Episcopal Church. Let us have the tablet, Mrs. Percy. What is the first mark?”

“She must consist only of professed believers in Christ.”

“Is this true of the English Church? Does not her membership embrace the little children who _cannot_ believe, and thousands who were made nominal Christians in their infancy, and who make no pretension to genuine piety? Does it not embrace the gamblers and horse-racers, the profane, the lewd and debauched? Does it not, so far us they can be brought into it, embrace the _whole_ population, good, bad, and indifferent, of the great English _nation_? It is the custom, sanctioned by law, that every infant must be baptized. By baptism it is made a member of the Church. The confirmation which follows, when it has come to the age of childhood, and is able, though not very intelligently, to answer for itself, is not the act of admission: it only _confirms_ what was already done. The liturgy regards the child as regenerated and made a member of Christ’s body by the _act of baptism_. This is the door of entrance into the Church; and, consequently, all who are baptized by her authority are members of her communion.”

“But, my dear sir,” asked the Doctor, “is not the confirmation necessary to _complete_ and ratify the act of admission? I do not think any are _recognized_ and _treated as Church members_, who do not at confirmation make a sort of profession of their faith. They must say the catechism and repeat the _creed_ before they can be entitled to the privileges of full communion.”

“Let it be so; but is this an intelligent and personal profession of that _saving faith_ in Christ which is required by the Scripture? Every one who has any familiarity with this confirmation ceremony, knows that the repetition of the catechism and creed is, in most cases, a mere formal saying over of the words. It means nothing more than that the child has been so far instructed that he has committed it to memory, and can say it over as he would a lesson in geography, or a rule in arithmetic. He is admitted to communion, not because he gives to the Church or to the bishop any evidence at all _that he is a penitent believer_ in the Lord Jesus for the salvation of his soul, but because he gives evidence that he has intellect enough to learn the catechism, and memorize the creed. This is enough, and this is all. If it sometimes happens that the child has really been converted, and in his mind and heart attaches some spiritual meaning to the words repeated, this is the exception and not the rule. It is not required—it is not expected; and the membership exists, and is just as readily confirmed, without as with it. That there are some, nay, many, very good and pious people in the English Church, I will not deny. They have truly repented of their sins, and have heartily trusted in Christ as their Saviour. They have been born again, and made new creatures in Christ Jesus. But at the same time it is notorious that a majority of those she counts as members, make no pretensions to any other Christianity than that which they received by the forms of the Church; and to the efficacy of these forms they are trusting for salvation. If a profession made not _by_ them, but _for_ them, in infancy, and by them acknowledged and ratified in early childhood, not heartily, and with a full understanding of its import, but in words only, and as a regular matter of form—a mere ceremony which they read in a book, and which is required and expected to be observed at a certain age, and that whether there is any evidence of piety or not—if this is a genuine scriptural profession of faith in Christ, then they have made such profession; if not, then Mr. Percy must make the space opposite this mark in his tablet black, as he did for Rome.”

“It certainly cannot be left white,” said Mr. Percy; “and yet, when I see so many pious believers in Jesus among their members, I do not like to make it entirely black. Suppose we shade it, and leave it neither white nor black?

“Do not forget the _true point_ of our inquiry,” replied Mr Courtney. “It is not whether she has believers _among her members_—Rome has had many thousands—but whether a genuine and scriptural profession of faith is, according to her acknowledged standards, _a prerequisite for membership_; or whether she admits them _without_ such profession, and, in fact, before they are competent either to have or to profess a sincere and personal faith in the Redeemer.

“Now, if you have any sort of doubt that _little infants_ are by _baptism_ made members of this Church, you can easily dispel it by turning to the baptismal service in her liturgy: ‘The minister,’ you may read there, ‘shall take the child in his arms, and, after naming it, shall dip it discreetly in the water, or shall pour upon it, saying, “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.” Then the minister shall say, “_We receive this child into the congregation of Christ’s flock_, and do sign him with the sign of the cross,”’ etc. Now, is this congregation of Christ’s flock the Episcopal Church? Certainly; for the minister is to go on and say, ‘Seeing now, dearly beloved, that this child is regenerate and grafted into the _body of Christ’s Church_, let us give thanks,’ etc. But if this leave any doubt, read on: ‘Then shall the minister say, “We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit; receive him for thy own child by adoption, and _incorporate him into thy holy Church_.”’ If the infant, therefore, is not a real Church member, the minister is instructed to say what is not true.

See also the form of a certificate of baptism, under the head of ‘Private Baptism of Children:’ ‘I certify you that in this case all is well done, and according to due order, concerning the baptizing of this child, _who is now_, BY BAPTISM, _incorporated into the Christian Church_.’

“And now, to assure yourself that it is not _faith_ or penitence that qualifies for confirmation, and, consequently, for all the privileges of full communicants, turn to the note at the end of the little catechism, before the ‘Order of Confirmation,’ and you may read as follows:

“‘So soon as children are come to a competent _age_, and _can say the creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the ten commandments_, and can answer to the other questions of this short catechism, _they shall be brought to the bishop for confirmation_.’

“The English Church, and that of Rome, stand on the same ground. They both admit infants to Church-member ship by baptism; and both pretend that they are by this baptism regenerated and made members of Christ. It is _by baptism_ in both that men are born again; and this is given, not on any evidence of faith in them, but solely on the promise of the sponsors, or godfathers.

“Give us the second mark, if you please, Mrs. Percy.”

“It is that the members must have been _baptized_ upon profession of their faith.”

“The question for us, then, is whether the English Church has in herself, and confers upon her members, genuine Scripture baptism? We Baptists will say, of course, that she has not; for we do not recognize the _baptism of infants_ as authorized by Scripture; nor do we admit that sprinkling, or pouring, which is now generally practiced in the Episcopal Church, is baptism at all. But as we have not time to go over the facts and arguments on which we have based our opinions, it will be enough for us to show, by the testimony of the _Episcopalians themselves_, that they _have changed_ Christ’s ordinance, both in the act and the subjects of it; and, consequently, that what they now perform as baptism is, according _to their own showing_, NOT the baptism of the Scriptures, but a ceremony which was substituted for it by mere human authority.

“But, first, I would remark, that when we were examining the record upon this point, we ascertained that those who came into the apostolic Churches _believed_, and were _then_ baptized. They were not first baptized, and left to find their faith in after life. Now, as in this Church the pretended baptism is given before there is or can be any faith, this fact alone vitiates the whole, and renders it no true scriptural baptism. And, therefore, if the Church of England had continued to practice _immersion_, as the Greek Church has done, it would not have been true baptism when applied to little babes. But they have changed the _act_ as well as the subjects. This I will prove to you by their own plain and express declarations. Hear what the learned Dr. Wall says, in his famous History of Infant Baptism, page 462, speaking of the primitive Christians: ‘Their general and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant or a grown man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear, by an infinite number of passages, that one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it.… It is a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says.… It is plain that the ordinary and general practice of St. John, the apostles, and primitive Church, was to baptize by putting the person into the water, or causing him to go into the water. Neither do I know of any _Protestant_ who has denied it.’

“Hear what Bishop Nicholson says:

“‘The sacrament of baptism was anciently administered by plunging into the water, in the western as well as the eastern part of the Church.’

“So _Archbishop Secker_: ‘Burying, as it were the person baptized in the water, and raising him out again, without question was anciently the more usual method.’

“So _Bishop Davenant_: ‘In the ancient Church, they did not merely sprinkle, but immersed those whom they baptized.’

“And _Bishop Patrick_: ‘They [the primitive Christians] put off their old clothes and stripped themselves of their garments; then they were immersed all over and buried in the water.’

“In accordance with this, Mr. Stackhouse declares that ‘Several authors have shown that we nowhere read in Scripture of any one being baptized but by immersion; and from the acts of ancient councils and ancient rituals, have proved that this manner of baptizing continued (as much as possible) to be used for thirteen hundred years after Christ. But it is much to be questioned whether the prevalence of custom and the over-fondness of parents will, in these cold countries, ever suffer it to be restored.’

“So _Bishop Taylor_ says, expressly, ‘The custom of the ancient Church was not sprinkling, but immersion, in pursuance of the meaning of the word in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Saviour.’

“And _Archbishop Tillotson_ says, that ‘Anciently, those that were baptized put off their garments, which signified the putting off the body of sin, and were immersed and buried in the water, to represent their death to sin; and then did rise up again out of the water, to signify their entrance upon a new life.’

“Now, if the original practice was immersion, as these doctors, and bishops, and archbishops declare, and sprinkling has now come in its place, it is self-evident that, by some authority, the ordinance of Christ has been displaced, and another action substituted for that which he enjoined. But, lest any one may doubt the authority of these dignitaries of the Church—for some people will, now-a-days, doubt almost any thing which goes to show that sprinkling was not the baptism enjoined by Christ and practiced by the apostolic Churches—I will show you that the English Church herself practiced immersion, and immersion only, until comparatively a very recent day In a catechism, published in the name of King Edward VI., shortly after the separation of the English from the Church of Rome, are the following question and answer:

“‘MASTER. Tell me, my sonde, how these two sacraments be ministered: baptisme and that whyche Paule caleth the Supper of the Lord?

“‘SCHOLAR. Hym that beleueth in Christ, professeth the articles of the Christian religion, and mindeth to be baptized (I speake now of thè that be growè to ripe yeres of discretion: sith for the yòg babes, theyr parentes’ or the Church’s professiò sufficeth) the minister _dyppeth_ in, or washeth with pure, clean water only, in the name of the Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Ghost,’ etc.

“In a sermon by Archbishop Cranmer, a little before this time, the following passage occurs: ‘What greater shame can there be, than a man who professeth himself to be a Christian man because he is baptized; and yet he knoweth not what baptism is, nor what strength the same hath, nor what the _dypping_ in the water doth betoken.… Baptism, and the _dypping in the water_, doth betoken that the old Adam, with all his synne and evel lusts, ought to be _drowned_ and killed by daily contrition and repentance.’

“In like manner William Tyndale speaks of baptism: ‘The _plungyǹge_ into the water sygnifieth that we dye and are buried with Christ, as concernynge the old life of sinne, which is Adam; and the _pullynge out agayne_ signifieth that we _ryse_ agayne with Christ in a new lyfe.’—(_Robison_, p. 430.)

“But why go to the early days of the English Church, when the very words of her Liturgy, even in modern times, expressly require dipping, except in case the subject be too feeble to endure it. Archbishop Usher says, ‘Some there are that stand strictly for the particular action of diving or dipping the baptized under water, as the only action which the institution of the sacrament will bear; _and our Church allows no other_ except in case of the child’s weakness; and there is expressed in our Saviour’s baptism both the descending into the water and the raising up.’ So the famous George Whitefield says, ‘It is certain, in the words of our text, (Rom. vi. 3, 4,) there is an allusion to the manner of baptism, which was by immersion, _which our own Church allows, and insists upon it_ that children should be immersed in water, unless those that bring the children to be baptized assure the minister that they cannot bear plunging.’ Thus Mr. Wesley says on one occasion that he baptized a certain individual by immersion, according to the custom of the first Church and the Church of England. And on another occasion says, he refused to baptize a child unless it could be done by immersion, according to the Book of Common Prayer, or unless the parents would certify it to be weakly.

“It is evident, therefore, that immersion was not merely the ordinance established by Christ, and practiced by the first Churches, but it was recognized and practiced by the Church of England as her ordinary baptism, even towards the close of the last century. And Dr. Whitby, of that Church, says expressly, that ‘Immersion was observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our Church, (the Episcopal;) and as the _change of it into sprinkling_ was made without any allowance from the Author of the institution, or any license from any council of the Church, it were to be wished that this custom might be again of general use, etc.’—Now if these things be so, is it not as evident as any thing can be, they just to that extent to which they have left off immersion, they have ceased to baptize? and that, according to the confessions and declarations which they themselves have made? They lack, therefore, the second mark of a true Church, which we discovered in the Word.

“Let us now look for the third: Is it a local congregation or is it, like the Roman Church, a centralized hierarchy? We need spend no time to determine this. The structure and constitutions of the two establishments are very similar, if not identical, except that one recognizes the sovereign of England as its visible head, and the other the Pope of Rome. No local congregation of the English Church is of itself an independent church. It only makes a _part_ of the great confederacy called THE CHURCH; and as our Scripture Churches were each one _independent_, and did not make a part of any such confederacy, but was complete within itself, so we may know from this circumstance alone that this is not the scriptural Church.

“Our next mark will demand a little more particular attention. Does the Church of England take Christ _alone_ for her King and Lawgiver? or does she recognize the authority of the King or Queen and Parliament to legislate for her in matters pertaining to religion? I speak now of the Episcopal Church _in England_, for that in this country stands upon somewhat different ground. The English Church grew out of the Roman Catholic, as we shall see hereafter, in the time of Henry the Eighth; and one of those enactments by which it was established, declares that ‘Archbishops and bishops, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical persons, have no manner of jurisdiction ecclesiastical, but by and under the King’s majesty, the only undoubted Head of the Church of England, to whom by the Holy Scripture power and authority is given to hear and determine all manner of causes whatsoever, and to correct all sin and vice whatsoever.’

“In the time of King Edward VI., it was further enacted, that ‘Whosoever should affirm by open preaching, express words or sayings, that the King is _not_, or that any other is the Supreme Head of the Church of England, should for the first offence forfeit goods and chattels, with imprisonment at the king’s will, for the second forfeit profit of lands; and for the third suffer as in cases of high treason.’ It was under such laws as these that the Church of England was organized.

