Chapter XXXI: Introduction (14)

Text size

“If you will promise, madam, that you and your good husband will not get angry with me for my plainness of speech, I will engage to _prove_ to you that they _have done it_ again and again. I will show you from the different editions of your own Discipline that you _have_ changed the terms of admission, or the conditions of membership, at least half a dozen times already, in the few years of your existence as a Church.”

“I am sure, sir, our curiosity itself will keep us in a good humor.”

“Certainly,” exclaimed her husband, “we will be very much obliged to Mr. Courtney for any information which he may be able to give us concerning the history of the Methodist Church; and as for his plainness of speech, we have already given him full proof that we are not offended by it. The truth is, I _enjoy_ it: I _love_ to hear a man speak right out all that is in his heart.”

“Then,” continued Mr. Courtney, “I will go on to talk freely. I know I am sometimes blunt, nay, almost rude of speech, and I thank you for your good-natured endurance of the hard things (as they may seem to you) which conscience squires me to say.”

“Never mind apologies, Mr. Courtney, go on with your argument.”

“Well, sir, your Church, _as a Church_, dates its existence from Baltimore, Maryland, about Christmas of the year seventeen hundred and eighty-four; it is yet, therefore, much less than a hundred years old. It was created then and there by sixty preachers, who say in the Minutes of the Conference published in 1785, ‘At this Conference it was unanimously agreed that circumstances made it expedient for us to become a separate body, under the denomination of the “Methodist Episcopal Church.”’ And again they say, ‘We formed ourselves into an independent Church.’ From this time, therefore, I will count the changes. If you claim an earlier origin, and will permit me to go back to what in your Discipline is called ‘the Rise of Methodism,’ in 1729, I will find many others. But as you did not _claim_ to be a _Church of Christ_ until 1784, I think it fair to make that our starting-point.

“Now here is a little book of 364 pages, published by Lane & Scott, No. 200 Mulberry street, New York, in 1851, styled the ‘_History of the Discipline_,’ by Robert Emory, who was, as I learn from the preface, himself a Methodist, and a Methodist minister, and who has certainly made a most valuable contribution to the literature of your denomination. That our friends here may understand precisely the character of the work, and see how much reliance should be placed upon the statements, I will read to you a portion of the

“‘PREFACE.

“‘When a young Methodist preacher enters, in accordance with the requirements of the direction of his Church, upon the study of its Discipline, he is curious to know when and by whom that Discipline was framed. He learns, indeed, from the book itself, that the General Conference has “full powers to make rules and regulations,” under certain “limitations and restrictions;” but who imposed those “limitations and restrictions,” and to what extent has the General Conference used its powers? There is internal evidence that the present Discipline was not composed at one time. At what periods, then, were its several parts introduced, and what modifications have they undergone? These are points not only of curious inquiry, but essential often to right interpretation; but they are points on which students, generally, can obtain no satisfactory information. In our civil governments the statutes are scattered through the several volumes of laws which have been published from time to time, and therefore these are all preserved; but in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Discipline, as revised at each General Conference, being in itself complete, supplants all that had gone before it, and the previous editions are cast aside as of no further use. This has continued until now nearly sixty years have elapsed since the organization of the Church, and the Discipline has undergone about twenty distinct revisions. Where, then, shall the student go to find these successive editions? If he resort to the libraries of the eldest preachers, they are not there: to the library of the Book Concern, they are not there: to the archives of the General Conference, still they are not to be found. Despairing of success in this pursuit, he may, perhaps, examine the Journals of the General Conference, (though, from the nature of the case, this is a privilege which few can enjoy;) but here he will find that all prior to 1800 are missing, and that those subsequent to that date convey no accurate information as to the changes in the Discipline; because in the alterations references are made to the chapter, section, question, page, etc., which cannot be understood without having a copy of the their Discipline in hand. And, moreover, because at each General Conference the subsequent publication of the Discipline is intrusted to a committee invested with powers (often largely discretionary) as to the selection, arrangement, and wording of the several parts; and no report of their proceedings is entered on the journal.

“‘The embarrassment which is here supposed in the mind of the student of the Discipline, is precisely such as the author himself experienced. In such a dilemma he endeavored to collect for himself a set of the different Disciplines. Having his lot cast amid the earliest seats of Methodism in this country, he had the good fortune of rescuing one old Discipline after another from its obscure resting-place, until at length, with one exception, the series was completed, and the rich gratification was enjoyed of tracing, in the original documents themselves, the progress of the Discipline from the first simple series of questions and answers to its present more elaborate structure of parts, chapters, and sections. The collection thus made could not be rendered universally accessible. The author has thought, therefore, that he would be doing a service to students of the Discipline generally, and especially to his brethren in the ministry, by publishing the results of his investigations in a condensed form. Such was the origin of the present work. In the preparation of it the author has aimed at nothing more than the most perfect accuracy in the statement of facts, and the most lucid arrangement which the nature of the case admitted.… The changes in the form and arrangement of the Discipline are noticed in the first book, and in the second, the changes in its contents. That these last might be stated as precisely as possible, _the very words of the Discipline are quoted_.’

