Chapter XXXIV: Introduction (17)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“God requires _right_ faith, _right_ opinions, _right_ views of duty, and _right practice_. And he does not leave us to blunder on in the dim light of _our own_ conceptions of duty, but requires us to come up to the truth of the gospel, and walk in the glorious sunlight of _his revelation_.

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

“We may not substitute our reasonings for simple faith, or our self-will for unquestioning obedience. _We_ may not see any good _reason_ for the command; but it is not our province to ask _why_ God commands, but only to inquire if he _does_ command. We may _think_ we see strong and numerous reasons _in opposition_ to what he ordains; but it is not _our_ place to sit in judgment on our Maker. We are but creatures of a day, and we know nothing. _He_ is the infinitely wise God, and knows _all_ things. Our business is not to _question_, but simply to _obey_. _This is, in fact, the HIGHEST REASON_. For if God governs his rational and moral creatures at all, it is as a moral governor. He takes cognizance of their character as right or wrong. His government is a government of law; and being infinitely wise and good, _he cannot make a law which is not infinitely right;_ and, of course, _any substitute_ for if must _of necessity_ be wrong, however better it may _seem_ to _our_ weak and sinful reason. If God is wiser, and holier, and better than _we_ are, then it is in accordance with the highest reason that we should do what is right in _his_ sight, and _not_ what is right in _our own_ sight, or what would _seem_ best according to _our_ judgment. It follows, then, that if he has required that all believers shall be immersed, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; if _this_ is the act which was performed by John upon the Saviour; if this was the act performed by his own disciples, under his direction, when the Pharisees heard that he made and baptized more disciples than John; if _this_ is the act which he directed his disciples to perform on all who should believe even to the end of the world, there must be the best of reasons for it; and who will have the temerity to say that it is _inconvenient_; that it is not _genteel_, that it is _indelicate_; or that from _any other cause it is IMPROPER, and may be dispensed with_? Have men grown better and wiser than their Saviour? Are they more sensitive to any impropriety or any indelicacy than the immaculate Son of God? Will they venture to _change_ the ordinance of _God_, and make the command of _God_ of no effect by their extreme _gentility_?

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

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

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

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

“If God placed the spiritual authority _in the Churches_, in the assemblies of believers; if _they_ are authorized to receive members, or to expel, who will undertake to improve upon _his_ plan, and place the authority in the hands of sessions of ministers, of class-leaders, of priests, of deacons, of bishops, or popes? _Men_ may see _many reasons_ of convenience or propriety for one course or another; but _they_ have no _right_ to think what is most _convenient_; _they_ have no right to think what is most _proper_; they have no right to think what is best fitted to any particular people, or any particular time. All they should dare to do, all they have any _right_ to do, is to determine _WHAT DID GOD ORDAIN; what was the teaching of JESUS CHRIST the KING;_ what was the practice of the apostles and those whom they instructed.

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

“But the very expression ‘_unessential_’ is, in this connection, a fearful perversion of language; since _what God has once commanded_ becomes, from that very fact, most tremendously essential, for it is terribly essential that God shall be implicitly obeyed. Saul thought, if he slew the people he might spare the cattle. They had not sinned, and it could not be very important about them. This was to him, it seems, a _non-essential_; but it lost him the favor of God; it lost him his kingdom, and cost him his life. It was not for _him_ to say what he must do, and what he might leave undone. God meant what he said; he meant _all_ he said. He had doubtless a good reason for every part of the commandment, whether Saul could see it or not. It was not for Saul to inquire for reasons; God’s command is enough, _without_ reasons; God’s command is enough, _against_ reasons; or, rather, God’s command is of itself the highest conceivable reason for every thing, small or great, which he commands. Never tell me then of essentials, or unessentials. Every thing that God commands is of necessity essential. _There is, there can be, no such thing as an unessential in the religion of the Bible._ If it is _not commanded_, it makes _no_ part of religion. If it _is_ commanded, it is not for you, or me, or any mortal man on earth, or any angel in the court of heaven, to say that it unimportant and need not be observed.

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

“God grant us all obedient hearts, and a true knowledge of his way, for Christ’s sake! Amen.”

