Theodosia Ernest. Volume II.: or, Ten Days’ Travel in Search of the Church. (continued 7)

“‘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.

Signs or Marks of a True Church. Marks of the Episcopal Church.

1st. It consists only of professed believers in Christ. [No] It makes members of children, who do not know their right hand from their left.

2d. Its members have been baptized upon a profession of their faith. [No] They were sprinkled when they were incapable of believing.

3d. It is a local organization, and independent of all others. [No] It is a vast hierarchy, and not a local organization.

4th. It has Christ alone for its King and Lawgiver, and recognizes no other authority above its own. [No] It is subject to the king and Parliament in England, and to the bishops in this country.

5th. Its members have become such by their own voluntary act. [No] They were made such in childhood, without their knowledge or consent.

6th. It holds as articles of faith the fundamental doctrines of the gospel. [Partially] The high-Church party holds to salvation by the efficacy of the sacraments.

7th. It began with Christ, and has continued to the present time. [No] It began with Henry VIII., or if before his time, it had apostatized.

8th. It never persecutes for conscience’ sake. [No] It was many years a bloody persecutor.

9th. No apostate Church can be a Church of Christ. [No] If not apostate itself, it was the creature and offspring of Antichrist.

“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?”