“You see, therefore,” said Mr. Courtney, looking up from the book, “that we have here the very words of the Discipline, quoted by a Methodist minister for the instruction of his own brethren, and showing precisely what changes have from time to time been made. I propose to follow up these changes only so far as they modify the terms of admission into the Church, and the conditions of membership after admission.

“Let us now turn to page 26, and examine the Discipline of 1784, which was the first. And here at the very beginning is an announcement which shows how little the authority of Christ was regarded, and proves that though it was now to be called a Church of Christ, it was as much as ever the Church of Wesley.

“‘QUESTION 2. _What can be done in order to the future union of the Methodists?_

“‘ANSWER. _During the life of the Rev. Mr. Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the gospel, READY, IN MATTERS OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT, TO OBEY HIS COMMANDS._’

“This neglect of all reference to the word of God or the authority of Christ, was in perfect harmony with the action of the first Conference held in America, some eleven years before. (See page 9.) ‘The Methodist societies were originally governed by the General Rules drawn up by the Wesleys in 1743, and by the regulations adopted in the Conferences which were held yearly from 1744. These regulations were first published in the Minutes from year to year. They were afterwards collected together and printed, with some slight alterations, in a tract entitled “The Large Minutes.” The same rules and regulations, so far as applicable to their condition, governed the Methodist societies in America from the time of their first formation, in 1766. _At the first Conference in 1773, the preachers formally recognized_ “the doctrine and discipline of the Methodists,” as contained in the English Minutes, to be “_the SOLE rule of their conduct._”’ (Ans. to quest. 2, page 10.)

“So, in determining their form of government, they made no references to the Scripture, but say that, ‘_Following the counsel of John Wesley_, who recommended the episcopal form, we thought it best to become an episcopal Church.’

“But this is nothing to our present purpose. We want the changes in the terms of admission, and conditions of membership. And, first, it appears on page 17, that those coming into the society were to be received only after three months’ probation; but as soon as _the Church_ was formed she changed this law; and on page 35 we read, ‘How shall we prevent improper persons from insinuating into the society? Ans. Give tickets to none till they are recommended by a leader with whom they have met at least _two_ months.’ _This was all_ that was requisite for Church-membership for the first five years. Any one could be a member without further ceremony if the leader certified to his good conduct for _two_ months, and the _preacher_ would receive him. There was no _baptism_, no _profession of_ faith, no examination before the society—nothing at all but the _two_ months’ probation; but in 1789, the Conference decreed that they must wait four months longer, and the probation was lengthened to _six_ months, where it now stands; but still there was _no baptism_, no _profession_, no examination before the society. No one was consulted but the preacher, and he decided on the recommendation of the _leader_ after six months’ probation in the observance of the _rules_; and these rules, though they require strict morality, and the observance of external religious _forms_, say not a word about true repentance towards God, or faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

“Surely, Mr. Courtney, you must misunderstand the writer. He cannot mean to say that the Methodist Church admitted members without _baptism_, or any profession of faith, for five years.”

“Yes, madam, it did so—_not for five years only, but FOR OVER FIFTY YEARS._ It extended the probation at the end of five years; but it was not till _fifty-two_ years after its organization at Baltimore, in 1784—not until 1836, that baptism was required as a term of membership. This doubtless seems very strange to you. It _is strange_, even to astonishment; but it is, nevertheless, most woefully true. Here is the book; you can read it for yourself. (P. 182.)”

“‘1856. _It was now made a requisite for admission into the Church that the candidates have been baptized._’”

“If it had been a requisite before, how could it then, in 1836, have been ‘made a requisite?’

“So, you see, for fifty-two years the Methodist Church required, as terms of membership, only the two months’ probation for the first five years, and the six months for the other thirty-seven years; but during all the time, _no baptism and no profession_. And it was not until 1840, four years after baptism had been made a term of admission, that any profession of faith was required; for you may read on the same page, 182:

“‘1840. The following was added to the requisites for admission into the Church:

“‘And shall, on examination by the minister in charge, before the Church, give satisfactory assurances, both of the correctness of their faith and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church.’

“Now, without inquiring any further, we have _three times_ seen a fundamental change in the conditions on which members could be _received_. How many more they may have made we need not now take time to examine. I will, however, call your attention to at least one more, which you will find on page 44, sec. 9: ‘_No person holding slaves shall in future be admitted into society or to the Lord’s Supper_, [they would not even admit him on probation,] till he previously complies with these rules.’ That is, the rules which we shall presently give at length, and which positively require the emancipation of the slaves, whether they desire it or not. This rule was suspended the next year after it was made, (see page 80,) but was not repealed till twelve years afterwards, when it was enacted that ‘No slaveholder should be received into society till the preacher who has the oversight of the circuit has spoken to him freely and faithfully on the subject of slavery.’ (Page 275.) It does not appear what the preacher was to say, nor whether it was necessary that what he said should have any particular effect on the slaveholder’s mind or conduct. But he could not come in till he had been talked to.

