Chapter XXIX: Introduction (12)

Text size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DIAGRAM OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Here is something more,” said Mr. Percy, “on the 30th page: ‘Let none he received into the Church until they are recommended by a leader with whom they have met at least six months on trial, and have been baptized, and shall, on examination by the minister in charge before the Church, give satisfactory assurances both of the correctness of their faith, and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church.’”

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

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

“You need not have gone to Mr. Wesley,” said Mr. Percy, “for the Discipline itself teaches very plainly that baptism is the door of entrance to the Church, and consequently that all the baptized are, by that act, made members of the Church. See the Ritual for Baptism, chap. 5th, sec. 2d, where the minister, coming to the font, is instructed to say, ‘Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, and that our Saviour saith, none can enter into the kingdom of God except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost, I beseech you to call upon God the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant this child the thing which by nature he cannot have, that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and _received into Christ’s holy Church_, and be made a lively member of the same.’ And thus exhorted, the people, through the minister, are taught to pray that the child now to be baptized may receive the fullness of God’s grace, and _ever remain_ in the number of his faithful and elect children’—precisely the same language which is used farther on in reference to the baptized adults; and it would seem that if adults are made members by baptism, the infants are by the same process. Like the Presbyterians, however, they repudiate the act, and practically deny the membership. They give them no more Church privileges than if they had never had the holy water sprinkled on their foreheads, and are thus guilty of the inconsistency of refusing to commune with, or recognize as Church members, those whom they seem so anxious to bring into the Church by baptism.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NINTH DAY’S TRAVEL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Then you are a Baptist, Aunt Rachel.”

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

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

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

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

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

“How do you know that, Aunt Rachel?”

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

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

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

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

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

“I am glad to hear you talk so,” said Theodosia, “for I feel that _we_ need more light upon this subject. I do not think we understand just what the Methodist Church _is_ in regard to her organization and her membership. You must know, sir, that we think we have ascertained, from a careful examination of the Scriptures, that in the Churches established by the apostles, _none_ were admitted to membership _who had not professed a saving faith in Christ_; or, in other words, that they were designed to be composed only of converted people. Now if this is so, you will see that we cannot recognize any organization as the true Church of Christ which does not adopt the same rule, and receive as members _only_ those who have given evidence of genuine conversion. Now in talking about your Church yesterday, we were in doubt whether you did not admit the professedly _unconverted_; that is, those who have made no profession of saving faith.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Certainly we do.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Next

Comments

Theodosia ErnestChapter XXIX: Introduction (12)

0%37 min left in chapter