Theodosia Ernest. Volume II.: or, Ten Days’ Travel in Search of the Church. (continued 8)

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 Catholic Church. The Methodist Episcopal Church.

1. Its government is episcopal, or the rule of bishops. 1. Its government is episcopal. It is ruled by bishops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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 unregenerate 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 unconverted, still unregenerate, 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.”