“But now, let us look at the conditions of _continuance_ in this Church after members have actually been admitted. How many times these have been changed I cannot positively say; but I am sure I can point you to more than you would believe except upon the testimony of your own brother minster.

“In the first Discipline, adopted in 1784, we have already seen that to _become_ a member, it was necessary to have been two months on trial; but now, what was required to _remain_ a member? It would seem, from page 87, that members ‘_must not marry unbelievers or unawakened persons_.’ ‘Question 21. What can be done to put a stop to this? Answer. Let every preacher publicly enforce the apostle’s caution: “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” 2. Let him openly declare that _whoever does this will be expelled from the society_,’ etc.

“So here, at first, the penalty was expulsion; but, in 1804, (see page 187,) ‘the punishment for violating the rule was changed from expulsion to putting back on trial for six months.’ And after thirty-two years more, the penalty was, in 1836, (see page 188,) ‘entirely done away with.’ So, what was a sin demanding expulsion, was so much _less_ sinful after twenty years, that it only required a second probation to atone for it; and after thirty-two years longer, had ceased to be a sin at all deserving punishment. She who married an unawakened man for her first husband, must have been expelled; and for marrying the second of the same sort, put back upon probation; and for marrying the third of the same sort had she lived long enough to do so, would have not even been reproved. Surely men are wiser than their Master! But excuse me; I will show you another of these changes in the condition of membership.

“Let us now turn to page 43 of this valuable book, and see what were the _rules_ adopted by _the Church_, at the time of its organization, _on the subject of slavery_, and see if we can ascertain how many times slaveholding was and was not made a condition of expulsion. We have already seen how it affected the terms of _admission_; we wish now to inquire how it operated on those of continuance. I will read:

“‘Question 42. What methods can we take to extirpate slavery?

“‘Answer. We are deeply conscious of the impropriety of making _new terms of communion_ for a religious society already established, excepting on the most pressing occasion; and such we esteem the practice of holding our fellow-creatures in slavery. We view it as contrary to the golden law of God, on which hang all the law and the prophets, and the unalienable rights of mankind, as well as every principle of the Revolution, to hold in the deepest debasement, in a more abject slavery than is to be found in any part of the world, except America, so many souls that are capable of the image of God.

“‘We therefore think it our most bounden duty to take immediately some effectual method to extirpate this abomination from among us, and for that purpose we _add the following to the rules of our society, namely_:

“‘1. Every member of our society who has slaves in his possession, shall, within twelve months after notice given to him by the assistant, (which notice the assistants are required immediately and without any delay to give in their respective circuits,) legally execute and record an instrument whereby he emancipates and sets free every slave in his possession who is between the ages of forty and forty-five, immediately, or, at farthest, when they arrive at the age of forty-five.

“‘And every slave who is between the ages of twenty-five and forty, immediately, or, at farthest, at the expiration of five years from the date of the said instrument. And every slave who is between the ages of twenty and twenty-five, immediately, or, at farthest, when they arrive at the age of thirty. And every slave under the age of twenty, as soon as they arrive at the age of twenty-five at farthest. And every infant born in slavery, after the above-mentioned rules are complied with, immediately on its birth.

“‘2. Every assistant shall keep a journal, in which he shall regularly minute down the names and ages of all the slaves belonging to all the masters in his respective circuit, and also the date of every instrument executed and recorded for the manumission of the slaves, with the name of the court, book, and folio, in which the said instruments respectively shall have been recorded; which journal shall be handed down in each circuit to the succeeding assistants.

“‘3. In consideration _that these rules form a new term of communion_, every person concerned who will not comply with them, shall have the liberty quietly to withdraw himself from our society within the twelve months succeeding the notice given as aforesaid, _otherwise the assistant shall exclude him from the society._

“‘4. No person, so voluntarily withdrawn or excluded, _shall ever partake of the Supper of the Lord_ with the Methodists, till he complies with the above requisitions.

“‘5. No person holding slaves shall in future be admitted into society, or to the Lord’s Supper, till he previously complies with these rules concerning slavery.

“‘N. B. These rules are to affect the members of our society no further than they are consistent with the laws of the States in which they reside. [That is, if the instrument of emancipation could not be legally made and recorded, and would be of no binding force, it need not be done.]

“‘And respecting our brethren in Virginia that are concerned, and after due consideration of their peculiar circumstances, we allow them two years from the notice given to consider the expedience of compliance with or non-compliance with these rules.’