When the preacher had finished his discourse, he remarked that there was some business requiring the action of the Church. While the congregation sang a hymn he came down from the pulpit, and took his place as president or chairman of the Church-meeting, and announced that at the last meeting a certain brother had been found guilty of unchristian conduct, and he had been instructed to see and converse with him, and ascertain whether he showed any symptoms of repentance, and induce him, if possible, to appear before the Church, and make such confession as would remove the scandal of his offences from the Church. He had seen and conversed with him, but he pertinaciously refused to make any acknowledgment of wrong, or to appear before the Church.

“I move, then,” said an aged brother, “that we, as a Church, formally withdraw from him our fellowship, and count him as no longer one of us.”

The motion being duly seconded, and briefly discussed, was unanimously carried, and the clerk so entered it upon his record.

“If there are any persons present,” said the pastor, “who desire to unite with us by letter from other Churches, or by profession of their faith and baptism, let them come forward while we sing.”

One young man came up and took a seat near the chairman. He was much affected by the responsibility which attended the act he was about to perform, and could not restrain his tears.

When the singing had ceased, the pastor remarked, probably for the information of the strangers who were present, and who might be presumed to be ignorant of Baptist usage, That the word of God required but one prerequisite for admission into the visible kingdom and Church of Christ, and that was _personal and saving faith in Jesus Christ the Saviour_. But as—according to Romans xiv. 1, “Him that is weak in faith receive ye”—it is the duty of the Church to decide whether they have this faith, and not to reject any, even though their faith be weak, so it is the duty of the Church to refuse those whom she may judge to have no faith. We are, therefore, accustomed to require of those who ask admission among us such an explanation of their views and feelings, and such an account of their religious experience, as will enable the Church to judge whether they truly have any portion of that real and saving faith which works by love, and purifies the heart and brings forth good fruit in the life. This is the more needful, since persons are often self-deceived, mistaking a temporary concern about their soul’s salvation for genuine conversion to God, and the regeneration of the Spirit. We do not receive people into the Church or baptize them in order that they may be born again, and made the children of God; but because they give us satisfactory evidence that they have already been born of God, already belong to Christ, and are already qualified, by their love to him and to his people and his cause, to take part in the privileges and responsibilities of his visible kingdom. Baptism is with us a mere formal, official, and public _recognition_ of a previously existing fact, which is symbolized in the ordinance, namely, that the person baptized has died unto sin, as Christ died for him, and has arisen to a new life of righteousness, as Christ came forth from death.

He then proceeded to ask the young man such questions as would elicit the evidence of his conversion to God. And when his answers were not loud enough to be heard by all the Church, he repeated the substance of them, so that all might be capable of judging.

When he was satisfied for himself, he inquired if any member wished to ask any thing more; and, as no one spoke, a motion was made and seconded, to the effect that the pastor be authorized to baptize him, and that after his baptism he be received as a member of the Church. The votes being taken, and found unanimous, the congregation adjourned to the neighboring stream, and there he was baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and on coming up from the water, the members gave him at once the right hand of fellowship, in token that henceforth they counted him as one of themselves.

Scarcely a word was spoken by our little party as they returned home. The solemn scene which they had witnessed called up to the minds of Mr. Percy and Theodosia a crowding host of sad yet tender and pleasing recollections and emotions, which could find no utterance in words. Dr. Thinkwell was debating in his own mind whether he had not done wrong by refusing at once to go up and unite with this little company, as the true Church of Christ; but while he could see at a glance that it had _most_ of the marks which in the Scriptures they had found to characterize a true Church, yet there were one or two which he could not at the moment, and with the information he then possessed, feel certain that it could certainly claim; but when he came to reflect, he found that these were such as _did not depend ENTIRELY upon the Scripture_, though they were scriptural marks, and it had been distinctly understood and expressed, when they were making up the tablet, that a true Church, though it must possess these marks, could be easily known without them. These were the last three tests, each of which requires some knowledge _of history_ to make its application certain. He comforted himself, however, with the reflection that one month’s delay would not probably be of very great consequence, and would give him the opportunity to make his investigation complete in every particular, and his decision, as a consequence, final, and subject to no annoying _doubts_; and doubts had thus far been the bane of his religious life—not doubts about his own acceptance in Christ, but uncertainty about what was _his duty_ to believe and to perform.

TENTH DAY’S TRAVEL.