“I cannot give you a better account of the results than has been given by Macaulay, himself a Churchman, in his History of England. ‘Henry the Eighth,’ he says, (p. 38, vol. i.) ‘attempted to constitute an Anglican Church differing from the Roman Catholic Church on the point of supremacy, and on that point alone. His success in this attempt was extraordinary. The force of his character, the singularly favorable situation in which he stood with respect to foreign powers, the immense wealth which the spoliation of the abbeys placed at his disposal, and the support of that class which still halted between two opinions, enabled him to bid defiance to both the extreme parties, to burn as heretics those who avowed the tenets of Luther, and to hang as traitors those who owned the authority of the Pope. But Henry’s system died with him.… The ministers who held the royal prerogative in trust for his infant son, could not venture to persist in so hazardous a policy, nor could Elizabeth venture to return to it. It was necessary to make a choice. The government must either submit to Rome, or obtain the aid of the Protestants. The government and the Protestants had only one thing in common—hatred of the Papal power.… But as the government needed the support of the Protestants, so the Protestants needed the protection of the government. Much was therefore given up on both sides. A union was effected, and the fruit of that union was the Church of England.… To this day the constitution, the doctrines, and the services of the Church retain the visible marks of the compromise from which she sprung.… Nothing, however, so strongly distinguished the Church of England from other Churches, as the relation in which she stood to the monarchy. _The King was her Head_.… What Henry and his favorite counsellors meant by the supremacy was certainly nothing less than the whole power of the keys. The king was to be the Pope of his kingdom, the vicar of God, the expositor of Catholic verity, the channel of sacramental graces.… The king (such was the opinion of Cranmer given in the plainest words) might, by authority derived from God, make a priest, and the priest so made needed no ordination whatever.… These high pretensions gave scandal to Protestants as well as Catholics; and the scandal was greatly increased when the supremacy which Mary had resigned back to the Pope, was again annexed to the _Crown_ on the accession of Elizabeth. It seemed monstrous that a _woman_ should be the chief bishop of a Church in which an apostle had forbidden her even to let her voice be heard.… When the Anglican Confession of Faith was revised in her reign, the supremacy was explained in a manner somewhat different from that which had been fashionable in the Court of Henry the Eighth.… The queen, however, still had over the Church a visitorial power of vast and undefined extent. She was intrusted by parliament with the office of restraining and punishing heresy, and every sort of ecclesiastical abuse;’ (so all the _discipline_ of its membership was placed in the hands of the Crown;) ‘and was permitted to delegate her authority to commissioners. The bishops were little more than her ministers. Rather than grant to the civil magistrate the absolute power of nominating spiritual pastors, the Church of Rome, in the eleventh century, set all Europe on fire; rather than grant to the civil magistrate the absolute power of nominating spiritual pastors, the ministers of the Church of Scotland, in our own time, resigned their livings by hundreds. The Church of England had no such scruples. By the royal authority alone, her prelates were appointed. By the royal authority alone, her convocations were summoned, regulated, prorogued, and dissolved. Without the royal sanction her canons had no force. One of the articles of her faith was that, without the royal consent, no ecclesiastical council could lawfully assemble. From all her judicatures an appeal lay in the last resort to the sovereign, even when the question was whether an opinion was heretical, or whether the administration of a sacrament had been valid.’

“Such is the account which this learned son of the Church gives of her constitution. And if such a Church has Christ _alone_ for her King and Lawgiver, there is no means of subjecting a Church to any secular or religious power. Loot at it a moment. No one can be a minister within her borders who has not been ordained by a _prelate_. Yet the prelate is the absolute creature of the crown. The crown, therefore, by making the prelate, makes the whole ministry of the Church. The whole _discipline_ of the Church is in the crown. The queen says, by her commissioners, who are to be admitted as Church-members, and who excluded; who retained and who expelled; who shall be censured and who commended. And, in case even these, her own commissioners, do not decide to please her, there is, in the last resort, an appeal to herself. So that the queen has power to decide who shall and who shall not be members of the Church. The queen decides what is gospel truth, and what is heretical; what must be believed and what must be practiced. For, without the royal consent, the decisions of the Church can have no force.”

“That seems all very true,” replied the Doctor. “But you will recollect that this is the _mere theory_ of the Church, under which she went into operation in the troublous times that gave her birth. It does not follow that the powers of the queen are _now_ what they were then; that Queen Victoria has the same ecclesiastical prerogatives which belonged to Queen Elizabeth.”

“What if she has _not_?” replied Mr. Courtney. “The Church which _once_ gave up her sovereignty, and consented to be subject in matters of religion to another lord than Christ, did, by that act, cease to be a Church of Christ, and lose the authority to act as his executive. But your surmise has no foundation in truth. This is not merely the ancient theory but the modern practice. The authority of the crown determines, to-day, the forms of prayer, the ritual of baptism, the times of worship, and all else pertaining to the English Church, as truly as it did in the days of Elizabeth. When Mr. Seabury went to England to procure ordination as a bishop, there was no Church or council of Churches, no bishop or house of bishops, that dared to confer ordination on him, or _could_, according to the law of the Church, have conferred it, until an _act_ of parliament had been passed, and received the royal signature, _permitting_ it to be done. Not only Seabury, but all the bishops of America, hold their commission by virtue of a _special_ act of parliament; and not only they, but all who shall be by them ordained to the ministry, are by that act expressly prohibited from exercising their ministry in England.

“But we have been speaking of the Church of England as a whole; of the hierarchy, which comprises all the local societies in one great body. The Churches of Christ, however, we have before determined, are the _local_ societies; and the true question before us is simply whether each one of the local organizations, commonly called Episcopal Churches, is subject, in matters belonging to religion, to any lord but Christ. If you look at it in this light, you will see that an Episcopal Church is subject to the priest; it is subject to the bishop; it is subject to councils; and in fact, it has _no_ voice in its own government. It is ruled from without, and has nothing to do but inquire the decrees of its lords and humbly to obey them. If it refuse to carry into execution their enactments, it cannot continue an Episcopal Church.”

“But tell me,” asked Theodosia, “does the Episcopal Church in this country stand on the same ground?”

“It _claims_ to be a part of the same Church. So far as practicable, it is constituted on the same plan. It is not, however, dependent on the will of the queen or the acts of parliament, but go the decrees of its general councils. If however, the _mother_, in England, was not a true Church when she gave it birth, _it_ cannot be a true Church; for it has nothing which it did not receive from her. Moreover, each local society in America is just as much _subject_ to its priest and bishop, and just as much bound by the ecclesiastical laws concocted for it and imposed upon it, as any local English Church.”

“Let us pass on,” said the Doctor. “I am anxious to see the end. What was our next mark?”

“It was,” said Mr. Percy, “that its members must have been made such by their own voluntary act; and we have seen already that the members of this Church were made such in infancy, without their own knowledge or consent.”

“Let us then go on to the next.”

“That,” said Mr. Percy, “has regard to her faith. Does she hold the fundamental doctrines of the gospel? It is well known that both in this country and in England she is divided into two great parties; one trusting as much as Rome herself to the efficacy of sacraments, and forms, and works; and the other recognizing salvation by Jesus only. I am disposed to mark her half black, therefore, to designate the High Church, or sacramental party; and half white, to designate the other, or Evangelical party.”

It may have been observed by the attentive reader that neither the Episcopal bishop nor the Methodist preacher have taken any part in this morning’s discussion. The truth is, they were not present; and the interest of the passengers had in a great degree subsided; so that our little company had the conversation all to themselves. They had been themselves so much engaged that they had scarcely observed the absence of their friendly adversaries, until they came to the seventh of those marks, which they had gathered out of the Book, and by which a true Church might be known.

But when the question was asked whether this Church began with Christ, and had continued ever since, they very naturally looked round for the Bishop, at whose instigation it had been added to the tablet; and, on finding that he was not present, they concluded to postpone their investigations until another day.

THE EIGHTH DAY’S TRAVEL.

WHEN our little company assembled the next morning, they learned that they were within an hour’s sail of Nashville They had therefore no time to talk, but each one began to make preparation to leave the boat. Mr. Courtney made inquiry for the Episcopal bishop and the Methodist minister, that he might bid them a kind adieu; but learned that they had taken another boat, or gone ashore at the mouth of the Cumberland. The Doctor insisted that Theodosia, Mr. Percy, and Mr. Courtney, should make his house their home for a few days, at least, until they should have finished this discussion. And in some three hours after they had landed, they were sitting round a table in Doctor Thinkwell’s dining room.

After dinner, when the Doctor had finished his cigar, he came into the parlor, where his guests were talking, and exclaimed, “Come, Mr. Courtney, we have no time to lose: I am anxious to have this question, what is the Church, or rather, _which_ is the Church, settled as soon as possible. Let us resume our conversations here, and progress to a conclusion; I am impatient to see the end. Perhaps Mrs. Percy will come with us into the library, where we will be less liable to interruption, and have readier access to such books as we may wish to consult.”

The arrangements were made at once, and the investigation resumed where it was left off upon the boat.

“We were, I think,” said the Doctor, “engaged in applying our tests, or marks, to the English Episcopal Church and had progressed as far as the seventh sign. We had just inquired whether the English Church had been established by Christ, and had continued from his day until now?”

“It surely needs no time to answer that,” said Mr. Percy, “after what we have already seen to be the testimony of Macaulay, the historian; for he says expressly, that ‘it was the result of a compromise between the government on the one hand and the Protestants on the other.’ It cannot date farther back than King Henry VIII.”

“But I presume you are aware, Mr. Percy,” replied the Doctor, “that some of our clergy have contended that the true Anglican Church began in the time of the apostles, and has continued ever since, independent of Rome, except so for as it was for a time brought into unwilling subjection, previous to the Reformation. It is said that Christianity was brought into the island by Paul, and thousands of Churches existed both in England and Wales before the Saxon conquest; and when the Saxons re-introduced idolatry, Christianity retired to the fastnesses of the forests and mountains; and it was through these, and not through Rome, that our descent has come.”

“I suppose,” replied Mr. Percy, “that it is much easier to claim and contend for such a pedigree than to establish it. But let us see the proofs. We know what the English Episcopal Church is now. The question is, When did it become what it now is? And who made it such? Macaulay and other secular historians say with ope voice, it was Henry the Eighth and his successors on the throne of England. But theologians who see that this would be fatal to their claims to be a scriptural Church, declare that history is mistaken. Let us then examine for ourselves. It is a _hierarchy_ which has for its _head_ the person who wears the English crown. This is its peculiar feature. Take this away, and it is not the English Episcopal Church. It has been, in this respect, what it is now, ever since Henry the Eighth. What was it before that time? Was it not the _same_ people, the _same_ priests, the _same_ bishops, and the _same_ archbishops which then began to recognize King Henry as the head of the Church, who had previous to that time recognized the _Pope_ as their sovereign lord in all matters of religion? Was it not that part of the Church of Rome which was in England which then, by the decree of the king and his parliament, was made the Church of England? They must be simpletons indeed who believe that the Church of King Henry, and his successors in the headship, was the ancient English Church which Austin, about the year six hundred, sought in vain to persuade to ‘give baptism to their children.’ Did King Henry call _those_ people from their hiding-places in the mountains of Wales, and seek to _them_ for the ordination and ordinances of Christ which Rome, as Antichrist, could not confer? No conscientious historian will dare to intimate any such thing. Those who make such statements make them to deceive. They know that he did nothing of the sort. They know that if the members and ministers of that old Church were yet in being, (and I do not question that they were,) King Henry had no use for them. No more did his successors. Both he and they continued to _hang_ them, and _drown_ them, and _burn_ them, (as the Popes had done before,) even down to the time when Cromwell subverted his throne. That ancient Church, if I have read its history rightly, was a _Baptist_ Church; or at least it was a Church that did not baptize except upon a profession of faith, and would not submit to be controlled in matters of religion by any lord but Christ.”

“It is a matter of no consequence at all to our present argument,” said Mr. Courtney, “whether the modern Church of England came out of Rome, or out of some ancient Church planted upon her native soil by Paul himself; for whatever her _origin_ might have been, she could not at any time have been _what she is now_, and at the same time a true Church of Christ. Whenever she became a hierarchy, and owned the rule of _any_ lord but Christ, whether that lord were the Pope of Rome, the King of England, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, is of no consequence at all; from that moment she ceased to be the true Church of Jesus Christ; for _his_ Church was, and must continue to be, an _independent local organization_, not a confederacy; not a hierarchy; not any great ecclesiastical establishment. Christ established _no such Church_. The apostles established _no such Church_, either in England or anywhere else. If Paul built up a Church in England, (of which there is no proof but loose tradition,) it was like the other Churches which he founded, an independent local society; and if he established more than one, as he did in Greece, then _each one_ was independent. And if any one usurped the power over others, or if any one yielded subjection to any other, whether that at Rome, or at Bangor, it ceased from that time forth to be a Church of Christ; for Christ was then no longer its _only King and Lawgiver_. Now, that the English Church _has ceased some time or other_ to be the independent body which Christ enjoined, is certain; and it will not at all affect our argument whether she did so at, before, or since the time of Henry the Eighth.”

“But yet,” said Theodosia, “it would be very interesting to know the history of the Churches which were first established in England, and which must have been true Churches, if they dated near the times of the apostles. It may be they yet exist as independent bodies, and have _always_ refused subjection alike to the Pope of Rome and the hierarchy of which the crown has now become the head.”

“Your conjecture is but the truth of their history, Mrs. Percy. They _do_ yet exist. They _have_ resisted, even unto death, all efforts to subject them to the Pope of Rome, or to the hierarchy of England. Their history was written in the blood of their martyrs, shed by those who, in former days, controlled the records and wielded the power of the country, and who were greatly desirous that it should be blotted out. We must therefore trace them mainly now in those brief allusions to their existence which the narration of other events made needful, and in the decrees which were designed for their destruction. Yet we will find no insuperable difficulty in tracing a true and pure Church of Christ in England, or at least in Wales, from the time that Christianity was first established on the island. This I trust we will be permitted to do before we close this investigation; but let us now not wander from the matter before us. This Church you may be sure was not the modern Church of England. That began with Henry the Eighth, according to the testimony of Macaulay and others of its own historians. But we can still trace the persecuted followers of Jesus by the blood of their martyrs, until the Reformation, and long after it. The first and the last whose blood was shed for their religion in England, were Baptists. They were never amalgamated with and never subjected to the hierarchy of the Pope, or of the King; and to this day maintain their ancient baptism, and their independent organization in the mountains of Wales, whence many have come, both ministers and members, to our own beloved land, and have aided us to build up Churches like their own, after the model at Jerusalem. But we will be obliged to go back to this subject. Let us now hasten on. What is your next mark, Mrs. Percy?”

“It is, that _No true Church can be a persecuting Church_.”

“Then surely the English Church cannot be true; for though she has not been, like Rome, at all times a perpetual and relentless persecutor, yet her hands are red with the blood of more than one of the followers of Jesus. Henry the Eighth laid the very foundation of the Church in blood. He, as head of the Church, persecuted and destroyed both Papists and Protestants: the Papists because they preferred the Pope to the King, and the Protestants because they could not receive _his Church_, which contained the whole of Popery except the Pope.

“Edward the Sixth, the youthful and amiable successor of Henry as the head of the Church, would gladly have been delivered from the necessity of killing his best subjects because they could not think about religion as his bishops did; but he was urged and goaded by the clergy into the condemnation and execution even of tender women, whose only crime was nonconformity to the Church of England. Cranmer, the archbishop, had great difficulty in overcoming his natural kindness of heart, and inducing him to sign the warrant for their death by _burning_; but he did succeed, and it was done.”

“Surely,” exclaimed Theodosia, “you do not mean to say that Archbishop Cranmer, the martyr, had been himself the means of bringing others in the flames! I have always thought he was one of the best and holiest of men. I remember there was in the catechism I used to study, a picture of him as he stood at the stake, holding out his right hand in the fire to punish it for signing his recantation.”

“Yes, Mrs. Percy, I mean to say that Cranmer was a murderer and a persecutor. So also was in heart that other saint of whom you had a picture in your catechism, representing _John Rogers_ at the stake, surrounded by his wife and nine little children, one yet a nursing babe. John Rogers was so far a persecutor, that when he was solicited to ask for pardon, or at least some milder mode of death, for a woman condemned to the flames, he obstinately refused to say one word in her behalf.”

“I must believe you, Mr. Courtney; but still it seems to me almost incredible.”