“Now did ever the veriest despot of any nation on the globe use language more peremptory than this? ‘Every member who has slaves _shall_ legally execute and record,’ etc.; and, to be sure that the order is obeyed, the circuit-rider, as provost-marshal, is to keep a book with every name recorded; and, if they do not comply within the year, must cast them out—except the dear brethren in _Virginia_, who, I suppose, had no chance to hide behind the State laws, and they are graciously ‘_allowed_’ to live in sin _two_ years instead of one.

“But it is not for the arrogance, or folly, or unscripturalness of the law that I called your attention to it; but to show you that they themselves _openly avowed_ and fearlessly _exercised_ the right to legislate for the Church of Christ, even to the extent of making _new terms of communion_, which Christ or his apostles never thought of making, and which they themselves presently receded from.

“I would like to have been present when the ‘assistant’ started round his circuit, with copies of the law and the slave-book in his hand, to make his ‘record.’ He comes to the house of a good old Virginia planter, who loves his servants, and who loves his Saviour, and has long been a member of ‘the society.’

“‘My dear brother,’ says the ‘assistant,’ ‘I suppose you are aware that we are now no longer societies, but _a Church of Jesus Christ_.’

“‘Yes, I have heard so, and think it a very good plan.’

“‘I have called in to get the names and ages of your _servants_. You know =we= passed a law that you must set them free so soon as they arrive all certain ages, specified in the document, a copy of which I now present you for your instruction.’

“‘YOU passed a law commanding me to free my slaves!’

“‘Yes, sir; and if you don’t promptly comply, I am positively instructed to _excommunicate you from the Church_, unless you will quietly _withdraw_, which you are at liberty to do if you see fit. Moreover, it is by this law made my duty to take down the names and ages of all the slaves belonging to all the masters in my circuit; so, as am in haste this morning, you will please furnish me the catalogue at once.’

“So saying, he draws up to a table, opens his book, gets out his pen and pocket inkstand.

“‘Now, sir, if you please. I am ready. Begin with the oldest, and let me have names and ages in regular order, down to the infants; and, remember, those born hereafter are born free; for so =we= have determined it.’

“‘=We=? whom do you mean by =we=?’

“‘The Conference, sir, consisting of the travelling preachers and bishops.’

“‘My dear brother, you know I have always been a consistent Methodist?’

“‘Yes, Brother A., I can certify to that.’

“‘And you had no fault to find with me until you passed this law, which could justify my exclusion from the Church?’

“‘Certainly not; nor have we now, if you will comply with our demands, and promptly free your slaves.’

“‘But my slaves and I have grown up together. I received them from my parents, and feel bound to care for them; and I conscientiously believe I can do more for their temporal and spiritual good, as slaves, bound to obey me, than I could if they were turned loose to prey upon society, as, like a set of lazy vagabonds, they would be sure to do. For a slave’s idea of freedom, you know, is mere release from any obligation to labor.’

“‘I cannot help what your conscientious convictions may be; _=our= law_ must be obeyed, or you must leave _the Church_—quietly, if you will, forcibly if we must.’

“‘But, my dear brother, my slaves will most of them prefer to stay in their present condition. They are not only better off than “_free negros_,” but they have the sense to know it. You may go out and ask them, one by one; and if you can find any that are willing to leave their old master, you may take them with you, and let the Conference provide for their wants, temporal and spiritual, as faithfully as I have.’

“‘It does not matter, sir, whether they desire freedom or not; or whether they would be worse or better off by being free. You must set them free, or leave _our Church; for so =we= have decreed_.’

“‘Well, my dear brother, this takes me somewhat suddenly, and I would like to think about it.’

“‘Certainly, we give slaveholders in other States only a year, but to _Virginians_ we allow _two_ years, during which you may consider, and _withdraw_ if you don’t choose to comply with our law, or be excommunicated.’

“‘O, I don’t want two years, I only want just time enough to _search the Scriptures_. I understand that the Methodist Church is the _Church of Christ_. Is that not so?’

“‘Certainly, we are the Church of Christ and of God.’

“‘But I have somehow gotten hold of the idea that Christ himself was the author of the laws of his Church. I am an old man, and may be old-fashioned in my opinions, but I don’t exactly feel that I am bound by _your law_, though I am entirely willing to submit to the authority of _Christ_. Did you find _in the Bible_ that slaveholders could not be members of _Christ’s Church_? You are in a great hurry, I know, but please take a _few_ minutes to show me the texts. I was a master, and had been for years, when it pleased God to convert my soul and make me a Christian. I very naturally went to the _Bible_ to learn my duty as a master: I don’t see where else I could have gone. I read there that I must treat my servants kindly and justly, and _this_, you know, I have always tried to do. But I did not see any thing which seemed to contemplate the dissolution of the relation of master and servant, or, as it is in the original, master and slave. On the contrary, I found that the Christians who were slaves were to be _obedient_ to their masters, and to do them good and faithful service; and especially _they that have believing masters_.’