In which the Church is found and identified.

THE Presiding Elder owed his high standing and influence as much to his never-failing suavity of manner, his imperturbable good-humor, and the possession of a comfortable estate, as to his intellectual vigor or his extensive information. He had a ready mind, and could usually give a plausible reply to any argument that seemed to bear against the opinions he espoused; and it was not to him a matter of much moment whether others were satisfied with his reasoning or not. He cared very little, in fact, what opinions other people held: he had no conception that it was of any great consequence whether they or he were right or wrong. Indeed, he thought it doubtful whether _all_ were not wrong. He was sure that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in his system, but yet he had never thought of abandoning the system; and as the more he examined it, the more its inconsistencies appeared, he would not earnestly and carefully look into it, but contented himself by defending those points which others assailed; and this he usually did by a resort to raillery and ridicule, rather than to sober reason and earnest logical argument.

As he had no hope of making a Methodist of any of the company with whom he met at Dr. Thinkwell’s, he was not very each concerned about the result of their investigations, and was prepared to hear, with equal indifference, that they had decided that any one or another of the _branches_ of the Church was, in their estimation, the true _ekklesia_ of Christ.

It was, therefore, a source of no annoyance to him, when they met at his house on Monday, to hear the Doctor say that he was _almost_ convinced that he had at last discovered the object of his search, in the simple, unpretending body of Christian people with whom he met upon the Sabbath.

“I grant you,” said the elder, “that if _your marks_ or _tests_ are reliable, the Baptist Church has more of them than any other; and I suppose, as the majority of your company are Baptists, you purposely framed them so that they might admit that organization, and exclude all others. I will not contend with you, or these friends, upon the applicability of your tests; but if I had been with you from the beginning, I would have objected to the tests themselves.”

“There were those with us, sir, who did object to them. Nay, we ourselves at first objected to some of them, and we received and entered on our tablet not one until we had carefully examined the word of God in regard to it, and were compelled to admit that it was in strict accordance with the requirements of the Scriptures; and so, I think, you would have done had you been present.

“In the first place, we could not avoid conceding that the apostles must have known what Christ desired and intended concerning the institution which he called the Church; and that in every thing essential to its existence and its order, its constitution and its membership, they would conform the Churches which they founded to the model they had received from him.”

“Certainly, sir, that is all self-evident.”

“Then, sir, we could not help seeing that the Church of Christ _is, and must be now_, in its organization and membership, in its constituent materials, and in its constitutional _order_, its permanent offices and ordinances—in short, in _all_ that necessarily belongs to it _as a Church_, just such an institution as those which the apostles founded, and of which we have the accounts in the New Testament Scriptures.”

“I grant all that,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain. “I see that, so far, you stood upon solid ground. It is not worth while to question that which is self-evident. But, then, there are still two sources of error into which you may have fallen, and by which your conclusions may have been vitiated. You may, in the first place, have mistaken what was merely _accidental_ and _temporary_, and, consequently, _unessential_, for what was designed to be perpetual, and always and everywhere the same. Then, in the second place, you may have _misapprehended_ what were the _real characteristics of the apostolic Churches_.”

“We were conscious, sir, of both these dangers, and endeavored to guard against them with most scrupulous care. First, in regard to what was _really essential_, we determined that there could be no Church _without members_. Members were, therefore, _essential_. And as these members _must have a certain character_, there must be _something_ that distinguishes them from other people who are not members. Therefore, we concluded that the _character of the membership_ was another essential, at least in those particulars in which the first Church members invariably differed from those who were not Church members. Thus far, surely we were safe. Then it seemed to us self-evident, as it must have done to you, and every other man of common sense, that there could be no Church without some sort of _organization_. The members must be united upon some formal basis. The Church was a body—a community, a society. It was not only an assembly, but an _official_ assembly, with certain duties to perform, certain privileges to enjoy, certain objects to accomplish; and this, of necessity, required some basis of organization, or, in other words, some _written_ or _unwritten constitution_. This constitution must determine the conditions of membership, the relations of the members to each other, and of each of the local societies to each of the other local societies and to all of them, and of each and all of them to Christ their head. Whatever the Master determined in regard to such matters as these must evidently be regarded as _perpetually essential_; for it is inconceivable that _human wisdom_ should ever be able to mend that system by which the apostle says the _wisdom of GOD_ was made manifest to the principalities and powers in heavenly places. You may take our tests now, one by one, and see if any one has reference to a matter that was not _essential_ to the _being_, the _constitution_, or the _continuance_ of the Church.