“I grant, madam, that it is almost incredible; but I will show you such authorities that you shall be convinced that Rome herself, even in her worst estate, was never a bitterer or bloodier persecutor for conscience’ sake, than was this newmade Church of England. Look at Bishop Burnet’s History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 112. See also Strype’s Ecclesiastical Memoirs, vol. ii. p. 214; or Neal’s History of the Puritans; or Ivimey’s History of Baptism, pages 83⁠–⁠90. In the year 1549, a commission was given to Archbishop Cranmer and several others, by the King as the HEAD _of this_ so called CHURCH of the gentle and loving Jesus, to ‘search after all Anabaptists, (the same people now called Baptists,) all heretics and contemners of their Book of Common Prayer, and, if they would not be reclaimed, to excommunicate, imprison, and deliver them over to death.’ There was a Baptist woman, Mrs. Joan Boucher, sometimes called Joan of Kent, of whom Strype says, ‘She was a great reader of the Scriptures,’ and who risked her life to circulate the Scriptures among the ladies at court. She could not conform to all that the bishops taught, and was therefore arrested and condemned. When the young king refused to sign her death-warrant, Cranmer urged him, with great earnestness, to authorize her execution. The king could not answer the arguments of the learned prelate, and knew not how to resist his importunity. He signed the warrant, but did it with tears in his eyes, and protesting that he did it _only on the authority of the Archbishop_, who had declared that God required it; and said, if it should be wrong, that ‘he (the prelate) should answer for the sin in the great day of judgment.’ The bishop took the warrant, and thus said, ‘Her blood be upon my soul.’ Now in Fox’s Latin edition of the Book of Martyrs are a few sentences which the English has omitted, and which are thus translated by Mr Pierce in his answer to Nichols, p. 83:—‘In King Edward’s reign some were put to death for heresy. One of these was Joan Boucher, or Joan of Kent. Now, says Mr. Fox, when the Protestant bishops had resolved to put her to death, a friend of Mr. John Rogers, the divinity-reader in Saint Paul’s Church, came to him, earnestly desiring him to use his influence with the archbishop that the poor woman’s life might be spared, and other means used to prevent the spreading of her opinion, which might be done in time; saying too, that though while she lived she infected few with her opinion, yet she might bring many to think well of it by suffering death for it. He pleaded, therefore, that it was better she should be kept in some prison, without an opportunity of propagating her notions among weak people; and she would do no harm to others, and might live to repent herself. Rogers, on the other hand, pleaded that _she ought to be put to death_. “Well then,” saith his friend, “if you are resolved to put an end to her life, together with her opinion, choose some other kind of death, more agreeable to the gentleness and mercy prescribed by the gospel; there being no need that such tormenting deaths should be taken up in imitation of the Papists.”

“‘Rogers answered, _that burning alive was no cruel death, but easy enough_. His friend hearing these words, which expressed so little regard to poor creatures’ suffering, answered him with great vehemence, and striking Rogers’s hand, which before he had held fast, said to him, “Well, _perhaps it may so happen that you yourselves shall have your hands full of this mild burning._” And so it came to pass. Mr. Rogers was the first man who was burned in Queen Mary’s reign. I am apt to think,’ adds Mr. Pierce, ‘that Mr. Rogers’s friend was no other than Fox himself.’—(_Crosby_, vol. i., p. 61. _Ivimey_, p. 92.)

“In the few remaining years of Edward’s life, and while the religion of the realm was under the control of Cranmer, many other persons were burnt at the stake for their religious sentiments. After the king’s death, the Catholics had the supremacy for a little season, under the reign of her whom historians have been pleased to call the Bloody Mary, because she killed the Protestants for the same reasons that they had killed the _Baptists_, and other so-called heretics.

“When Elizabeth came to the throne, the Baptists expected toleration, and began openly to avow their sentiments. But they were fearfully mistaken. They were burnt with just as little pity as the Catholics themselves had ever shown. ‘Indeed,’ says Neal, ‘more sanguinary laws were made in her reign than in those of her predecessors. Her hands were stained with the blood of both Papists and Puritans: the former were executed for denying her supremacy; the latter for sedition and _nonconformity_.’ Nor did the persecution cease when Elizabeth had gone to her account, and James became the head of the Church. It was continued after James had died, and his unfortunate successor, Charles I., had come to the headship of the Church. Fines and imprisonments, whipping and mutilating, branding, torturing, and tormenting the saints of God, who held the authority of the Sacred Word to be above the dicta of the bishops, were not only inflicted by the laws, but earnestly _urged_ upon the magistrates by the synods of the Church. (See the _Constitutions and Canons_ of 1640.) But we have enough of this.

“He who would deny that the English Episcopal Church was a persecuting Church, would deny that Rome herself ever persecuted for conscience’ sake. Not only is the testimony rife in _English history_, across the water, but the men are living yet, _among ourselves_, whose ancestors in _this_ country were, _by the English CHURCH laws_, condemned to fines and imprisonments, if not to death. The jails are standing yet in which they were confined. The iron bars are yet in place through which the Baptist ministers of Virginia preached to their people, while Virginia was subject to the head of the Episcopal Church. Now, let me say one word, and I have done with this disagreeable subject: _When the Church of_ _England became a persecutor for conscience’ sake, she CEASED TO BE A CHURCH OF CHRIST_, even on the supposition that she had been one before that time. So, whether you derive her from Rome, her persecuting mother, or whether you try to trace her origin to the Apostle Paul, through the ancient English Churches, is of no consequence at all. _She lost her authority to act as Christ’s executive_ (if she ever had it) _when she began to shed the blood of the martyrs of Jesus._ Trace your succession of Christian Churches downwards from Christ; or trace it upwards towards Christ; but, either way, it cannot cross that stream of blood which flows out from the hearts of the martyrs of Jesus. Every link of the chain of succession may he perfect, from Paul down to the first of the martyrs whose life was taken by _the so-called Church_, for his religion; but when the executioner lets fall his bloody axe, by Church authority or instigation, the chain is severed for ever. That is no Church of Christ that burns Christ’s people at the stake. Those gory hands, which are red with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus, cannot confer the sacraments of his Church. Yet the advocates of Episcopacy will have us believe that this is, forsooth, THE _Church_, and out of her there are _no_ ordinances and _no_ Christian ministry!”

Mr. Courtney spoke with an energy of manner that was quite unusual for him; and when he ceased, there was perfect silence for a little time, till Theodosia, looking at her tablet, remarked that we had only one mark more, which is, that no _apostate_ Church can be a Church of Christ.

“If you derive the English Episcopal Church from the ancient British Churches,” said Mr. Courtney, “she is _apostate_. She became so when she became a hierarchy, introduced infants as members, united with the state, (thus recognizing another lord than Christ,) and began to persecute for conscience’ sake. Any _one_ of these innovations on Christ’s order would have marked her apostate; and when she became apostate, she ceased, of course, to be Christ’s Church. But if, according to the indisputable truth of history, you derive her from Rome in the age of King Henry VIII, she has _not become_ apostate, for _she never was_ a true Church of Christ. She had, at first, _no baptism_ but that of Antichrist. She had no ministry but that ordained by Antichrist; and her _organization_ was that of Antichrist. She began in lust, and worldliness, and blood. She was from her inception the mere creature of the secular power; and, from the very first, so foul that she _could not apostatize_.”

“My dear sir,” exclaimed the Doctor, “you must surely speak without thinking of the full import of your words. I grant that the Church of England was not at its inception a perfect Church. It still had some leaven of Romanism; but was certainly a very great improvement on the system which it supplanted, and far from being as vile as it could be.”

“By an apostate Church,” replied the schoolmaster, “we mean a Church which has once been a true Church of Jesus Christ; but, by a change of constitution, of membership, of doctrine, or of practice, in points essential to its identity with the New Testament model, has _ceased to be_ a true Church. It follows, therefore, that if _this Church of England never had_ the characteristics of a true Church, she could not lose them, and, consequently, could not apostatize. And this was all I meant to say. But if you imagine that she was at her beginning any better than her mother, of Rome, or in any way different from her as regards the want of the essential features of a Church of Christ, let me tell you that you have entirely misapprehended her character. The only important difference between them was that the pope was the head of the Roman, and the king was the head of the English. The king made laws for the one, as the pope for the other. The king required faith in his dogmas, on pain of death, as much as the pope. The king forbade the people to read the Word of God as peremptorily as the pope. The king, in short, became the pope of England. And this is what people call the Reformation.”

“I am certainly mistaken, if such were really the case; but I suppose you have the proof. I had been under the impression that King Henry authorized and encouraged the reading of the Scriptures; and even required, by his royal authority, that they should be publicly read in the Churches.”

“That is true, sir. The king, _at first_, did order a translation to be made; approved it when it was received from Tyndale; and it was ‘SET FORTH WITH THE KING’S MOST GRACIOUS LICENSE;’ and a decree enacted that it be ‘sold and read of every person, without danger of any act, proclamation, or ordinance, heretofore granted to the contrary.’ All the authority and influence of the government was earnestly and efficiently employed to secure to the people the opportunity to read the Scriptures and urge them to improve it.

“The king knew that the pope had forbidden the Scriptures to be read, and trusted that, by reading them, his people would learn to fear and hate the pope. But it did not occur to him that they would see that _he_ had no more right to rule the Church than the pope had. He thought also that he had well secured his people from all danger of heresy, by the law enacted about the same time, ‘to establish Christian quietness and unity.’

“The doctrines enjoined by this statute were, 1. Transubstantiation. 2. Communion in both kinds not necessary to salvation. 3. Priests may not marry by the law of God. 4. Vows of celibacy binding. 5. Private masses to be retained. 6. Auricular confession useful and necessary. Its penalties were, for denial of the first article, _death at the stake_, without privilege of abjuration; for the five others, _death as a felon_, or imprisonment during his majesty’s pleasure.

“But so soon as the king found that if people read the Scriptures, they would not, or could not, believe his monstrous doctrines; when he found that hundreds of his most loyal subjects were ready to die at the stake rather than profess to believe them, he suddenly changed his policy. And it was then enacted, ‘That all manner of books, of the Old and New Testament, in English, of Tyndale’s crafty, false, and untrue translation, [the very same that had been before graciously ordered to be read,] should, by authority of this act, be clearly and utterly abolished and extinguished, and forbidden to be kept and used in this realm, or elsewhere, in any of the king’s dominions.’

“And further, ‘That no manner of persons, after the first of October, 1543, should take upon them to read openly to others, in any Church or open assembly, within any of the king’s dominions, the Bible, or any part of the Scriptures, in English, unless he was so appointed thereto by the king, or any ordinary, on pain of suffering one month’s imprisonment.’

“And, to show how little probable it was that the king would appoint any one to read, it was further enacted, ‘That no women, except noblewomen and gentlewomen, might read the Bible to themselves alone; and no artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving-men of the decrees of yeomen or husbandmen, or laborers, were to read the Bible or New Testament to themselves, or any other, privately or openly, on pain of one month’s imprisonment.’

“And then again, three years after this, ‘That, from henceforth, NO MAN, WOMAN, OR PERSON, _of what degree he or they shall be_, shall, after the last day of August next ensuing, receive, have, take, or keep, in his or their possession, the text of the New Testament, of Tyndale’s or Coverdale’s, _nor any other_, that is permitted by the act of Parliament, holden at Westminster, in the thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth year of his majesty’s most noble reign.’

“These and any other most interesting and significant facts connected with the introduction of the vernacular Bible in the English nation, you will find in that most admirable work of Mrs. Conant, _The History of English Bible Translation_, pp. 320⁠–⁠325.

“That these laws were designed to be executed, and that they _were_ executed, even to the veriest extremity of their bloody requisition, the history of many a murdered lover of the Scriptures will testify. Under this law the Anabaptists were burnt, as testified by Bishop Latimer, in many parts of England; and under it the heroic Anne Askew was first tortured on the rack, and then burned at the stake.

“Now, what I say is this: a Church thus false in doctrine; thus like Antichrist in government; thus devilish in spirit; ordained and established by a wicked king, for worldly purposes, and sustained, from the very first, by outraging, not merely the laws of God, but the dictates of humanity, _could not have been at any time, by any possibility_, A TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST. She could not, therefore, cease to be a true Church, since she had never been one. She could not apostatize. _Nor can she ever become a true Church_ while she remains the Church of England. She may become less vile and abominable than at first. She has indeed grown vastly better than at first. But, since she was not a true Church then, she had no authority to administer the laws or ordinances of Christ. Her baptism was, consequently, no more Christian baptism than is a Mormon immersion; her ordination was no more Christian ordination than if it had been performed by the priests of Jupiter. Christ gave no sort of authority to any such establishment; and all her acts are therefore _null and void_. So far from having the _only_ baptism, she has no Christian baptism at all. So far from having the _only_ ministry, she has no Christian ministry at all. So far from having the _exclusive_ authority to confer the sacraments of Christ’s Church, she has never received them, never has had, has not now, and never can have, the right to confer them at all.”

“Surely,” said the Doctor, “she may repent and reform, if she has not already done so. How then dare you assert that she can never become a true Church, and have all the rights of any other true Church?”

“My dear Doctor, let us simply use our common sense one minute. We have seen what a true Church is according to the Scriptures. It is a local, independent society, and not a part of a confederacy or a hierarchy. If _this_ Church should ever fall back upon the Scripture rule in this respect, she will no longer be the Church of England.

“We have seen that a true Church can, _as a Church_, recognize no power to make laws for her but Christ. Now, if this Church deny the power of the king and parliament to determine for her the doctrines that her members shall believe, and her ministers shall teach; what parts of Scripture she shall read on certain days; what words of prayer she shall employ; or that the king, by his chancellors and the bishops, shall have control of her discipline; determine what each member must believe; who shall be received as members, and by what form it shall be done; who shall be excluded, who retained; and, in fact, almost every thing in regard to all that characterizes a Church—I say, if she deny all or any of this, she ceases to be _the Church of England_. We have seen that a true Church consists of those who have first professed their faith, and then have been baptized. Let this Church cease to receive any _but believers_, and restore what she herself admits to have been the baptism which Christ ordained, and which was _changed_ without authority from him, and she will no longer be _the Church of England_. In short, if she should ever be so far changed as to be conformed in all essential points to the Scripture model, she must first _cease to be_. The king must resign the headship and give it up to Christ. The bishops and archbishops must leave their Episcopal thrones and become simple pastors of single Churches. The discipline of the Church must revert to the ‘ekklesia,’ the assembly of the brethren and sisters. And from this assembly those must be excluded who have not come to it _voluntarily_, professed their _faith_, and then received that baptism which Christ appointed.”

“And if all that is done,” said Theodosia, “she will no longer be the English Episcopal Church, for these are her characteristic features. But how is it with the American, or Protestant Episcopal Church?”