“‘But, brother, you know _the Conference has made the law_, and the Churches _must obey_.’

“‘But what if I choose to obey God rather than the Conference? What if I deny the right of Conference to compel me to free my servants? What if I ask them to read the language of Paul to Timothy, sixth chapter, first and second verses: “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed; and they that have _believing_ masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful [literally, “_believing_”] and beloved, partakers of the benefit.” _Paul_ said if any man taught otherwise than this, (verse 3,) “he is proud, [or, literally, “_a fool_,”] knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words,” etc. What if I say that not only Paul but Peter recognizes the relation of masters and servants among Christian people and Church members, just as plainly as he does that of husbands and wives? What if I ask them to show me where Jesus ever sent _his_ ministers out with a book under their arm to take an inventory of his people’s slaves, so that the Church might know if they were freed; or where Peter, or Paul, or John, or James, or any other apostle, made the manumission of slaves a prerequisite to _communion with the Church of CHRIST_.’

“‘O, as to that, we grant that it is a _new term of communion_, not made by _Christ_ or the _apostles_. We expressly state in the law itself that it is _new_, and express our regret at the necessity for its enactment.’

“‘Then what if I respectfully decline to acquiesce in your _new terms of membership_, and prefer to be governed by the old law of Christ?’

“‘Then, sir, after two years you can no longer commune with the Methodists; and if you lived in any other State but Virginia, we would turn you out in _one_ year. You may be thankful, sir, that you live in Virginia.’”

“I wonder, said the Planter, musingly, how it happened that Paul forgot, when writing to Philemon about his slave Onesimus, to tell him that if he did not file a deed of manumission in the county clerk’s office within one year, or in two years at most, he would be excommunicated from the Church, unless he saw fit in the meantime quietly to withdraw, and go back among the wicked people of the world.”

“Perhaps the Assistant found too many who preferred excommunication to obedience; for though the law was put forth with so much force of words, the next Conference resolved to _suspend_ its execution for the present, and the matter stood thus for over ten years, when the Conference declared that they _were more than ever convinced of the great evil_ of the African slavery which yet exists in the United States, and decreed as follows. Here is the law already referred to requiring the slaveholder to _be talked to_:

“‘No slaveholder shall be received into society till the preacher who has the oversight of the Church has spoken to him freely and faithfully on the subject of slavery.’

“It seems that after being _told_ of the sin, he might bring it with him into the Church, and keep it there if he saw fit. But slaveholders could not occupy _official_ stations in the Church without giving security for the emancipation of their slaves so soon as the laws of the State would permit; and if any member _sold_ a slave, he was _to be excluded_. If any one bought a slave, he was to execute a writing to set him free at the expiration of a time fixed by the Quarterly Conference, _or be excluded._

“In 1804, the Conference passed an act declaring that ‘the members of our societies in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee _shall be exempted from these rules_.’ So that what in _other_ States was so great _a sin_ as to _exclude men from the Church_ of Christ, was in _these four_ favored States _no sin at all_, or at least none that required the attention of the Church of Christ.

“This law was changed again in 1808, so as to permit and authorize each of the _Annual_ Conferences to make their own regulations relative to buying and selling slaves.

“And in 1820 this was repealed, and other enactments made, which have since been remodelled again, until the chapter on slavery as it now stands in the Discipline was ordained. When the Conference North or South will see fit to enact some _other new terms of membership_ in relation to this subject, no one can tell.”

“Let us thank God,” exclaimed Mr. Percy, “that the terms of communion in the true Church were made by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and must be always what they have ever been. The Church that changes then is not a Church of Christ. But what has all this long story about slavery to do with our investigation?”

“I introduced it,” said Mr. Courtney, “merely as _one_ of many instances in which the Conference has claimed and exercised the right to _make laws_ and change laws for the Church, affecting even the right to membership, and in which the Church had recognized its right, and thus I show _that she has OTHER lawgivers_ besides Christ.

“I might have showed you this from her changes of her laws concerning baptism. In her first Discipline the Conference said, ‘Let every adult person and the parents of every child to be baptized have their choice either of immersion or sprinkling,’ [nothing said of pouring,] and let the elder or deacon conduct himself accordingly.

“Some years after this, in 1786, it was decreed that _pouring_ also might be used; and the same authority that left out _pouring_ at first, may, if pouring be a mode of baptism, with equal propriety leave out _immersion_ at the next meeting.

“In their first Discipline a law was made _authorizing_ and _requiring_ the _rebaptism_ of certain persons, but _now_ you have no such law.

“‘Question 46. What shall be done with those who were baptized in infancy, but now have scruples concerning the validity of infant baptism?

“‘Answer. Remove their scruples by argument if you can; if not, the office may be performed by immersion or sprinkling, as the person desires.’