“Then, to guard against all danger from the _other_ source which you indicate, namely, that we might have mistaken what _were_ the real scriptural characteristics of the apostolic Churches in regard to these essential points, we took care first to exclude all the testimony of mere _tradition_, or even of history, and then all the assertions of even the most learned doctors, _as to what these characteristics were,_ and regarded no one as established until _we had found it for OURSELVES_ plainly and unmistakably recorded _in the word of inspiration_. What better could we possibly have done?”

“But, my dear sir, do you not admit that _you are fallible_, and that your friends are so; and, consequently, you and they _may_ have _thought_ you found in the Word things which really are not there?”

“Suppose that were the case. We must still trust to our own conclusions, and _act_ upon our determinations; since God has made each one of us responsible for himself. Religion is a personal and individual thing. Every man must believe for _himself_, and decide for _himself_, and carry out in his religious obedience what he _himself_ has found to be the will of God, as revealed in his holy Word. The Word is addressed to _me_, and _I_ must study it: _I_ must endeavor to understand it for _myself_, and for _myself_ I must obey; and if I fail, God will hold _me_ individually and _personally_ responsible. So that, unless I have so much more confidence in my pastor’s judgment, or in the judgment of some other person, than I have in my own, that I am willing, unenquiringly, to risk my soul’s eternal interest in his hands, I must be governed by _my own determination_.

“But, so far from deciding carelessly or inconsiderately, we have explored, with all the helps at our command, every inch of the ground, and are ready now, if it would not take up too much time, to point you to the chapter and verse in which each mark is designated in the Word.”

“If you should do so,” said the Presiding Elder, “we would be no nearer an agreement than we are now; for I should doubtless differ with you about the meaning of the passages, or should be disposed to point you to others teaching a very different doctrine.”

“One would think, to hear you talk,” replied the Doctor, “that it is impossible to know any thing certainly about what the Scriptures mean; but we have found them very plain, and all the time consistent with themselves, and feel that we may be as certain that they do contain these essential characteristics of a true Church of Christ, as we can be that they contain _any_ system of doctrine or of duty. If they are ambiguous and double-tongued on this subject, it seems to me that men may as well at once despair of finding what they mean to teach on any subject; and as we have examined carefully and earnestly, and found the teaching plain and unmistakable, we must be governed by them, and consequently must abide by the result of the application of our _tablet_.”

“I see, then, there is no room for argument against the Baptist Church, except on some two or three points.”

“It is probably on those same points that I still have some lingering doubts. I saw at a glance, yesterday, that the Baptist Church with which I met consisted only of professed believers. There are none born into it, as Dr. Miller says they are into the Presbyterian Church. There are none _baptized_ into it without their knowledge or consent, and without any previous confession of their faith, as infants are into the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Independent or Congregational Churches. It therefore has the _first_ mark of our tablet. _Its members are all professed believers upon Christ._

“It also has the _second_. Its members have all _been baptized upon a profession of their faith_; and as all denominations agree that immersion is baptism, there can be no doubt about this, arising from the nature of the act performed.

“So, also, it has the _third_. It is an independent, local organization, a complete Church in itself, and independent of all others.”

“I do not know so well about that,” said the Presiding Elder. “I was at a Baptist Association last summer, and for the life of me I could not see much difference between the relation which _it_ sustained to the Churches, and that sustained by a presbytery or a conference. It is merely another name for a great ecclesiastical court. The Methodists have their quarterly conferences, their annual conferences, and their General Conference. The Presbyterians have their presbyteries, and their synods, and their General Assembly; and so the Baptists have their local associations and their general associations, and their great Convention, which, like our General Conference, only meets once in several years. The local Churches are no more independent in the one denomination than in the other. In all they are under the control of the assembled delegates, which represent the combined wisdom of all the Churches.”

This was a new phase of the subject to the Doctor, and he knew not what to say, but turned inquiringly to Mr. Courtney.