“In condemning the mother, we have sentenced the daughter,” replied Mr. Courtney. “The Episcopal Church of this country was a _part_ of the English so long as it _could_ be; and when, by the political separation of the two nations, it became impracticable to retain _all_ that belonged to the mother Church, no more was given up than was imperiously demanded by the circumstances. The most important difference is, that as the king or queen could not be here recognized as the head, the bishops have retained the headship in themselves. It cannot here, since the revolution, secure the power of the state to enforce its decrees; and, therefore, it is no longer able to be a persecutor; and probably it has no will to be. But if the mother was (as we have seen) no true Church of Jesus, the daughter cannot be. She received her organization, her ministry, and her ordinances, from the English Church; and if _that_ was not the authorized executive of Christ, it had no right to confer either, and its acts are null and void. The bishops of this country were made such, not by the law of Christ, but under a special act of _Parliament_, and their ministrations are limited by this act to the western continent. Their commission does not read, ‘Go ye into _all the world_,’ but, If you shall keep yourselves in the United States of America, you shall have the right to exercise the office of a Christian bishop. So the act of Parliament requires. The American Episcopal Church exists, so far as the greater part of its ministry are concerned, by a special act of the British government, passed _after_ we had become a free and independent people; and that act confines their ministrations to _this country_, or, at least, forbids them to preach the gospel of salvation in the realms of her majesty the queen. Thus was _Christ’s_ command, ‘Go into all the world,’ set aside, and the English king’s _permission_ humbly sought, and reluctantly granted, to preach in these United States.”[8]

“I am convinced,” said the Doctor, “that _this_ is not the Church of Christ. But let us hasten on, and find, if possible, what and where it is.”

“Wait one minute,” said Mr. Percy, “till I have finished my diagram of this claimant, and then I will be ready to look at another.

“Here is the picture, all black but half the space representing the articles of faith.”

DIAGRAM OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

8th. It never persecutes | ████████████ | It was many years a bloody for conscience’ sake. | | persecutor.

“I think,” said Mr. Courtney, “you might have left that white; for if we take their published standards, TO WIT, the thirty-nine articles in the Prayer-book, there is not much to object to them.”

“But how if they practically repudiate their own professions, and elsewhere teach, and in their hearts believe, that it is by the _sacraments_, and not by faith alone, that men are made the children of God and the heirs of glory? This I understand the high-Church party to have done, and so have marked them black.”

“Well, let it stand; we have not time to dispute about it now. Suppose we take up the other branch, or off-shoot, of the English Episcopal Church: TO WIT, the Methodists.”

“Very good; this is the natural place for them in our investigation; and after what has been already settled in regard to the Roman Catholic and Episcopal Churches, we need not spend much time upon their Methodist offspring. Now, if Mrs. Percy will read again the first of the marks of a true Church as they stand upon her tablet, we will apply it to this claimant.”

“Is the Methodist Episcopal Church composed exclusively of those who have professed a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?”

“I wish,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “that our Methodist minister were here to answer for his Church. I do not like to see her tried without the benefit of counsel.”

“Since he is not here,” said Theodosia, “let us set their Book of Discipline to answer for them. Mr. Percy has a copy in his trunk, and surely no Methodist, if he were present, would object to the reception of its testimony.”

Mr. Percy went for the little book, and on his return opened at the 20th page, and read as follows:

“‘The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered, according to Christ’s ordinance, in all things that of necessity are requisite to the same.’”

“It seems, then, from this, their own definition,” said Theodosia, “that the Methodist Church must be a simple local congregation of believers, or else it cannot be the visible Church of Christ; and yet it is notorious that the Methodist Church is _not_ a mere _congregation_ of believers, but that great confederation governed by the Conference. I fear their theory and practice will not correspond.”

“Here is something more,” said Mr. Percy, “on the 30th page: ‘Let none he received into the Church until they are recommended by a leader with whom they have met at least six months on trial, and have been baptized, 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.’”

“Surely,” exclaimed Theodosia, “that excludes all but professed believers; and I am glad to find that this claimant has the first mark, at least, of a true Church. I have always admired the zeal and self-denying piety of Mr. Wesley, and am glad he had such correct views of what was necessary to membership in the Church of Christ; and yet I hardly understand how these views are compatible with the system of seekership and infant baptism. I have been under the impression that many of the members of the Methodist Churches had never even pretended to be converted people, but that they had joined the Church as seekers, passed their six months’ probation, and had simply been _retained_ or confirmed as members on the recommendation of the class-leader.”

“The actual and the theoretical Methodist Church,” replied Mr. Courtney, “may be somewhat different. It is very certain that we read and hear every week of persons joining the Methodist Church as seekers: and it is equally certain that Methodists, as well as other Pedobaptists, contend that persons are by baptism made members of the Church. Mr. Wesley himself expressly says, that ‘_by baptism we are admitted into the Church, and consequently made members of Christ its Head_. The Jews were _admitted into the Church_ by circumcision; _so are Christians by baptism_. For as many as are baptized into Christ, (in his name,) have thereby put on Christ, Gal. iii. 27; that is, are mystically united to Christ, and made one with him. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body, (1 Cor. xii. 13,) namely, the Church, the body of Christ, from which spiritual, vital union with him proceeds the influence of his grace on those that are baptized, as from our union with the Church a share in all its privileges, and in all the promises Christ has made to it.’ (See Doctrinal Tracts, p. 248, Treatise on Baptism.) And again, on p. 250, ‘There can be no reasonable doubt but it [baptism] was intended to last as long as _the Church into which it is the appointed means of entering_.’”

“You need not have gone to Mr. Wesley,” said Mr. Percy, “for the Discipline itself teaches very plainly that baptism is the door of entrance to the Church, and consequently that all the baptized are, by that act, made members of the Church. See the Ritual for Baptism, chap. 5th, sec. 2d, where the minister, coming to the font, is instructed to say, ‘Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, 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 to call upon God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant this child the thing which by nature he cannot have, that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and _received into Christ’s holy Church_, and be made a lively member of the same.’ And thus exhorted, the people, through the minister, are taught to pray that the child now to be baptized may receive the fullness of God’s grace, and _ever remain_ in the number of his faithful and elect children’—precisely the same language which is used farther on in reference to the baptized adults; and it would seem that if adults are made members by baptism, the infants are by the same process. Like the Presbyterians, however, they repudiate the act, and practically deny the membership. They give them no more Church privileges than if they had never had the holy water sprinkled on their foreheads, and are thus guilty of the inconsistency of refusing to commune with, or recognize as Church members, those whom they seem so anxious to bring into the Church by baptism.”

“But how is it with _the seekers_, Mr. Courtney? Are they not counted as Church members? I am sure they count themselves as such. Mrs Babbleton told me, just before we left home, that two of her daughters had joined the Church during a protracted meeting which had just closed, and that one of them had professed _conversion_. I know they _both_ partook of the Lord’s Supper, and seemed to have all the privileges that any Church member has in their denomination; and I do not understand how they can be entitled to all the _privileges_ of membership and yet be out of the Church.”

“The difference,” said Mr. Courtney, “between a member in full, and a member on probation, is simply this: the first cannot be excluded from Church privileges except by the _preacher_ in charge, and that not until after trial and conviction. The other can be cast out at any time by the _class-leader_, without any trial or accusation. With this exception, they are _equal partakers in all the rights and immunities of Church-membership_; and whether converted or unconverted, all sit down together at the table of the Lord. ‘There is,’ in the language of the Discipline, ‘only _one_ condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies, and that is, a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins;’ and these societies are the Methodist Churches, if they have any Churches at all. They do consist in part of unconverted people. They _may_ consist _entirely_ of such. It _often_ happens that there is in them a _majority_ of such; and this majority can recommend candidates for license to preach; can witness the _trial_ of accused members, and, so far as the laity have any part in _Church discipline_, it may be, and is, in the hands of men _who have never made any pretensions to the possession of true faith in Christ_, but only have expressed a _desire_ for it.

“It is ‘_the society_,’ or a _leader’s meeting_, that recommends persons to be licensed to preach. See Discipline, chap. 2d, quest. 3, ans. 4. It is ‘_the society_,’ or a ‘_select number them_,’ before which the preacher is to try an accused member. Chap. 4, quest. 2, ans. 1. If the society were mostly converted people, I see nothing in the Discipline to hinder the preacher, if he chose to do it, from selecting those whom he knew to be the _unconverted probationers_ to try the cause; nor can I see, after a careful examination of the Discipline, that the _full_ member, as he is called, has any single privilege as a Church member which is not equally conceded to the so-called _probationer_, so long as it shall graciously please his class-leader to permit him to remain in ‘society.’

“If those who have made no profession of saving faith are permitted to enjoy all the _privileges_ of Church members, and exercise all the prerogatives of Church members, it can be a matter of no consequence whether they are technically _called_ Church members or not. It is _things_, not names, we must be governed by. If these societies form _any part_ of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and they consist not of professed believers upon Jesus, but in part or in whole of those who are merely ‘_seeking_ the power of godliness,’ who have only professed _conviction_ and not conversion, we must of necessity conclude that the Methodist Episcopal Church does not consist _exclusively_ of those who have professed their faith in Christ. Paul did not receive the jailer when he had merely asked what he must do to be saved. He waited until he had done what he was instructed to do. Nor did we, in all our examination, find any instance of members, whether believers or unbelievers, whether converted or only convicted, being received as probationary Church members.”

“Really,” said Theodosia, “I do not feel quite satisfied with this treatment of the Methodist societies. I fear we do not any of us fully understand them, and may unconsciously do them some slight injustice. I do wish some Methodist were here to plead their cause, and explain apparent difficulties. I know that they have done much to spread Christ’s gospel; I know that many of them are earnest and devoted Christians, patterns of piety which I long to be able to copy. I have read the lives of Wesley and Fletcher, and others among them, and am sure they could not _designedly_ have gone counter to the teachings or God’s Word. They _meant_ to serve the Master, and to lead men and women in the way to heaven; and surely _their Church must have more marks of a true Church than the Episcopal or Roman Catholic_.”

“Wesley and Fletcher, madam, lived and died as members of the English Episcopal Church. They had no idea of leaving it for any other. What they desired was, to infuse new life into its half-rotten carcass. They sought not to destroy, but to reform it; and if _their personal piety_ makes the Church in which they had their membership a _true Church of Christ_, it makes the Church of England such. But let me again remind you, that it is not individuals, not persons, _but organizations_, which we are examining. The piety of Pascal, of Fénélon, of Madam Adorna or Madam Guyon, or even of Thomas à Kempis himself, could not make the Church of Rome, to which they belonged, a Church of Christ. No more could that even of the martyrs who bled for the Church of England make it a Church of Christ. _Good people_ may, by birth or education, or errors of judgment, become connected with _organizations_ which have no single feature of a Christian Church, yet such connection will not _change_ the _nature of the organization_. It is true, that if Wesley had required, as a condition of membership in his societies, that piety which he himself exhibited _after his conversion_, they would not have been subject to the objective we are now considering. They would in that case have consisted _exclusively_ of professed believers. But however pious he may have been, however devoted many of his followers have been, and may be now, yet he himself declares that the ‘_only_ prerequisite for admission to his _societies_’ is a _desire_ of salvation. They, according to his own words, consist of those who _have the form_ and are _seeking_ the power of godliness. Now all _we_ have to do is, to determine whether _this_ was the basis of membership in the New Testament Churches. Was _this_ the condition of membership established by Christ and the apostles? If _not_, then _his societies_ were not, and without a change in this particular could not be, Churches of Christ. This is as plain as common sense can make it.”

“Yes, Mr. Courtney, I see that, and admit its force; but still I would feel better satisfied if we could compel some intelligent _Methodist_ to see it and admit it with us.”

“Your wish to have a Methodist to assist in our discussion can very easily be gratified,” said Doctor Thinkwell, “if you will but postpone the conversation until to-morrow. The presiding elder of this district is my nearest neighbor, and a special friend. He is, moreover, a man who takes delight in the defence of whatever is peculiar in the system which he advocates and of which he makes a part. The societies in this region regard him as an oracle, whose authority is, in matters of faith, second only to that of the bishop himself.”

“Do, then, let us wait,” exclaimed the lady. “We have talked too long to-day already. I am sure you must all be tired but me; and, besides, you know, Doctor, you have promised to take us in and show us the Capitol, and the bridge, and the other marvellous things in and about your famous City of Rocks.”

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_. |

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

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.

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

“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.

“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.

“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.

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.

TENTH DAY’S TRAVEL.

In which the Church is found and identified.

THE Presiding Elder owed his high standing and influence as much to his never-failing suavity of manner, his imperturbable good-humor, and the possession of a comfortable estate, as to his intellectual vigor or his extensive information. He had a ready mind, and could usually give a plausible reply to any argument that seemed to bear against the opinions he espoused; and it was not to him a matter of much moment whether others were satisfied with his reasoning or not. He cared very little, in fact, what opinions other people held: he had no conception that it was of any great consequence whether they or he were right or wrong. Indeed, he thought it doubtful whether _all_ were not wrong. He was sure that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in his system, but yet he had never thought of abandoning the system; and as the more he examined it, the more its inconsistencies appeared, he would not earnestly and carefully look into it, but contented himself by defending those points which others assailed; and this he usually did by a resort to raillery and ridicule, rather than to sober reason and earnest logical argument.

As he had no hope of making a Methodist of any of the company with whom he met at Dr. Thinkwell’s, he was not very each concerned about the result of their investigations, and was prepared to hear, with equal indifference, that they had decided that any one or another of the _branches_ of the Church was, in their estimation, the true _ekklesia_ of Christ.

It was, therefore, a source of no annoyance to him, when they met at his house on Monday, to hear the Doctor say that he was _almost_ convinced that he had at last discovered the object of his search, in the simple, unpretending body of Christian people with whom he met upon the Sabbath.

“I grant you,” said the elder, “that if _your marks_ or _tests_ are reliable, the Baptist Church has more of them than any other; and I suppose, as the majority of your company are Baptists, you purposely framed them so that they might admit that organization, and exclude all others. I will not contend with you, or these friends, upon the applicability of your tests; but if I had been with you from the beginning, I would have objected to the tests themselves.”

“There were those with us, sir, who did object to them. Nay, we ourselves at first objected to some of them, and we received and entered on our tablet not one until we had carefully examined the word of God in regard to it, and were compelled to admit that it was in strict accordance with the requirements of the Scriptures; and so, I think, you would have done had you been present.

“In the first place, we could not avoid conceding that the apostles must have known what Christ desired and intended concerning the institution which he called the Church; and that in every thing essential to its existence and its order, its constitution and its membership, they would conform the Churches which they founded to the model they had received from him.”

“Certainly, sir, that is all self-evident.”

“Then, sir, we could not help seeing that the Church of Christ _is, and must be now_, in its organization and membership, in its constituent materials, and in its constitutional _order_, its permanent offices and ordinances—in short, in _all_ that necessarily belongs to it _as a Church_, just such an institution as those which the apostles founded, and of which we have the accounts in the New Testament Scriptures.”

“I grant all that,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain. “I see that, so far, you stood upon solid ground. It is not worth while to question that which is self-evident. But, then, there are still two sources of error into which you may have fallen, and by which your conclusions may have been vitiated. You may, in the first place, have mistaken what was merely _accidental_ and _temporary_, and, consequently, _unessential_, for what was designed to be perpetual, and always and everywhere the same. Then, in the second place, you may have _misapprehended_ what were the _real characteristics of the apostolic Churches_.”