“In 1786 this was repealed; so that if a Methodist preacher should _now_ venture to be an Anabaptist, [rebaptizer,] he does it on his own responsibility, and without authority of either the word of God _or the Discipline_.

“But why need we delay upon the application of our test? The Roman Catholic Church itself is not more abjectly subject to the popes and councils than is the Methodist Episcopal Church to the bishops and Conferences. In fact, in almost every essential feature of their _organization_ there is a remarkable resemblance between the two.”

“I have,” said Mr Percy, “been struck with that fact as we have gone along, and have amused myself by drawing a parallel between them, thus:

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

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

“Well, I declare,” exclaimed the Methodist lady, “we ought to be obliged to you for your good opinion of us. I have always understood that we did not stand _very_ high in the estimation of Baptists, but had no idea before that you counted our bishops no better than the pope, and our people no better than Roman Catholics.”

“Excuse me, madam, but I neither said nor meant any such thing. I say nothing at all of the _personal_ goodness or badness of your bishops or your people. They may be, and I have no doubt many of them are, devotedly pious, self-denying men. It is not the _personal character_ of you ministers or members that I am speaking of, but of the _constitutional_ character of that _organization_ called the ‘_Methodist Episcopal CHURCH_.’ And of _that_ I _do_ say, and I wish that every Methodist in all the land could hear me say, and would by hearing be led to examine into the subject, and see for himself if I do not tell the simple truth when I say that in these eight particulars, at least, it is remarkably similar to that of the Roman Antichrist, the MAN of SIN and SON of PERDITION.

“I might extend the parallel much farther, but I have confined it to the point we are now investigating, that is, whether the Methodist societies, as such, _have any other lawgiver but Christ, and are obliged to submit to any other government than his._”

“I think, sir,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “that you rather exceeded your authorities when you added your _last_ item to the parallel which you arranged with so much lawyerlike ingenuity. The testimony, sir, will not sustain _that_ allegation, whatever may be the case with the other seven. Look at the Discipline, sir: you cannot surely be so blind as not to discover that it gives to the society itself the right to judge as to who shall be full Church members; for otherwise, why should the Discipline provide that the candidates should be examined ‘_before_ the society?’ If the preacher is sole judge of the matter, why bring it to the notice of the society at all?”

“I do not know, sir, unless it were for the mere purpose of deluding the members with the idea that they have some sort of power, while, in fact, they have none. If you think I misunderstand the purport of the Discipline, perhaps you will admit the explanation of your own bishops. In their notes on the Discipline, (chap. i., sec. 10,) as quoted by your own brother, Emory, in this ‘History of the Discipline,’ pp. 304–307, we read, ‘5. He [the minister] is also to receive members on trial, and into society, according to the form of Discipline. _If this authority were invested in the society,_ or any part of it, the great work of revival would soon be at an end.’… ‘Glory be to God, all our societies throughout the world, now amounting to upwards of one hundred and sixty thousand, have been raised under grace by our _ministers and preachers_. _They_ and they _only_ are their spiritual fathers under God, and none can feel for them as _they_ do. It is true that on great revivals the spiritually halt, and blind, and lame, will press in crowds _into the Church of God_; and they are welcome to all that we can do for their invaluable souls, till they prove unfaithful to convincing or converting grace. And we will not throw back their souls on the wicked world, while groaning under the burden of sin, because many on the trial quench their convictions, or, perhaps, were hypocritical from the beginning. We would sooner go again into the highways and hedges and form new societies, as at first, than we would give up a privilege so _essential to the ministerial office_, and to the revival of the work of God.’… ‘The Master of the house [God] said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and “_bring in hither_ the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind; and the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.” He obeys his God _without asking permission of ANY SOCIETY_ whether he should obey him or not And the Lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges and _compel them to come in_, that my house may be filled. Luke xiv. 21–23. The servant answers not his Lord, I will comply with thy command so far as MY SOCIETY or my leaders and stewards will permit me.’… Again: ‘Now what pastors called and owned of God would take upon themselves this awful responsibility [that of the pastoral office] if OTHERS could refuse to their spiritual children the grand, external privilege of the gospel, or admit among them the most improper persons to mix with and corrupt them? Truly, whatever the pastors of other Churches may do, we trust that ours will never put themselves under so dreadful a bondage. It is in vain to say that others may be as tender and cautious as the pastors; for the _pastors_ are the persons responsible to God, and, therefore, should by no means be fettered in their pastoral care.’ And again: ‘If ministers are to be the judges of the proper subjects of _baptism_, which is the grand initiatory ordinance into the visible Church, how much more should they have a right to determine whom they will take under their own care, or whom God has given them out of the world, by the preaching of his word. For ministers to spend their strength, their tears, their prayers, their lives, for the salvation of souls, and [then] to have both themselves and THEIRS under the control of those who never travailed in birth for them, and, therefore, can never feel for them as their spiritual parents do, is a burden we cannot bear. Thus it is evident that both reason and Scripture do, in the clearest manner, make the privilege or power now under consideration [that of receiving members into the Church] _essential_ to the gospel _ministry_.’