“A Baptist Church,” said the schoolmaster, “is, in all that concerns it own members, as independent of the associations as it is of the Methodist conference, or of the grand lodge of Odd-Fellows. When a candidate applies for admission, _it_ alone decides to receive or reject him. When a member has been guilty of some offence, _it_ tries, condemns, and excludes him, and from _its_ decision there is no appeal to any association, local or general, or to any convention or other body outside itself. What it decides is the decision of _the Church_, and ends the matter, unless it can be persuaded to revoke its decision, as Paul besought the Church at Corinth to restore one whom it had cast out.

“The Church is under no necessity to belong to any association, and is neither more nor less a Church when she does belong to one. Every association and convention in the land may be dissolved to-morrow, and no single Baptist Church will have either more or less authority than she has to-day. But if you dissolve the Conference, that great ecclesiastical establishment called the Methodist _Church_ is dissolved. Dissolve the General Assembly, and you have dissolved that great confederation known as the Presbyterian _Church_, and of which each local society is but an integral _part_. A Methodist society _cannot be_ a Methodist society except as _a part_ of the great body that is subordinate to the Conference. A Presbyterian society cannot be a real Presbyterian society except as it makes a part of that great body which is subject to the General Assembly. Let either withdraw all connection with or deny all obedience to the powers thus set over them, and they become Independents. But a Baptist Church is not of necessity a part of any association or convention. It gives up no part of its authority when it sends a messenger, and retains no mire when it refuses or neglects to send.”

“What then, let me ask, _is_ the Association, and what relation _does_ it sustain to the Churches and their members?”

“Some Baptist associations and conventions,” replied Mr Courtney, “are organized for one purpose, and some for an other. They are simply voluntary organizations outside the Churches, formed, like a Bible society, or a missionary society for the accomplishment of some specific object, in which the Churches may or may not take a part, as they see fit. Sometimes this object is to sustain a system of missionary operations so extensive that some concert of action is required to secure its success; sometimes it is to build up and sustain an institution of learning; sometimes to provide young ministers with the means of acquiring a better theological education; sometimes it is for the arrangement and support of some plan for the distribution of the Scriptures or of other religious books; sometimes merely for mutual counsel, and to learn, by messengers or letters, what progress each Church is making, what is the number and condition of her membership, and what she is doing to promote the cause of Christ; and sometime it combines several or all of these objects. But whatever objects it may have, it never can have the right to interfere with the domestic economy or discipline of the Churches, whether of those who send messengers to it or of others.”

“But let me ask you,” said the Presiding Elder, “whether these associations are not often called on to decide cases of difficulty in the discipline of the Churches, which are sent up to them for adjustment?”

“No, sir; the Churches often send up some notice of cases of difficulty and ask for _advice_, and sometimes they send questions of difficulty and ask for _information_ concerning matters either of faith or practice, and the advice is given and the information granted; but neither the one nor the other is binding as a law to the Churches. Each Church may receive or reject the advice, as it sees best.”

“But may not the association punish the Church by exclusion, if it should fail to heed the advice so kindly given?”

“That would depend upon the relation of the matter to the constitution of that particular association. You will observe that each association is a _voluntary_ organization. It makes no part of the Churches, and has no control over the Churches, except in regard to such matters as are provided for in the constitution adopted by itself, and voluntarily agreed to by the parties coming in. And no Church has the _right_ to give up to the association any of those prerogatives with which Christ has invested her. She dare not give up to the association, or to the minister, or to anybody else, the _power of discipline_, which is by the authority of Christ vested in the _ekklesia_ alone. The constitution of the association determines the conditions of membership in its own body: they are as various, almost, as the associations themselves. In some, for instance, no Church can be represented that does not send a certain sum of money; and if she fails to make the contribution, she cannot be a member of the association, but she is no less a Church, and a Baptist Church, than she would have been if she had sent it. In most of the associations, it is made a condition of membership that the Church must be an orderly _Baptist_ Church, and must hold certain doctrines which are common to the denomination. This is essential for the harmonious mutual cooperation of them all in the educational or missionary enterprises for the conducting of which the association was formed. And when they have such a constitutional basis, and any Church has ceased to be an _orderly Baptist Church_, or to hold the doctrines specified, they may refuse to recognize her any longer as a member. But this is no _ecclesiastical_, no _Church_ action. It is not an excommunication on the assumed authority of Christ, and exercised by the association as _his Church_. or as a _part_ or a _branch_ of _his Church_; it is the mere dissolution of a voluntary compact, when one of the parties has violated the terms of the compact. _The authority of the association can never go behind its OWN CONSTITUTION._

“It may be possible that associations sometimes forget this, and act as though they were not merely advisory, but legislative or judicial bodies; but if they ever do, they violate all regular Baptist usage, and thoughtful and intelligent Baptists will at once disown them.