“We were conscious, sir, of both these dangers, and endeavored to guard against them with most scrupulous care. First, in regard to what was _really essential_, we determined that there could be no Church _without members_. Members were, therefore, _essential_. And as these members _must have a certain character_, there must be _something_ that distinguishes them from other people who are not members. Therefore, we concluded that the _character of the membership_ was another essential, at least in those particulars in which the first Church members invariably differed from those who were not Church members. Thus far, surely we were safe. Then it seemed to us self-evident, as it must have done to you, and every other man of common sense, that there could be no Church without some sort of _organization_. The members must be united upon some formal basis. The Church was a body—a community, a society. It was not only an assembly, but an _official_ assembly, with certain duties to perform, certain privileges to enjoy, certain objects to accomplish; and this, of necessity, required some basis of organization, or, in other words, some _written_ or _unwritten constitution_. This constitution must determine the conditions of membership, the relations of the members to each other, and of each of the local societies to each of the other local societies and to all of them, and of each and all of them to Christ their head. Whatever the Master determined in regard to such matters as these must evidently be regarded as _perpetually essential_; for it is inconceivable that _human wisdom_ should ever be able to mend that system by which the apostle says the _wisdom of GOD_ was made manifest to the principalities and powers in heavenly places. You may take our tests now, one by one, and see if any one has reference to a matter that was not _essential_ to the _being_, the _constitution_, or the _continuance_ of the Church.

“Then, to guard against all danger from the _other_ source which you indicate, namely, that we might have mistaken what _were_ the real scriptural characteristics of the apostolic Churches in regard to these essential points, we took care first to exclude all the testimony of mere _tradition_, or even of history, and then all the assertions of even the most learned doctors, _as to what these characteristics were,_ and regarded no one as established until _we had found it for OURSELVES_ plainly and unmistakably recorded _in the word of inspiration_. What better could we possibly have done?”

“But, my dear sir, do you not admit that _you are fallible_, and that your friends are so; and, consequently, you and they _may_ have _thought_ you found in the Word things which really are not there?”

“Suppose that were the case. We must still trust to our own conclusions, and _act_ upon our determinations; since God has made each one of us responsible for himself. Religion is a personal and individual thing. Every man must believe for _himself_, and decide for _himself_, and carry out in his religious obedience what he _himself_ has found to be the will of God, as revealed in his holy Word. The Word is addressed to _me_, and _I_ must study it: _I_ must endeavor to understand it for _myself_, and for _myself_ I must obey; and if I fail, God will hold _me_ individually and _personally_ responsible. So that, unless I have so much more confidence in my pastor’s judgment, or in the judgment of some other person, than I have in my own, that I am willing, unenquiringly, to risk my soul’s eternal interest in his hands, I must be governed by _my own determination_.

“But, so far from deciding carelessly or inconsiderately, we have explored, with all the helps at our command, every inch of the ground, and are ready now, if it would not take up too much time, to point you to the chapter and verse in which each mark is designated in the Word.”

“If you should do so,” said the Presiding Elder, “we would be no nearer an agreement than we are now; for I should doubtless differ with you about the meaning of the passages, or should be disposed to point you to others teaching a very different doctrine.”

“One would think, to hear you talk,” replied the Doctor, “that it is impossible to know any thing certainly about what the Scriptures mean; but we have found them very plain, and all the time consistent with themselves, and feel that we may be as certain that they do contain these essential characteristics of a true Church of Christ, as we can be that they contain _any_ system of doctrine or of duty. If they are ambiguous and double-tongued on this subject, it seems to me that men may as well at once despair of finding what they mean to teach on any subject; and as we have examined carefully and earnestly, and found the teaching plain and unmistakable, we must be governed by them, and consequently must abide by the result of the application of our _tablet_.”

“I see, then, there is no room for argument against the Baptist Church, except on some two or three points.”

“It is probably on those same points that I still have some lingering doubts. I saw at a glance, yesterday, that the Baptist Church with which I met consisted only of professed believers. There are none born into it, as Dr. Miller says they are into the Presbyterian Church. There are none _baptized_ into it without their knowledge or consent, and without any previous confession of their faith, as infants are into the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Independent or Congregational Churches. It therefore has the _first_ mark of our tablet. _Its members are all professed believers upon Christ._

“It also has the _second_. Its members have all _been baptized upon a profession of their faith_; and as all denominations agree that immersion is baptism, there can be no doubt about this, arising from the nature of the act performed.

“So, also, it has the _third_. It is an independent, local organization, a complete Church in itself, and independent of all others.”

“I do not know so well about that,” said the Presiding Elder. “I was at a Baptist Association last summer, and for the life of me I could not see much difference between the relation which _it_ sustained to the Churches, and that sustained by a presbytery or a conference. It is merely another name for a great ecclesiastical court. The Methodists have their quarterly conferences, their annual conferences, and their General Conference. The Presbyterians have their presbyteries, and their synods, and their General Assembly; and so the Baptists have their local associations and their general associations, and their great Convention, which, like our General Conference, only meets once in several years. The local Churches are no more independent in the one denomination than in the other. In all they are under the control of the assembled delegates, which represent the combined wisdom of all the Churches.”

This was a new phase of the subject to the Doctor, and he knew not what to say, but turned inquiringly to Mr. Courtney.

“A Baptist Church,” said the schoolmaster, “is, in all that concerns it own members, as independent of the associations as it is of the Methodist conference, or of the grand lodge of Odd-Fellows. When a candidate applies for admission, _it_ alone decides to receive or reject him. When a member has been guilty of some offence, _it_ tries, condemns, and excludes him, and from _its_ decision there is no appeal to any association, local or general, or to any convention or other body outside itself. What it decides is the decision of _the Church_, and ends the matter, unless it can be persuaded to revoke its decision, as Paul besought the Church at Corinth to restore one whom it had cast out.

“The Church is under no necessity to belong to any association, and is neither more nor less a Church when she does belong to one. Every association and convention in the land may be dissolved to-morrow, and no single Baptist Church will have either more or less authority than she has to-day. But if you dissolve the Conference, that great ecclesiastical establishment called the Methodist _Church_ is dissolved. Dissolve the General Assembly, and you have dissolved that great confederation known as the Presbyterian _Church_, and of which each local society is but an integral _part_. A Methodist society _cannot be_ a Methodist society except as _a part_ of the great body that is subordinate to the Conference. A Presbyterian society cannot be a real Presbyterian society except as it makes a part of that great body which is subject to the General Assembly. Let either withdraw all connection with or deny all obedience to the powers thus set over them, and they become Independents. But a Baptist Church is not of necessity a part of any association or convention. It gives up no part of its authority when it sends a messenger, and retains no mire when it refuses or neglects to send.”

“What then, let me ask, _is_ the Association, and what relation _does_ it sustain to the Churches and their members?”

“Some Baptist associations and conventions,” replied Mr Courtney, “are organized for one purpose, and some for an other. They are simply voluntary organizations outside the Churches, formed, like a Bible society, or a missionary society for the accomplishment of some specific object, in which the Churches may or may not take a part, as they see fit. Sometimes this object is to sustain a system of missionary operations so extensive that some concert of action is required to secure its success; sometimes it is to build up and sustain an institution of learning; sometimes to provide young ministers with the means of acquiring a better theological education; sometimes it is for the arrangement and support of some plan for the distribution of the Scriptures or of other religious books; sometimes merely for mutual counsel, and to learn, by messengers or letters, what progress each Church is making, what is the number and condition of her membership, and what she is doing to promote the cause of Christ; and sometime it combines several or all of these objects. But whatever objects it may have, it never can have the right to interfere with the domestic economy or discipline of the Churches, whether of those who send messengers to it or of others.”

“But let me ask you,” said the Presiding Elder, “whether these associations are not often called on to decide cases of difficulty in the discipline of the Churches, which are sent up to them for adjustment?”

“No, sir; the Churches often send up some notice of cases of difficulty and ask for _advice_, and sometimes they send questions of difficulty and ask for _information_ concerning matters either of faith or practice, and the advice is given and the information granted; but neither the one nor the other is binding as a law to the Churches. Each Church may receive or reject the advice, as it sees best.”

“But may not the association punish the Church by exclusion, if it should fail to heed the advice so kindly given?”

“That would depend upon the relation of the matter to the constitution of that particular association. You will observe that each association is a _voluntary_ organization. It makes no part of the Churches, and has no control over the Churches, except in regard to such matters as are provided for in the constitution adopted by itself, and voluntarily agreed to by the parties coming in. And no Church has the _right_ to give up to the association any of those prerogatives with which Christ has invested her. She dare not give up to the association, or to the minister, or to anybody else, the _power of discipline_, which is by the authority of Christ vested in the _ekklesia_ alone. The constitution of the association determines the conditions of membership in its own body: they are as various, almost, as the associations themselves. In some, for instance, no Church can be represented that does not send a certain sum of money; and if she fails to make the contribution, she cannot be a member of the association, but she is no less a Church, and a Baptist Church, than she would have been if she had sent it. In most of the associations, it is made a condition of membership that the Church must be an orderly _Baptist_ Church, and must hold certain doctrines which are common to the denomination. This is essential for the harmonious mutual cooperation of them all in the educational or missionary enterprises for the conducting of which the association was formed. And when they have such a constitutional basis, and any Church has ceased to be an _orderly Baptist Church_, or to hold the doctrines specified, they may refuse to recognize her any longer as a member. But this is no _ecclesiastical_, no _Church_ action. It is not an excommunication on the assumed authority of Christ, and exercised by the association as _his Church_. or as a _part_ or a _branch_ of _his Church_; it is the mere dissolution of a voluntary compact, when one of the parties has violated the terms of the compact. _The authority of the association can never go behind its OWN CONSTITUTION._

“It may be possible that associations sometimes forget this, and act as though they were not merely advisory, but legislative or judicial bodies; but if they ever do, they violate all regular Baptist usage, and thoughtful and intelligent Baptists will at once disown them.

“The truth is, the associations and conventions are the mere creatures of the Churches, formed for the more effectual execution of the plans which the Churches entertain for the furtherance of the great objects of Christian benevolence; objects so vast that individual Churches cannot alone accomplish them. What _one_ cannot do, some twenty, or fifty, or a hundred can, and they agree to work together; and that they may work harmoniously together, each sends a delegate or more, as may be agreed upon, to carry funds, assist by his counsel, and bring back word to the Church as to how the work goes on. The association is not, therefore, like the Conference or the Presbytery, the _lord_ and _master_ of the Church, but is its _creature_ and its _servant_, and so responsible to it for its proceedings, that if it does not conduct in all things in such a way as to give satisfaction, it _withdraws_ from it and gives it no more countenance or support. But whatever the association may be, or whatever power it may have, it is sufficient for our present argument to know that every Baptist Church is so far independent of it, that it is entirely free to unite with it or to stand apart from it. It is no more bound to belong to an association or convention, than it is to represent itself in the Grand Division of the Sons of Temperance, or to belong to the American Bible Society, or the American Sunday School Union.”

“Then I can understand,” resumed the Doctor, “that it has also the fourth mark upon our tablet. _It has Christ alone for its King and Lawgiver, and recognizes no authority but his above its own._ If the associations and conventions cannot make laws for it, or exercise discipline for it or in it, I suppose no others will attempt to do so, unless it be their pastors: and I observed yesterday that the pastor took no other share in the exercise of discipline, than simply as the president of the assembly, to put the question and gather the voice of the members. And, moreover, as the pastor is not sent to them by bishops, conferences, or presbyters, but chosen by the Church, and holds his office at their pleasure, he must of necessity be the servant and not the master of the Church. He may rule, but his government must be founded in love, and his control such as the faithful performance of his duties as a good minister of Jesus could not fail to give him in any assembly of earnest-hearted, Christ-trusting, and Christ-loving people.

“And so, also, I can testify that _its members come voluntarily and ask for membership_, and are not brought by their parents and compelled to be initiated, even though they cry out against it as loudly as a little babe _can_ cry.

“Nor do I see any reason to doubt that _it holds to the fundamental doctrines of the gospel as its articles of faith_. And have never heard of any Baptist Churches being engaged in _persecution_, though all the histories of them that I have read are almost continuous records of the distress which they have endured from other so-called Christian Churches.

“I yield them, therefore, the possession of our _fifth_ and _sixth_, and also our _eighth_ mark; but now when I come to ask about the _seventh_ and the _ninth_, I must wait for further information.”

“And if you wait,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “until you have traced its continued existence down from the time of Christ, or ascertained its regular succession in a line of Churches that never in any age became even temporarily _apostate_, you will wait till you have joined the Church above. I have not studied particularly the history of the Baptist Church: but I will venture to promise that if you will make out this regular succession for them, I will at least never laugh at them again as the modern progeny of the Munster men in Europe, and Roger Williams in America.”

“It was our understanding, I believe, when we entered these historical marks upon our tablet,” replied the Doctor, “that each of the bodies claiming to be Churches should be considered as having descended regularly from the apostles, unless the contrary should appear from their own records. We have seen for each of the others a historical origin in comparatively modern times. We know when the Lutheran, the English and American Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, and the Methodist Churches were first organized. We can trace them back to a certain point, and beyond that they had no separate existence. They were all merged in Rome, and only existed as component parts of the great Roman Catholic antichristian Hierarchy. We have traced this mother of them all back still farther, and found a time long after Christ or the apostles when there was not only no Roman Catholic Church, but _no such organization_ as that afterwards became.

“Now, if we can do the same by the Baptist Church—if we can go back and find a time since Christ when it had no existence—we must concede that it has not this test. But unless this can be done, we must take it for granted, as we were ready to do in regard to the other claimants, that it has existed from the days of Christ and the apostles. We need not put it upon the Baptists to show the record of every age, and trace upon it the history of their Church.”

“In the sense in which you employ the term,” said Mr. Courtney, “there is not and never has been such a thing as ‘the Baptist Church.’ There cannot be. Each Baptist Church stands alone and independent of all other Baptist Churches. As the Church at Jerusalem, and the Church at Antioch, and the Churches of Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, were not combined together in any great _confederation_ called the Church, but _each one_ was _the Church_, in and of itself, and neither more nor less _the Church_ for the existence of the others, so every particular Baptist Church that is organized upon the same model, having the same sort of members, the same organization, the same ordinances, and the same doctrines, is itself _the Church_. It is not a _confederation_ of Baptist Churches nor a continued _succession_ of Baptist Churches that is the Baptist Church; but every local, independent body of baptized believers, holding the doctrines of the gospel, and having the ordinances of the gospel, that now exists, or has at any time or in any place existed, is and was _the Baptist Church_ in the only sense that there can be any such thing as the Baptist Church, or that there was any such thing as _the Church_ in the days of the apostles. And now, with this understanding of the term, I am ready to take either plan to show our continuity from the time of Christ. I will prove, by the most unexceptional historical authority, by the concessions of our bitterest opponents and persecutors, that our Churches _have existed_ in every age. Or I will undertake, as a shorter method of reaching the same conclusion, to show that there is no other history of their first beginning but that which we have in the New Testament itself. And if I can do either one or the other, it will be more than enough. Now, to settle the question at once, I will take it upon me to trace the Baptist Churches on the chart of history, either backwards or forwards. We may begin here to-day and trace them back to John in Jordan; or I will begin in Jordan and trace them downward till to-day. I anticipated this difficulty. I knew that a true Church could be known without this test, ere would not have introduced it but at the suggestion of the Episcopal bishop; but since we have it, I will not shrink from its most rigid application. Try us as you will, and you will not find us wanting in any scriptural feature. I have here a brief sketch of dates and authorities, which I have arranged merely to assist my memory, and by its aid I will give you such testimony as cannot fail to satisfy any reasonable man that Churches have all the time existed, having every essential characteristic of the little assembly with which we met on yesterday. I do not say they were called Baptists, or even Anabaptists, which is an older name, as applied to the Churches; but names are nothing. It is the _thing_, and not the name, that we are looking for; and the _thing_ is an official assembly of Christian people, having each of the marks which we have recognized as the characteristics of the Churches of Christ in the apostles’ days. Their names have usually been given by their enemies, and do not designate their character Their names have been changed for them in almost every century, but their peculiar character has been the same, and by this, not the name, we must discover and point them out upon the page of history.”