“I trust you will not accuse your own BISHOPS of misapprehending the design and the practical working of the system.”

“I think,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “that we may venture to pass on to our next _test_ or _mark_. We are spending more time than we need to occupy with this. The _main fact_, that is, that the Conference has power to make laws which the members must obey, or cease to be members of the Church, will not be disputed; and that is all that is essential to our present purpose.”

“What is our next test, Mrs. Percy?”

“It declares that in a true Church all its members must have become such, not by birth, not by the act of their parents, not by a law of the State, _but by their own voluntary act._”

“If, as we have seen, infants are made members of this Church by baptism, it is certain that she has not this mark; but, as she virtually repudiates her own act, and denies in practice her own teachings, I hardly know,” said Mr. Percy, “whether to mark her black or white on this test.”

“We have determined already,” said Mr. Courtney, “from their own authorities, that they themselves consider the baptized infants as Church-members; and it is on this ground, and for the very purpose of making them Church-members, that they baptize them. Now, if they make them Church-members, and then practically disown them, by refusing to permit them to enjoy the privilege of membership, this shows their inconsistency; but it cannot disannul the act which makes the children of the Church members, or make them _not_ Church-members. _We_, therefore, must count them members, although they who received them, and made them such, see fit to ignore their own act, and treat them in all respects as though they were not and never had been.

“It is only one of the many inconsistencies into which Pedobaptism drives those who practice it. The Methodist Church is guilty of the double inconsistency of receiving to her communion, and treating in all things _as though they were_ Church-members, those whom they say _are not_, namely, the seekers, and of shutting out from their communion, and treating in all respects _as though they were not_, those who they say _are_ Church-members, made such by baptism in their infancy. We cannot stop to reconcile them to themselves; and they would not probably thank us for our trouble, if we should try to do so. Let us hasten on with our investigation.

“What is the next mark, Mrs. Percy?”

“It requires that a true Church _shall hold as articles of faith the fundamental doctrines of the gospel_.”

“Here,” said Dr. Thinkwell, “we shall need your assistance, neighbor Stiptain, unless my friends are more familiar with the doctrines of your Church than I am. I know that it is generally counted among the so-called evangelical or orthodox Churches, and that many of its ministers and members give evidence of devoted piety; but what your standards may teach as Christian doctrine, I am not so well informed; and you know, in such a discussion as this, we can only recognize those as the doctrines of any Church which that Church herself acknowledges and publishes by her own acts. Perhaps you will do us the kindness to tell us where we can find a statement of your acknowledged doctrines.”

“With the greatest pleasure, sir. You will find our articles of faith in the Discipline; and what are not mentioned there, in Wesley’s Sermons and Watson’s Institutes, and other works published by consent or order of Conference. Our Brother Gorrie has well said, in his History of Methodism, (p. 135:) ‘The doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church are principally embraced in the twenty-five Articles of Religion, found in the Book of Discipline. These articles are nearly the same with those of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States.’

“When the Reverend John Wesley set apart Dr. Coke to the office of Superintendent of the societies in America, and instructed him to organize said societies into an independent Church, he prepared a Prayer-book, or Sunday service, for the use of the infant Church, in which Prayer-book the Articles of Religion were contained as now found. excepting the one relating to rulers, which was framed at the organization of the Church in 1784, and shortly after was printed in the form of Discipline; since which time no change of any importance has been made in the articles referred to.’ ‘We have stated in substance,’ our brother goes on to say, ‘that these Articles embrace the _most_ of the doctrines of the Methodist Episcopal Church. We do not say that all the doctrines of the Methodists are clearly set forth in the same.… Still, what is not clearly stated and taught in the same is stated and taught in the _other standard writings of the Church_, such as Wesley’s Sermons, and Watson’s Institutes.’”

“It occurs to me,” said Mr. Percy, “that in regard to the other claimants whom we have already tried by our rules, we asked but one question under the present head, and that was, Whether they held that salvation is by faith alone, or whether they held to a sort of _sacramental_ salvation through or by the observance of the ordinances of the Church? It is very true that this is not all that is essential to Christianity; but as this doctrine is contained in the very annunciation of the gospel, we have taken it for granted that if this were wanting, all else would be but vain pretension. Now, in the Roman Catholic Church there is an open avowal of the necessity of works and sacraments for salvation. And while the Church of England, in the form of words used in her Articles of Faith, teaches that we are justified by faith only, and not for our own works or deservings, her liturgy and many of her ministers evidently teach, and her people believe, that we can come into that relation to Christ which is expressed by faith, and which secures salvation, _only by means of the sacraments of the Church_; and as this exalts the reception of the sacraments to the condition of _an essential means of salvation_, so that no one can have any assurance of eternal life who has not been baptized, and thus properly qualified for heaven _by_ _the priest_ and his ceremonies, we were disposed to doubt whether the High-Church party of the English Church really could be said to hold this fundamental gospel truth; and, consequently, we marked her but half white. Now, the question may arise, whether a large portion of the Methodist Church do not hold the same error, in much the same form. Do they not hold, for instance, that baptism, instead of being the _sign_ that the person baptized professes _already to have been born again_, is the _means_ or _instrumentality_ by which he _is_ born again? Do they not hold and teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and consequent baptismal salvation?”