“The truth is, the associations and conventions are the mere creatures of the Churches, formed for the more effectual execution of the plans which the Churches entertain for the furtherance of the great objects of Christian benevolence; objects so vast that individual Churches cannot alone accomplish them. What _one_ cannot do, some twenty, or fifty, or a hundred can, and they agree to work together; and that they may work harmoniously together, each sends a delegate or more, as may be agreed upon, to carry funds, assist by his counsel, and bring back word to the Church as to how the work goes on. The association is not, therefore, like the Conference or the Presbytery, the _lord_ and _master_ of the Church, but is its _creature_ and its _servant_, and so responsible to it for its proceedings, that if it does not conduct in all things in such a way as to give satisfaction, it _withdraws_ from it and gives it no more countenance or support. But whatever the association may be, or whatever power it may have, it is sufficient for our present argument to know that every Baptist Church is so far independent of it, that it is entirely free to unite with it or to stand apart from it. It is no more bound to belong to an association or convention, than it is to represent itself in the Grand Division of the Sons of Temperance, or to belong to the American Bible Society, or the American Sunday School Union.”

“Then I can understand,” resumed the Doctor, “that it has also the fourth mark upon our tablet. _It has Christ alone for its King and Lawgiver, and recognizes no authority but his above its own._ If the associations and conventions cannot make laws for it, or exercise discipline for it or in it, I suppose no others will attempt to do so, unless it be their pastors: and I observed yesterday that the pastor took no other share in the exercise of discipline, than simply as the president of the assembly, to put the question and gather the voice of the members. And, moreover, as the pastor is not sent to them by bishops, conferences, or presbyters, but chosen by the Church, and holds his office at their pleasure, he must of necessity be the servant and not the master of the Church. He may rule, but his government must be founded in love, and his control such as the faithful performance of his duties as a good minister of Jesus could not fail to give him in any assembly of earnest-hearted, Christ-trusting, and Christ-loving people.

“And so, also, I can testify that _its members come voluntarily and ask for membership_, and are not brought by their parents and compelled to be initiated, even though they cry out against it as loudly as a little babe _can_ cry.

“Nor do I see any reason to doubt that _it holds to the fundamental doctrines of the gospel as its articles of faith_. And have never heard of any Baptist Churches being engaged in _persecution_, though all the histories of them that I have read are almost continuous records of the distress which they have endured from other so-called Christian Churches.

“I yield them, therefore, the possession of our _fifth_ and _sixth_, and also our _eighth_ mark; but now when I come to ask about the _seventh_ and the _ninth_, I must wait for further information.”

“And if you wait,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “until you have traced its continued existence down from the time of Christ, or ascertained its regular succession in a line of Churches that never in any age became even temporarily _apostate_, you will wait till you have joined the Church above. I have not studied particularly the history of the Baptist Church: but I will venture to promise that if you will make out this regular succession for them, I will at least never laugh at them again as the modern progeny of the Munster men in Europe, and Roger Williams in America.”

“It was our understanding, I believe, when we entered these historical marks upon our tablet,” replied the Doctor, “that each of the bodies claiming to be Churches should be considered as having descended regularly from the apostles, unless the contrary should appear from their own records. We have seen for each of the others a historical origin in comparatively modern times. We know when the Lutheran, the English and American Episcopalian, the Presbyterian, and the Methodist Churches were first organized. We can trace them back to a certain point, and beyond that they had no separate existence. They were all merged in Rome, and only existed as component parts of the great Roman Catholic antichristian Hierarchy. We have traced this mother of them all back still farther, and found a time long after Christ or the apostles when there was not only no Roman Catholic Church, but _no such organization_ as that afterwards became.