“I think,” said the Doctor, “I would a little prefer to begin at the present, and trace them backwards. Thus we did with the other claimants, and found them all to end in Rome, at the time of Luther’s Reformation.”

“Very good: this is a little past the middle of the nineteenth century. I suppose no one will question the existence A.D. 1700 to 1800. of the Baptist Churches now, and since the year eighteen hundred. Both in this country and in Europe, there are hundreds, nay, thousands of Churches, and hundreds of thousands of members.

“Nor will it be doubted that they existed in the eighteenth century. A letter, dated Philadelphia, August 12th, 1714, written by a Baptist minister, Mr. Able Morgan, to a friend in England, will show their existence in this country at that time: ‘We are now,’ he says, ‘nine Churches;’ alluding to those in the vicinity of Philadelphia. ‘In these Churches there are alone five hundred members, but greatly scattered,’ etc. (_Crosby_, vol. i., p. 122.) And we will presently see that there were many of them long before this in the New England States. I suppose it will hardly be necessary to do more than to say that hundreds of our Churches existed from A.D. 1700 to 1800, in the British Empire, and on the Continent. Their history in that country is too recent and too well known to admit of cavil or denial. But when we enter the next age in our travels up this stream of tie, there may possibly be need of reference to authorities. It was during this century that the first Baptists came to America. They were members of a Church of English Baptists in _Holland_, A.D. 1600 to 1700. having by persecution been driven out of England, and who came over here in 1620. Cotton Mather, the historian of the early colonists, says of them, ‘Having done with the Quakers, let it not be misinterpreted if into the same chapter we put the inconveniences which the New England Churches have suffered from the _Anabaptists_, albeit they have infinitely more of Christianity among them than the Quakers.… Infant baptism hath been scrupled by multitudes in our days, who have been in other points most worthy Christians, and as holy, watchful, fruitful, and heavenly people as, perhaps, any in the world. _Some few of these_ people have been among the planters in New England from the beginning, and have been welcome to the communion, which they have enjoyed, reserving their particular opinion to themselves.’

“‘But at length it came to pass that while some of our Churches used, it may be, a little too much _cogency_ toward the brethren which would weakly turn their backs when _infants_ were brought forth to be _baptized_ in the congregation, there were some of these brethren, who in a day of temptation, broke forth into schismatical practices that were justly offensive to all the Churches in this wilderness.’

“‘Our Anabaptists, when somewhat of exasperation was begun, formed a Church at Boston, on May 28th, 1665, besides one which they had _before_ at Swanzey. Now they declared our infant baptism to be a mere nullity, and they arrogate unto themselves the title of _Baptists_, as if none were baptized but themselves.’

“In another place, Mr. Mather says that more than a score of _ministers_ had come to the country who were so obnoxious to the body of the colonists that they could not be tolerated, but that some of them were deserving of a place in his book for their piety. ‘Of these there were some godly _Anabaptists_,’ whom he mentions by name. (_Crosby_, vol. i., pp 112⁠–⁠116.)

“The existence of our Churches in England, during this century, is attested by several books which were published by their ministers. One in 1615, to prove that every man has a right to judge for himself in matters of religion, and show the invalidity of the commonly received baptism; and for their opinions on several points of doctrine they refer to their Confession of Faith, published in 1611. They published another book defending Baptist sentiments, in 1618, and many from that time on. But they have not only given this testimony concerning themselves, but we can trace them in the _laws_ enacted for their destruction, in their _petitions_ and _complaints_, in the records of the _courts_ and the _prisons_ in which they were condemned and confined; and one of them, at least, was _burned at the stake_. It was about the middle of this century, moreover, that Cromwell made religion free, and thousands of Baptists came forth into the light, who before had been obliged to hide from the sword of persecution. ‘Persons of this persuasion,’ says Russell, ‘filled the army with preaching, and praying, and valiant men.’ When Cromwell afterward, under the influence of Presbyterians, determined to repress the Baptists, they sent him a memorial or remonstrance, in which they ask ‘if Baptists have not filled his towns, cities, provinces, islands, castles, navies, tents, armies, and court.’ But under Charles the Second, they were again subject to persecution, but still continued to protest against the Hierarchy, and the other corruptions of Christianity. A.D. 1500 to 1600. “Now let us go back another century. We have found Baptists in great numbers from 1600 to 1700. How is it from 1500 to 1600?

“The Baptists in the early part of this century were for the most part called _Lollards_ in England, and Anabaptists and _Mennonites_ upon the Continent. But they were _Baptists_ in fact, though known by other names. They were in England many of them foreigners who had been led to expect, from the rupture between King Henry the Eighth and the Pope, that they might there be free to enjoy their religion; a mistake of which King Henry hastened to cure them, as soon as he became the _Head_ of the Church.

“Styrpe, the historian of those times, says, ‘The Baptists pestered the Church, and would openly dispute their principles in public places.’ In 1539, a general pardon was granted to all religious offenders, but the _Baptists_ were specially exempted. So numerous were they, and so rigorously persecuted, that the records show that _over seventy thousand_ of them were, in King Henry’s time, punished by fines, by imprisonment, by banishment, or by burning.

“On the Continent, their existence is shown by the persecutions which they suffered from the Lutherans, as we have already seen.

“Then let us go back another hundred years. A.D. 1400 to 1500. How was it from 1400 to 1500? We have now, you see, gone back of the times of the _Reformation_, which occupied the early part of the century we have just past. We are now where we can find no Church of England, no Lutheran, no Presbyterian Churches. The Protestants had at this time not yet protested, and were quietly resting in the polluted arms of their mother of Rome.

“Now if we still find the Baptists outside of Rome, refusing to recognize her as a Christian Church, denouncing her as the very Antichrist foretold in the Word, and by her denounced and _persecuted_, we will have proved, at least, this much, that the Baptist Churches are older _than Protestantism_ in any of its sects or creeds, and that they did not, as charged by Dr. Featly, and reiterated by almost every Pedobaptist writer since his day, begin with the madmen of Munster.”

“Why do you not go back at once to Peter Bruis and his co-laborer Henry?” asked the Rev. Mr. Stiptain. “Dr. Wall, you know, admits that _they_ were Baptists, and expressly says, ‘they were the _first_ preachers that ever set up a Church or society holding that infant baptism was a nullity, and rebaptizing such as had been baptized in infancy.’”

“I thank you for your suggestion, sir, though this will take us back at one step for over two hundred and fifty years. But in all those two hundred and fifty years the followers of Peter and Henry can be traced as _Baptists_, and their societies as _Baptist Churches_. It was some years before 1150 that they appeared. We learn their doctrines from their A.D. 1150 to 1500. enemies. One who wrote against them, the Catholic Abbot of Clugny, says that they taught that ‘infants are not baptized or saved by the faith of another, but ought to be baptized and saved by their own faith; or that baptism without their own faith does not save, and that those that are baptized in infancy, when grown up should be baptized again, nor are they then rebaptized, but rather rightly baptized.’ (Magdeburg Centuriators, Cent. xii. c. 5, p. 332. _Ivimey_, vol. i., p. 22.) The Lateran Council, under Pope Innocent the Second, in 1139, according to Dr. Wall, did condemn Peter Bruis and his follower Arnold of Bresica, for rejecting infant baptism. The followers of these men were called Petrobrussians, Henricans, and Arnoldists, and a portion of them, at a later day, _Lollards_, from one Lollardo, who brought their doctrine into England. They and those who held the same doctrines, namely, the Paternines and Puritans, or Cathari, from the Province of Bulgaria, spread over the south of Europe, and, notwithstanding all the terrific persecutions to which they were subjected, maintained their separate societies even in parts of Italy. They owned the Scriptures for their only rule of faith and practice, administered baptism only to professed believers, and that by one immersion. See Orchard’s _History of Foreign Baptists_, p. 160.

“It is stated by the learned Magdeburg Centuriators, and by Wall, that the followers of Peter Bruis, and of Henry, were about eight hundred thousand strong when Waldo, of Lyons, appeared and joined them, a few years after their condemnation by the Roman Catholic Council. He became a great leader among them, and thence, some say, they were called Waldenses, or Lyonists. Before the close of this century they had become a mighty host, and embraced among them persons of rank and power. In France, where they were strongest, they were called Albigenses. The ordinary means for the extirpation of the heresy not availing for their destruction, Pope Innocent the Third determined to bring to bear upon them all the military power of his dominions. He raised an army of from three to five hundred thousand men, and sent for their destruction. Two hundred thousand fell in one short campaign in the year 1209. An other army was sent the coming year: cities and towns were burned, the country desolated, and every man, woman, and child that could be found, destroyed or banished. This was repeated year by year until the death of Innocent in 1216, and the same sanguinary course was followed up by his successor until about 1229, when the heretics had been so completely crushed that scarcely any could be found to glut the Roman thirst for blood. A great multitude had, however, escaped to other lands and carried the true gospel with them. They gathered in Switzerland and Germany, and among the valleys of the Pyrenees; and after all the wicked waste of life for the quarter of a century, it is conceded that there still remained at least _eight hundred thousand_ of these persecuted people, concealed in various countries of Europe. (_Perin_.)”

“But is it certain,” asked Theodosia, “that these Albigenses were Baptists?”

“It was for denying infant baptism and the sacraments of the Roman Catholic hierarchy,” replied Mr. Courtney, “that they were condemned. Their own confessions of faith, the accusations of their enemies, and the concurrent testimony of historians, all unite in showing that they were Baptist Churches. See Orchard’s _History of the Foreign Baptists_ pp. 226⁠–⁠229.

“The same people in England were called Lollards, from the eminent Walter Lollardo, who left his native land to preach this gospel to the British; but the doctrines had gone there before him Archbishop Lanfranc wrote a book against them shortly after the doctrine was condemned by the Lateran Council in 1139. About this time Lingard says a colony of people came into England belonging to the fanatics who invested the north of Italy, Gaul, and Germany, and who were called Puritans. Usher calls them Waldenses. They said they were Christians, and followed the doctrines of the apostles; they denied purgatory, prayers for the dead, and invocations to the saints. It was from these people that Wyckliffe first, and Tyndale afterwards, were indoctrinated in the truth. History records the death of thousands of them up to the very time of the Reformation, as it is called, under Henry the Eighth, though by that time their name had been changed to Anabaptists.

“We might trace the same people in Bohemia, in Poland, in Moravia, and elsewhere; but it is not needful for our purpose. We have seen that, according to the testimony of Dr. Wall, there were Baptist Churches from 1139 or before, when Peter Bruis and Henry set them up. Wall says they were the _first_, but I will show you now that Wall was mistaken. These men laid no claim to the _originating_ of a system. They but embraced and preached doctrines already known, and united with a people who were already in being, and _had long been persecuted_ for the maintaining of the _very same doctrines and practices_. If we will go back to the A.D. 750 to 1150. time of Pope Stephen the Second, about 750, we will find in history numerous accounts of a people called _Paternines_, who denounced infant baptism, and maintained that a Church should consist only of Christian people, and must not persecute, and who baptized by immersion, as indeed _all_ parties did at that time. (See Robinson’s _History of Baptists_, pp. 428⁠–⁠430.) They were called Paternines from the patience with which they suffered for the cause of Christ. In 1040 they had become very numerous. Their principal city was Milan. They had no connection with the _Church_ of Rome. They rejected the authority of the _Fathers_. They said the sign of the cross was _the mark of the Beast_. Their Churches were numerous all over Europe, their meetings being held during times of persecution in the residences of the brethren, and it was to these people that Peter Bruis, and Henry, and Arnold of Bresica joined themselves, and gave their learning and their eloquence to advance their cause. They, indeed, became so conspicuous among them that portions of their communities were called by their names; but though they were the means of giving them _new names_, they did not give them _new doctrines_. They _left_ the Church of Rome, and joined these people who were _never in the Church_.

“But the Paternines were no _new sect_. They had simply been _new named_, for they belonged to the people who were A.D. 650 to 750. before called _Paulicians_, or Publicans, and who began about the year 650, and who are well known to the history of those times. Robinson says they _rebaptized_ those who came to them by _immersion_. Mosheim says they _rejected the baptism of infants_, and Dr. Allix calls them _Anabaptists_. Because they had no rulers and condemned the hierarchy, they were sometimes called the _Acephali_, from a Greek word signifying _the Headless_. So numerous were these people, that even after portions of them had come to be called Paternines and by other names, _one hundred thousand martyrs_ of them died in nine years by the most horrid tortures, during the reign of that female devil incarnate, the Empress Theodora.”

“I am glad,” said Mrs. Percy, “that her name was not Theodosia.”

“From Italy,” continued Mr. Courtney, “the _Paulicians_ sent colonies, according to the testimony of Mosheim, and Gibbon, and others, into almost every nation of Europe, and formed a number of religious assemblies, who adhered to their doctrine, and who suffered every conceivable indignity from the Church of Rome. In Italy they were called Paternines, or Puritans; (‘_Paterni_,’ or ‘_Cathari_,’ from a Greek word signifying the pure;) in France _Bulgarians_, because they came from Bulgaria, and sometimes Publicans and _Boni-Homines_, or the Good Men; but they were mainly known as the _Albigenses_, from _Alby_, the name of a chief town in the region where they dwelt.

“But though the Paulicians were _called_ a new sect, and did have in one sense an independent origin, from one Constantine, who was afterwards called Sylvanus, and who was converted to Christ by reading the Gospels and the Epistles of Paul, which were brought to him out of Syria by a deacon of a Christian Church, and after his conversion became a noted preacher of the truth, until he was, at the instigation of the Greek Church, stoned to death; yet his doctrine was not new, and _before his day and after it_, there were thousands who, like him, rejected infant baptism and the authority of the hierarchy, and were in all essential particulars Baptist Churches of Christ.

“For if we now go back to the year 300, we A.D. 300 to 650. will find _all_ the Churches to be Baptist Churches in regard to _baptism_, except a few in Africa, though many of them had become apostate in regard to the _episcopacy_.