“I never heard that they did,” said the Doctor, “and do not see why you should have any suspicion that such is the case.”

“Simply,” replied Mr. Percy, “because I find this doctrine plainly taught in express words in those books which they are constantly publishing, and their preachers are daily scattering all over the country, as their standards of doctrine.”

“I wish you would tell us what books,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “for I am sure no _Methodist_ author could publish such sentiments without being at once repudiated by the Conference. Baptismal regeneration is certainly no part of our creed.”

“So Mr. A. Campbell _says_ it is no part of _his_, and yet he uses such words in telling what he _does_ believe that candid inquirers cannot understand him to mean any thing else. And just so, you will permit me to say, the acknowledged standards of your Church use language of the same sort; insomuch, that if it does not mean to teach the doctrine that _baptism is for the ACTUAL washing away of sins_, (and not merely the symbol which signifies that they _have been_ washed away,) I do not know what it does mean.

“If _I_ should tell _my_ people that by baptism they were admitted _into the Church_, they would understand that I meant what I said; that I intended to affirm, and did affirm that it was by baptism that they were made Church members, and that in such a sense, that if they had _not been baptized_, they would not have been Church-members. And then if I should go on and say, further, that in the ordinary way there was no other means but baptism of entering into the Church, _or into heaven_, they would still understand that I meant what I said, and that I intended to teach, and _did_ teach, that as they could not enter _the Church_ without baptism, no more could they enter _heaven_ without it. If _I_ should say that we, who were by nature the children of wrath, were made the children of God _by baptism_, you and all who heard me would think I meant just what I said.

“If _I, or any Baptist,_ should say that we are _regenerated_ and _born again_ by the _water of baptism_, people would think we meant what we said; and I am sure they would have good reason to suppose that we believed in and taught baptismal regeneration.

“If _I, or any Baptist,_ should say that infants in the ordinary way could not be saved unless their original sin be washed away by baptism, you would think we meant to teach the doctrine of _baptismal salvation_.

“And now, if I should write a tract, or a sermon, and the Baptist Churches should direct it to be printed and published, and should instruct their ministers and their people to give it as large a circulation as possible, and should send forth one edition of it after another, earnestly _commending_ it to the Church and to the world, would you not think that these Churches held and taught the same doctrines which you would have understood me to teach?”

“Of course we could not help thinking so.”

“How then, let me ask, can you help believing that the Methodist Church holds these same doctrines? for what I have supposed myself to say, _Mr Wesley actually did say._ I merely transposed the words. And what I have supposed our Churches to have done, the _Methodist Church has actually done_, and is _still doing every day_. The Conference has directed Mr. Wesley’s tract on baptism to be published; they encourage if they do not actually require all their preachers to circulate it, and their members to read it. This tract contains such language as this. I will read it to you, or you may read it for yourself. You will find it on page 251 of the volume of Doctrinal Tracts, published by the Book Concern:—

“‘If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism, _seeing IN THE ORDINARY WAY THEY CANNOT BE SAVED UNLESS THIS BE WASHED AWAY BY BAPTISM._ It has already been proved that this original stain cleaves to every child of man, and that hereby they are children of wrath and liable to eternal damnation. It is true the second Adam has found a remedy for the disease which came upon all by the offence of the first. _But the benefit of this is to be received through the means which he hath up pointed, THROUGH BAPTISM IN PARTICULAR,_ which is the ordinary means he hath appointed for that purpose, and which God hath tied us, though he may not have tied himself. Indeed, where it cannot be had, the case is different; but extraordinary cases do not make void a standing rule. This, therefore, is our first ground: _infants need to be washed from original sin, and, therefore, they are proper subjects of baptism._’

“If Mr. Courtney, or I, or any Baptist, should thus teach that children or grown people could only be cleansed from sin (whether original or actual) _by baptism_, and could not ordinarily be saved without it, _we_ would certainly be accused of teaching _salvation by water_. But when _Mr. Wesley_ does it, some people can see no harm in it.

“So on page 248 you may read as follows:

Previous Next

Comments

Theodosia ErnestChapter XXXI: Introduction (14)

0%37 min left in chapter