Theodosia Ernest. Volume II.: or, Ten Days’ Travel in Search of the Church. (continued 9)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“‘Question. But are we not dissenters?’

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

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

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

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

“And, six years later, on page 13:

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

“‘Answer. By all means.’

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

“‘Answer. Yes.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“‘Signed by ‘Thomas Coke, ‘Francis Asbury.’

“Now, in the Address appended to the Discipline of the Church, North, published in 1854, we find the following:

“‘We esteem it our duty and our privilege most earnestly to recommend to you, as members of our Church, our Form of Discipline, which has been founded on the experience of a long series of years; as, also, on the remarks we have made on ancient and modern Churches.

“‘Signed by ‘Beverly Waugh. ‘Thomas A. Morris. ‘Edmund S. Janes. ‘Levi Scott. ‘Matthew Simpson. ‘Osmon C. Baker. ‘Edward R. Ames.’

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

“‘We esteem it our duty and privilege most earnestly to recommend to you, as members of our Church, our Form Of Discipline, which has been founded on the experience of a long series of years; as, also, on the observations and remarks we have made on ancient and modern Churches.

“‘Signed by ‘Joshua Soule. ‘James O. Andrew. ‘William Capers. ‘Robert Paine.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagram of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

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

1st. It consists only of professed believers in Christ. [No] It consists in part of baptized infants, and of unconverted seekers. See pp. 306⁠–⁠317.

2d. Its members have been baptized upon a profession of their faith. [No] Most of its members have not been baptized at all, since sprinkling and pouring are not baptism; or, if at all, in infancy, without personal profession of faith. See pp. 317⁠–⁠330.

3d. It is a local organization, and independent of all others. [No] It is subject to the preacher. It cannot even decide who shall be its own members. It is subject to the bishop. It cannot even choose its own pastor. It is dependent for its very existence as a church. See pp. 330⁠–⁠342.

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

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

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

7th. It began with Christ, and has continued to the present time. [No] It was conceived and established by Mr. Wesley and other men, and began in 1784, by the authority of two bishops and sixty preachers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagram of the Presbyterian Church.

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

1st. It consists only of professed believers in Christ. [No] It consists of believers and their offspring, and all persons baptized in infancy. See p. 403.

2d. Its members have been baptized upon a profession of their faith. [No] The children of Church-members are regarded as members even without baptism at all. P. 403⁠–⁠408.

3d. It is a local organization, and independent of all others. [No] It is a great confederation, of which each local society is but a part. P. 404.

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

5th. Its members have become such by their own voluntary act. [No] Its members are most of them born such without their knowledge or consent. P. 403.

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

7th. It began with Christ, and has continued to the present time. [No] It is of comparatively modern origin, and came through John Calvin and the Reformers of Geneva out of Rome. The American organization was completed in 1789. P. 409.

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

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

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

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

Diagram of the Lutheran Church.

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

1st. It consists only of professed believers in Christ. [No] It consists, so far as practicable, like the Church of England, of the whole population, made members by baptism in their infancy.

2d. Its members have been baptized upon a profession of their faith. [No] Its members have mostly been made in infancy, before they knew there was a Christ.

3d. It is a local organization, and independent of all others. [No] Each society is but a part of a great ecclesiastical establishment.

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

5th. Its members have become such by their own voluntary act. [No] Its members are made such in infancy, and, where it has the power, by compulsion of the law.

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

7th. It began with Christ, and has continued to the present time. [No] It began with Martin Luther, and came out of Rome.

8th. It never persecutes for conscience’ sake. [No] It persecuted even in Luther’s day; and in every country where it has the power, if fines and imprisons Baptists to the present day. Pp. 416⁠–⁠422.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diagram of the Congregational Church.

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

1st. It consists only of professed believers in Christ. [No] They consist in part of the baptized children of believers.

2d. Its members have been baptized upon a profession of their faith. [No] Its members have mostly been made in infancy, before they knew there was a Christ.

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

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

5th. Its members have become such by their own voluntary act. [No] Its members were mostly made such before they could know what was done to them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoidable Ignorance Is No Excuse For Error or For Sin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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