“The accession of Constantine to the imperial throne in 306 has commonly been regarded as a blessing to Christianity. It was, in fact, so far as human wisdom can discover, its greatest curse. It degraded and polluted the Church by combining it with the state, and it made that thing which people have ever since called _the Church_, the murderer and persecutor of the followers of Christ. It was a matter of policy in Constantine to profess the Christian faith. He did it to cement his worldly power. He was no friend to Jesus. He had never learned of him how to be meek and lowly. He knew nothing of the humble and forgiving and long-suffering spirit of the true disciples of Jesus. Like Henry the Eighth of England, his ambition was to become the _HEAD of the Church_; and as its head, so soon as his ecclesiastical power was firmly established, he adjusted his creed and issued his edicts of conformity. His clergy were notoriously corrupt, and the people who would not submit to their rule were most grievously oppressed; yet they continued to ask, ‘_What has the Emperor to do with our religion?_’ The councils of prelates by imperial authority strove in vain to bring into subjection the _Cathari_, the Novatianists, and the Ærians, (not _Arians_,) who opposed their doctrines and rejected their authority, and continued to baptize anew all who came from their apostate communion. For they regarded the so-called Catholic Church, now claiming all the power of Christ’s kingdom, but as a _worldly_ community, while _Christ’s_ Church must, they said, consist only of the _converted_. There was not at the beginning of this period in the Eastern Churches any question concerning _baptism_, for all parties _immersed_, and we have no record of the baptism of a _child_ until 370, when the _son of the Emperor Valens_ was thought to be dying, and was baptized by command of the emperor. Nor is there any official requisition for the baptism of children until the decree of the Council of Carthage in 401. But we have nothing to do with _this establishment_, world-wide as it was, which recognized the emperor for its head. By that one act, if in no other way, it had _apostatized_ from Christ. We must look for the Baptist Churches among those who would not even on pain of death yield to its usurped authority, who would not obey its decrees, and who held on to the liberty with which Christ had made them free. We have nothing to do with the so called Arian heresy, or its Trinitarian opponents. The apostate Church of the _emperor_ may fight its own battles—they do not concern the Churches of Christ. These _never came into the ecclesiastical establishment called the Church_ by those who write Church history. _That establishment_ was mostly made up of those who had apostatized before Constantine entered it and was elevated to its headship. They had already recognized the authority of bishops and councils to make laws for them. They had already become worldly and corrupt, and there were those who had long refused communion with them on this account. They said to any who came to join them, ‘If you be a virtuous believer, and will concede to our confederacy against sin, you may be admitted among us by baptism, or, if any Catholic has baptized you before, by rebaptism.’ It was on this account that they were at a later day called _Ana-Baptists_, or rebaptizers. They soon obtained the name of _Cathari_, or Puritans, because they thus insisted on maintaining the _purity_ of their communion. There is mention made of these people in France fifty years before the time of Constantine. Their Churches were scattered all over the Roman empire when Constantine came to the throne. Constantine sought to unite them with the Catholics, but they obstinately refused to pollute their communion even at the command of the emperor, who then professed to be their friend. He therefore turned against them, destroyed their books, drove them out of their Churches and, by his oppressive measures, _scattered_ them as precious seed among those countries in the west of Europe where they afterwards produced those trees of righteousness, the Paternines, Albigenses, Waldenses, and others of the same faith and order, though called by various names. Claudius Seysell, the _popish_ archbishop, _traces the rise of the WALDENSIAN HERESY to a pastor named Leo leaving Rome at this early period,_ and taking up his abode in the valleys.

“The succeeding emperors continued the persecution which Constantine began. In 375, the Puritan ministers were banished by Valens; but Theodosius, a few years after, restored their liberties, and showed them so much favor, that at the close of this century they had several Churches in Constantinople itself, under the very eye of his imperial majesty.

“In 412, however, their Churches were closed again, and by a decree of the Lateran council, in 413, they were banished as heretics, and the emperor doomed all who should _rebaptize_ or _be rebaptized, to death_. Under this law, so like to that of the Lutheran senate, in 1522, many were slain, and others driven into the valleys of Piedmont, where they were after wards called Waldenses. Another council, at Mela, in 416, held them _accursed_, as denying that infant baptism conferred forgiveness and salvation, and two years after, the curse was repeated by a council at Carthage. These persecutions drove them into retirement, and from the patience with which they endured it, caused them to be called Paternines, and under this name we have already traced them. The accounts given of them by Eusebius and by Socrates, the historians of the early Churches, enables us easily to identify them, even after their name was changed. A.D. 30 to 300. “Now, to complete our chain, we have only to go back to the time when Jesus began to be about thirty years old, and bring down our history to the year 300. John at that time had prepared or was preparing a people made ready for the Lord. He rejected all who did not give evidence of true repentance, and profess their faith in him who was to come. After Jesus had been baptized by him, he, by his disciples, continued to baptize. Out of these a Church was formed, as the model for others. The apostles formed many like it in various places. We have already examined them, and found that they were Baptist Churches, with every single mark included in our tablet. Such Churches as these would, of course, succeed them for a time. We have already ascertained that neither infant baptism nor the rule of prelatical bishops was recognized among them for many years; and that when they were sought to be introduced, there were some at least, whose history we have traced, who would accept of neither. All the so-called Christian Churches, for the _most part_, were separate and independent organizations for the first three hundred years; the exceptions being, as we have seen in our examination of episcopacy, in the cities where the hierarchy first began by the recognized supremacy of the pastor of the first or principal Church. Infant baptism, we have seen, was not so much as mentioned till the time of Tertullian, and then promptly rejected; nor have we any record of the baptism of any infant till after Church and State were joined. In those early days _all_ baptized by _immersion_, as all historians concede; so that we have no possible room to doubt that from Christ to the separation of the Puritans or Novatianists, the great multitude of the Churches were independent local societies, consisting of professed believers who had been baptized by immersion upon a profession of their faith, and of course had voluntarily united with them; and that almost all these societies rejected the authority, in matters of religion, of all lawgivers but Christ, and were, in fact, just such communities as the Baptist Churches are now.”

“Your succession is very ingeniously made out,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “and it seems a pity to sever such a beautiful chain, and let all fall that hangs upon it; but the truth of history requires it; and much as I regret the ruin in which it must involve your whole scheme, I must call your attention to _one very important fact_, which you, undesignedly no doubt, forgot to mention.”

“And what is that, pray?”

“It is, simply, that _the Waldenses were not Baptists_, but, like the Methodists and Presbyterians, baptized their infant children.”

“That would not, even if it were true,” said Mr. Courtney, “sever the chain of our succession; for I have shown that the _first_ Churches, for two hundred and fifty years, did not baptize infants, and were in other things like Baptist Churches. Then I have shown that similar Churches, disowning the hierarchies and denying all baptisms but that administered by themselves to professed believers, called Novatianists and Cathari at first, and Paternines afterwards, continued to exist down to the time of Peter, and Henry, and Arnold, and that they afterwards became so numerous under the name of _Albigenses_ as to require immense armies, year after year, for near a quarter of a century, to extirpate them in France alone. These Albigenses, I have shown, were Baptists; and it was by one of these that their doctrines were brought into England. The Lollards were descendants of these people, and the Lollards continued to be drowned and burnt in England for denying infant baptism and the hierarchy, up to the time of the Reformation, and were in all respects similar to these ancient Baptist Churches. If those upon the continent ever apostatized, and fell into the baptism of infants, it was _not till after they had sent believers’ baptism into England_, and any defection _afterwards_ would not affect our cause.

“Let it be true that some of the people called Waldenses by others, or even by themselves, did baptize infants; it is enough for us that there were others of them who, as Dr. Wall says of the Petrobrussians, whom he counts as a sect of the Waldenses, ‘did reckon infant baptism as one of the corruptions of the Church of Rome, and accordingly renounced it, and preached only adult baptism.’ (Hist. Inf. Bap., part ii., chap. 7, §§ 5, 6, 7.) Mosheim says of Peter Bruis, that ‘it is certain that one of his tenets was, that no persons whatever were to be baptized before they were come to the full use of reason.’

“Brandt, in his History of the Reformation, says that ‘_some_ of the Waldenses rejected infant baptism;’ and this is certain from the testimony of those who _killed them because they did deny infant baptism_. Now if there were _some_ of them who were Baptists, and Lollardo was of these, as he must have been, since those whom he instructed in England were afterwards killed for entertaining Baptist sentiments, it does not matter if many others of them were degenerate.

“But besides this, we have traced the Baptists of England only through this _one_ channel: we could trace them with equal ease through the Mennonites, and these we can trace back to this times of the apostles by a channel which has no suspicion of infant baptism. Then we have not yet examined the history of the _original_ baptism which is said to have been brought into England by Paul himself, and which certainly was introduced at a very early day, and before the corruptions which made the Eastern Churches apostate.

“But merely for your satisfaction, I will show you that you have been imposed upon when you were taught to believe that the main body of the so-called Waldensian Christians baptized their infants, or were in any thing other than true Baptist Churches according to our tablet.”

“I do not know,” replied the Presiding Elder, “how that can be, when we have their own express declaration in their official Confession of Faith.”

“In a body of people so numerous as the Waldenses,” said Mr. Courtney, “comprising not only many separate communities, but extending over different countries, and speaking various different languages, we may well suppose some diversity of faith and practice; and if some _one_ of these communities should for themselves have stated that they believed and practiced infant baptism, it would not follow that all the Waldenses did so. But I doubt if you can show any such concession.”

“Most certainly I can, sir. It is in the confession entitled ‘A Confession of Faith of the Waldensian Brethren,’ and is addressed to King Uladislaus, in Hungary, presented in 1508; and which has been so often quoted and referred to, that I wonder how a gentleman of your intelligence upon these subjects could be ignorant of it.”

“I am not ignorant of the existence of the document you refer to; but I do not believe that it was ever made by _Waldenses_. It was made, probably, by some of the followers of Huss, commonly called Calixtines.”

“But why do you not believe they were Waldenses?”

“Simply because, in the first place, _the document itself declares that they WERE NOT._ It begins by informing the king that ‘they _were not_ Waldenses, though by their enemies they were _called_ Waldenses, and persecuted as such.’ Now, the _real_ Waldenses were not very likely to be _ashamed of their name_, nor to deny it, even to shun persecution and death. In the second place, there is a real Waldensian confession, of a later date, which is in direct opposition to this. In this which you refer to, and which is _called_ theirs, they are made to say that ‘children, by an apostolic canon, as Dionysius writes, ought to be baptized;’ but in the later, and real one, say, ‘By this ordinance we are received into the holy congregation of God’s people, _previously professing our faith and change of life;_’ and not a word is there about the infants. (Jones’s _Ch. Hist._ vol. ii., pp. 59, 60. Orchard’s _Hist. F. B._, p. 278.) But even allowing it to have been made by true Waldenses, it is evident they must have changed their sentiments and practice; as nothing can be more certain than that _at one time_ they were destroyed as pestilent _Anabaptists_.”

“But did they not readily unite with Luther and Calvin, and become incorporated into their Churches?”

“It is certain,” replied the schoolmaster, “that many of _them_ did. They were not _all_ prepared to suffer death for their religion, either at the hands of Luther or the pope; and large bodies of them came over to Luther, and more still to Calvin; yet so many remained faithful, that Mosheim says ‘prodigious numbers of them were devoted to death in its most dreadful forms.’ ‘In almost all the countries of Europe _an unspeakable number of Baptists_ preferred death in its worst forms to a retraction of their sentiments.’ ‘They suffered death,’ says the same author, ‘not on account of their being considered rebellious subjects, but merely because _they were judged to be incurable heretics_; for, in this century, [the sixteenth,] the error or limiting the administration of baptism to adult persons only, and the practice of rebaptizing such as had received the sacrament in infancy, were looked upon as the most flagitious and intolerable of heresies. Those who had no other marks of peculiarity than their administering baptism to the adult, and their excluding the unrighteous from the external communion of the Church, ought to have met with milder treatment.’

“But now let us suppose, for a moment, that all the Waldenses had from the first been Pedobaptists; then it would follow of necessity that there were some other people who had existed and been persecuted all the time as Anabaptists; for Cardinal Hosius, the Roman Catholic president of the Council of Trent, expressly recognizes the existence of some such people, and his authority in the matter is unquestionable: ‘If the truth of religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists; since there have been none, for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more grievously punished.’ This was in 1570, and twelve hundred years back carries us to the _very year_ in which the _first infant baptism_ is recorded. And Mosheim: says, ‘that when the Mennonites for Dutch Baptists assert that they are the descendants of the Waldenses, Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects, who are usually considered the _witnesses of the truth_ in the times of universal darkness, they are not entirely mistaken; for, before Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe many persons who adhered tenaciously to the doctrines of the Dutch Baptists.’ Some of the followers of Menno, who had collected and reorganized the ancient Waldensian Baptists, settled in Holland. After the Reformation in England, some who embraced Baptist sentiments, but had among them no one whom they considered as authorized to baptize, sent to Holland one of their number to be baptized and qualified; and thus true baptism came into England again from _these Mennonite Churches_. And it was from _these Churches_, and not directly from England, that the first Baptists came to this country and formed the Churches at Swanzey and Boston, as we have seen.

DIAGRAM OF CHURCH HISTORY.

EXPLANATION OF THE DIAGRAM.

THE period which has elapsed since his Church was organized by the Lord Jesus shortly after A. D. 30 down to the present time, we have divided into _FIVE great historical periods_, as indicated by the braces (⏞) in the left-hand column, which represent the succession of the Baptist Churches.

The 1st of these periods, it will be seen, extends from the year 30 to 250, during which time almost _all_ the Churches had the marks required by our tablet. The figures after pp. refer to the pages of this work in which their history is briefly recorded.

The 2d period extends from 250 to 650. P. 466.

The 3d from 650 to 1150. P. 465.

The 4th from 1150 to 1500. P. 462.

The 5th from 1500 to the present time. P. 458.

In each of these periods we have distinctly, though very briefly, shown the existence of the genuine and true Christian Church, conforming in all things to the Scripture pattern, and called by the names indicated in the Diagram. If our space would permit, we could make their history much more complete. Our object is merely to prove their _existence_.

The GREAT APOSTASY, foretold in the Scripture as the Mystery of Iniquity, the Man of Sin and the Son of Perdition, and Antichrist, is represented by the lines that go off at right-angles from the year 250 to 400. This Apostasy was of gradual growth, and was mainly characterized by the substitution of the Hierarchy, or the rule of the bishops and councils, for the independence of the Churches, by the union of Church and State under Constantine, and the introduction of unauthorized members by the baptism of infants, or rather of _minors_. It claimed to be the Holy Catholic or _Universal_ Church, and from the first became a _bloody persecutor_ of those in the left-hand column.

A little after 1500 it gave off, during what was called the Reformation, the bodies which were organized respectively by Luther, Calvin, and King Henry VIII., since known as the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Church of England. These have each given off several others, only a few of which are indicated on the Diagram, with the dates of their organization.

“It does not follow that because some in England sent to these ancient Churches for their baptism, they might not have found it nearer home. There is, to say the least, a very _strong probability_ that the original, pure Christianity brought into England in the apostles’ days was never quite extinguished, but that true Churches have existed, at least in Wales, from the very first; and it is certain the Lollards found a lodging there. In this country we have had ministers from England and Wales, and from Germany and Holland, all bringing with them the baptism which came down from the ancient Churches.”

“I think,” said Mr. Percy, “I could make this matter plainer by means of a diagram, or chart, which will bring the prominent facts before the eye at one view. Thus, let the straight lines upon the left of the page show the succession of true Churches, and those on the right the several departures from them, while on the margin we may put the dates of each important change.”

(See Diagram of Church History, on page 476.)

“Now, if you, or any one else, should feel dissatisfied with this brief but comprehensive history of the Baptist Churches, let me commend to your reading, Jones’s Church History, Robinson’s History of Baptism, De Anvers’ History of the Baptists, Ivimey’s History of English Baptists, Crosby’s History of the English Baptists, and last, and best of all, because they contain the essence of their statements in a smaller compass, those monuments of historical industry, Orchard’s History of the Foreign Baptists, and Orchard’s History of the English Baptists. These works are the result of _thirty years_ of careful and earnest study by one who had opportunities which very few possess of learning all that can now be known concerning these so long despised and persecuted people; and it is hard to say whether he deserves more credit for what he has written than for what he has left out. For if he had recorded all, his work would have been too large for many to read, or any to remember; but, with most admirable judgment, he has selected what was of most importance, and has arranged it with so much skill, and authenticated every statement by such abundant references to the most unexceptionable authorities, that it will be difficult for any candid mind, after reading these two works, to doubt that there have been Baptists all the time, from the day that Jesus was baptized (_eis_) into the river of Jordan, as recorded by Mark, in the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, down to the present time.

“Now, as the present Baptists hold the same doctrines, have the same organization, the same officers, and the same ordinances with the _first_ Churches, and as we have traced such all the way, independent of the great apostasy, we may give them the last mark also. And therefore Mr. Percy may now finish his diagram of the Baptist Churches.”

“I do not know so well about that,” said Theodosia, smiling. “I well remember when my husband, for a little time at least, had very serious doubts as to whether these were the Churches of Christ, upon a ground very different from any you have mentioned. He will recollect that one of his friends almost persuaded him that those could not be the Churches of Jesus Christ which starved his ministers, or, what is the same thing to the Churches, compelled them to forsake their sacred calling and engage in other labors for their subsistence.”

“Yes, indeed,” said Mr. Percy, “I do remember it; and though, for _my own part_, I have found nothing to complain of, yet, to this day, I cannot help feeling a sort of doubt as to any Church which I find pursuing this suicidal and ignoble policy. They way be right in doctrine, but they are surely very wrong in practice.”

DIAGRAM OF THE BAPTIST CHURCHES.

Signs or Marks of a True | | Marks of a Baptist Church. Church. | | --------------------------+--------------+---------------------------- 1st. It consists only of | | It consists of those only professed believers in | | who have publicly professed Christ. | | their faith in Christ.

“If you will take the trouble to observe a little more carefully,” replied Mr. Courtney, “you will find that whenever and wherever a minister has had the _faith_ and courage to risk all and give himself _entirely_ to his proper work, he has been provided for. The Lord does not intend that his ministers shall _get rich_; and when they leave their work to engage in money-making, he often blasts all their hopes, in various ways of his providence. But he does intend and has plainly and repeatedly _promised_ that they _shall have enough_ for the supply of their necessities; and this they will have _in the ministry_, if they will _devote themselves entirely to it_. I am ready to assure to any young man whom the Lord has qualified and called to preach, a comfortable support, provided he will give up all his powers of body and mind to the one work of his calling. I can do so because the Master has promised, and I can do so because I have been watching for years, and have not found his promise fail to any one who kept himself within the order of God’s providence—that is, who was ready to go and labor wherever God by his providence seemed to call him. I could, for the encouragement of such, relate the personal history of several, the beginnings of whose ministerial life were most unpromising, but who had determined to know nothing but Christ, and do nothing but preach; and are now enjoying in a green old age as many comforts as their neighbors, who have made it the business of their lives to get rich. But while I say this, I know very well that our Churches are most shamefully negligent of their duty. They give nothing near what they should give for the support of the ministry; but for this there are two reasons besides the parsimony of the brethren. I grant that this is one; and if it is not repented of, God will shortly take our candlestick away and leave our Churches to die out, as some Baptist Churches are already doing, and many others have done in the last thirty years. But I do not believe _this is the principal_ reason. That is to be found in the _early history_ of our Churches, when we were _taxed_ to pay other preachers than our own, to preach another gospel which we did not believe. The people felt the injustice of such taxation; our ministers declaimed against it; and, to show that _they_ were of a different class, that _they_ did not care for the pay, so that they had their love and saved their souls, they took a pride in preaching without compensation, and Providence, as it _then_ might have been their duty, enabled them to do it, and yet not to suffer. The people came gradually to think that what was thus done for a particular purpose, under peculiar circumstances, was something _required by the gospel_, and that ministers were _bound_ to preach _without any regular provision_ for their support. The ministers had only done as Paul did—waived their rights for the time being, that their gospel might not be reproached. Paul labored for his own support and that of those who were with him. Sometimes he would not be chargeable to the Churches for his support, but he was careful to maintain all the time that he had _a right_ to it. He was careful to show that it was the express command of the Lord Jesus that ‘those who preached the gospel should live by the gospel;’ and that he and others might forbear working if they would. It is not unlikely our preachers might have been less careful in this particular, and so the people came to feel at length that preachers should have no regular support, and if any one claimed it they were disposed to class him with their oppressors, whom they counted but as wolves, seeking to devour their substance, or, at least, mere hirelings who labored _only_ for the pay.

“Such opinions and feelings, deeply infused into a great mass of minds, would be eradicated but slowly, even by the most sedulous efforts of succeeding ministers. But here is the third reason: _These efforts have been wanting._ I blame our _preachers_ more than our people for this state of things. They have pandered to this corruption in the Churches, instead of boldly reproving it as they should.”

“But, my dear sir, to have boldly reproved it would have lost them the confidence and the affections of the flock, and prevented them from doing good in any other way.”

“So perhaps it might if they had begun by complaints concerning _themselves_. I would not have a minister always grumbling about _his own support_. To do so _will leave_ the impression that it is for the gratification of _his_ selfishness that he seeks to cure others of being selfish. A wise man who understands human nature will adopt another and more successful plan. He will show the people that the _Lord_ requires them to _give_, not to him, the preacher, but to the cause of Christ. He will present _frequent_ opportunities to them for _giving_ to others than himself. He will plead the cause of the destitute, and of the heathen. He will present the claims of missions, and of Bible societies, of Sunday schools, and other objects of Christian benevolence, until they have acquired a _habit of giving_. He will explain the teachings of the Word concerning ministerial support, and thus preach the _whole_ gospel, but without making any application of it to _his own case_. Let him do this, and his people will spontaneously begin to feel that they have done too little for their own pastor. Let _all_ our ministers begin at once to preach thus _prudently_ and kindly the _whole_ gospel, and the Churches will soon show that the fault was less in them than in the preachers themselves that they have been apparently so parsimonious.”

“I have already seen enough in my own experience,” said Mr. Percy, “to convince me of the truth of what you say.”

“I wish,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “we could have finished this conversation last Saturday, so that I might have gone into the water with that young man who was yesterday baptized. My last lingering doubt is gone. I thank you all for the patience with which you have borne with my slowness of faith, and the readiness with which you have assisted my inquiries.”

“We are more than repaid,” said Mr. Percy, “by the happy result.”

“And I,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “am heartily glad that you have come to some conclusion. Of course I had rather you had determined to be a Methodist; but any branch of the Church is better than none. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, and be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him. I trust, sir, you will now enjoy that peace which arises only from a consciousness of doing your duty.”

“I wish, my dear friend, I could persuade you to unite with me, and _do your duty also_.”

“O, as to that, I have always enjoyed myself very well among the Methodists. You know I glory in the name, and among them I expect to live and die; but I acknowledge, after what I have learned of the Baptist Churches, I shall hereafter feel a _little_ more respect for them than I have.”

On their way back to the Doctor’s residence, Theodosia reminded him that as they had now finished the investigation of the question, What is the Church? he was under promise to relate to her the means, or rather the arguments by which he was recovered from his infidelity and atheism, and led to receive the Scriptures as the word of God.

But as this conversation has no connection with the subject treated of in the present volume, we must postpone it for the present,[12] and only inform the reader that Doctor Thinkwell was baptized into the little Church at their next regular meeting, much to the joy of all God’s people there; and that our travelling party pursued their way to the mountains, where Mr. Percy’s strength was soon so far restored that he felt that he must hasten back to his flock in the South, where he is still residing, preaching Jesus, beloved by his people, and admired by the world. Theodosia is indeed his helper in the Lord. Her influence is felt in every department of his work; nor does he preach less touchingly, or labor less hopefully, since the dear little boy came to amuse his hours of relaxation with its childish prattle. Mrs. Ernest and old Aunt Chloe are the assistants of Theodosia in her domestic labors, and all of them delight to show how much they love their Saviour and his Church.

FOOTNOTES

[1] If my reader desires to see the argument on this subject, he can find it in a delightful work styled “The Infidel’s Daughter.”

[2] Theodosia, vol. i.,

[3] See the argument in “The Infidel’s Daughter,” which may, in some sort, be regarded as a continuation of the present work, by the same author.

[4] The reader will find the best apology which Mr. Courtney knew how to make for the parsimony of the Baptist churches farther on. It must be admitted that there is a most deplorable amount of truth in the allegations of Dr. Woodruff; and Mr. Percy’s fears of what would probably be the treatment of the churches to himself and family were not only natural, but more than justified by the facts which must have stared him in the face had he been at all familiar with the relationship which very generally in this country exists between the pastors and their people. It is a mournful truth that the churches do not give their ministers a reasonable support. It is lamentable to see how many of the best and noblest minds are driven out of the pulpit into the schoolroom, or the workshop, or other place of secular business, by the apprehension of absolute want. It is sad to think how many who would probably be most useful and efficient ministers are prevented by such fears from ever entering the ministry.

Few have the utter self-consecration of Mr. Percy, and scarcely any such a comforter to speak words of hope and trust to their doubting hearts. There is a fearful, an awful weight of responsibility resting upon our churches in regard to this subject. Let them look to it that God does not require at their hands the price of souls. Are there not _some_ of them who have good reason to fear that by their parsimony they have forfeited the right to be regarded as the true churches of Him who has expressly provided that they who preach the gospel shall live of the gospel?

[5] During the lifetime of Christ the _kingdom_ was established, but _the Church_, as the _executive_ of the kingdom, was not needful, for the King himself was present, and acted as his _own_ executive. The apostles who were with him, receiving instructions, may be regarded as in some sort his _ekklesia_. They were _an assembly of his people_, and were engaged in the _preparatory_ business pertaining to the kingdom. We may, without impropriety, therefore, consider the meetings of the apostles to receive the ordinances and laws of the kingdom from the mouth of Christ, as meetings of his _ekklesia_. We may consider the apostles as constituting a Church when they, after the Passover, received the ordinance of the supper with instructions for its continuance; and so we may consider that as a Church meeting in which Thomas saw and believed; and that in which Peter was restored to favor and specially charged to feed Christ’s sheep. And so each of those assemblies which gathered around the Saviour during the forty days that he remained upon the earth to receive instruction in the things pertaining to the kingdom, may be regarded as a Church meeting. We may consider the Church as _organized_ from the time that Christ called the twelve to be with him; but it was not till he was about to ascend that it received _authority to transact the business_ of the kingdom, _as his judiciary and executive_.

[6] The reader is respectfully desired to turn back to page 159 of the first volume of Theodosia, and read again, in connection with the subject the chapter on the introduction of sprinkling.

[7] The reader is referred for additional information upon this subject to pages 319⁠–⁠340, vol. i.

[8] The following is a part of the act of Parliament referred to, and under authority of which the three American bishops, White, Madison, and Prevoost were permitted to be consecrated. After making it lawful for the English bishops to proceed with the consecration in a certain way, the act goes on to say, that “No person shall be consecrated bishop in the manner herein provided, until the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Archbishop of York, for the time being, shall have first applied for and obtained his _majesty’s license_, by warrant, under his royal signet and sign-manual, empowering him to proceed to such consecration.

“Provided also, and it is hereby declared, that NO PERSON or PERSONS, consecrated to the office of a bishop in the manner aforesaid, _nor any person or persons deriving their consecration from or under any bishop so consecrated_, nor any person or persons admitted to the order of a deacon or a priest, by any bishop or bishops so consecrated, SHALL BE THEREBY ENABLED TO EXERCISE HIS OR THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICE WITHIN HIS MAJESTY’S DOMINIONS.”—(_Statutes of George III_)

[9] Can any Methodist answer it? Let each one try.

[10] The members of the society have the same right to control the discipline of their own body that a recent letter-writer says the people in France have _to vote_. He says, “_We have entire freedom to vote._ A ticket prepared for us by the government, and we may vote it if we please. But if we do not like the ticket, we can abstain from voting.”

[11] If any one should doubt that it was the express intention of the makers of the Discipline to place the whole power of retaining or excluding members in the hands of the preachers, he can easily be satisfied by consulting the explanatory notes at first appended to the Discipline, and at one time published with it. These notes were prepared by Bishops Coke and Asbury, who presided in the Conference which formed the Church, and made, or rather adopted, the Discipline. In reference to this matter, the bishops say, “The grand point to be determined is this: whether the final judgment of an offender, in respect both to the guilt and the censure, should be invested in the _minister_ or in the _people_? We shall therefore take a view of this part of our economy; first, in the light of Scripture, and secondly, in that of reason.” Then from Matthew xviii. 15, 17, “If thy brother shall trespass against thee,” etc., they come to the sage conclusion that “here is not a word said of the _Church’s_ authority, either to judge or to censure. _On the contrary, the WHOLE AUTHORITY IS EXPRESSLY DELIVERED INTO THE HANDS OF THE MINISTER._” So that, if they intended by the provisions of the Discipline to place _any part_ of the authority in _the Church_, they belied their own convictions and stultified their own explanation of the word of God.

“But it may be urged,” they go on to say, “that the offence must _be first mentioned_ to the Church before the offender can be scripturally excluded. ‘Tell it to the Church,’ says our Lord. And so we do. It is merely for the sake of convenience that in large societies we tell it only to a committee, or representation of the society, or do abundantly more—even _make them witnesses of the whole trial_. But if such societies were to desire it, we would tell the whole unto the Church at large. _But still, we must declare from the plain sense of the word of God_ that our Lord invests the _minister WITH THE WHOLE AUTHORITY BOTH OF JUDGMENT AND OF CENSURE_.”—(_Notes on Discipline_, chap. ii, sec. 8 as quoted in Emory’s _History of the Discipline_, pp. 331⁠–⁠288.)

[12] The reader will find it in the volume styled “The Infidel’s Daughter.”

COMPREHENSIVE INDEX TO THE ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST VOLUME OF THEODOSIA; OR, THE TEN NIGHT’S STUDY OF SCRIPTURE BAPTISM.