“Now, if we can do the same by the Baptist Church—if we can go back and find a time since Christ when it had no existence—we must concede that it has not this test. But unless this can be done, we must take it for granted, as we were ready to do in regard to the other claimants, that it has existed from the days of Christ and the apostles. We need not put it upon the Baptists to show the record of every age, and trace upon it the history of their Church.”

“In the sense in which you employ the term,” said Mr. Courtney, “there is not and never has been such a thing as ‘the Baptist Church.’ There cannot be. Each Baptist Church stands alone and independent of all other Baptist Churches. As the Church at Jerusalem, and the Church at Antioch, and the Churches of Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria, were not combined together in any great _confederation_ called the Church, but _each one_ was _the Church_, in and of itself, and neither more nor less _the Church_ for the existence of the others, so every particular Baptist Church that is organized upon the same model, having the same sort of members, the same organization, the same ordinances, and the same doctrines, is itself _the Church_. It is not a _confederation_ of Baptist Churches nor a continued _succession_ of Baptist Churches that is the Baptist Church; but every local, independent body of baptized believers, holding the doctrines of the gospel, and having the ordinances of the gospel, that now exists, or has at any time or in any place existed, is and was _the Baptist Church_ in the only sense that there can be any such thing as the Baptist Church, or that there was any such thing as _the Church_ in the days of the apostles. And now, with this understanding of the term, I am ready to take either plan to show our continuity from the time of Christ. I will prove, by the most unexceptional historical authority, by the concessions of our bitterest opponents and persecutors, that our Churches _have existed_ in every age. Or I will undertake, as a shorter method of reaching the same conclusion, to show that there is no other history of their first beginning but that which we have in the New Testament itself. And if I can do either one or the other, it will be more than enough. Now, to settle the question at once, I will take it upon me to trace the Baptist Churches on the chart of history, either backwards or forwards. We may begin here to-day and trace them back to John in Jordan; or I will begin in Jordan and trace them downward till to-day. I anticipated this difficulty. I knew that a true Church could be known without this test, ere would not have introduced it but at the suggestion of the Episcopal bishop; but since we have it, I will not shrink from its most rigid application. Try us as you will, and you will not find us wanting in any scriptural feature. I have here a brief sketch of dates and authorities, which I have arranged merely to assist my memory, and by its aid I will give you such testimony as cannot fail to satisfy any reasonable man that Churches have all the time existed, having every essential characteristic of the little assembly with which we met on yesterday. I do not say they were called Baptists, or even Anabaptists, which is an older name, as applied to the Churches; but names are nothing. It is the _thing_, and not the name, that we are looking for; and the _thing_ is an official assembly of Christian people, having each of the marks which we have recognized as the characteristics of the Churches of Christ in the apostles’ days. Their names have usually been given by their enemies, and do not designate their character Their names have been changed for them in almost every century, but their peculiar character has been the same, and by this, not the name, we must discover and point them out upon the page of history.”

“I think,” said the Doctor, “I would a little prefer to begin at the present, and trace them backwards. Thus we did with the other claimants, and found them all to end in Rome, at the time of Luther’s Reformation.”

“Very good: this is a little past the middle of the nineteenth century. I suppose no one will question the existence A.D. 1700 to 1800. of the Baptist Churches now, and since the year eighteen hundred. Both in this country and in Europe, there are hundreds, nay, thousands of Churches, and hundreds of thousands of members.

“Nor will it be doubted that they existed in the eighteenth century. A letter, dated Philadelphia, August 12th, 1714, written by a Baptist minister, Mr. Able Morgan, to a friend in England, will show their existence in this country at that time: ‘We are now,’ he says, ‘nine Churches;’ alluding to those in the vicinity of Philadelphia. ‘In these Churches there are alone five hundred members, but greatly scattered,’ etc. (_Crosby_, vol. i., p. 122.) And we will presently see that there were many of them long before this in the New England States. I suppose it will hardly be necessary to do more than to say that hundreds of our Churches existed from A.D. 1700 to 1800, in the British Empire, and on the Continent. Their history in that country is too recent and too well known to admit of cavil or denial. But when we enter the next age in our travels up this stream of tie, there may possibly be need of reference to authorities. It was during this century that the first Baptists came to America. They were members of a Church of English Baptists in _Holland_, A.D. 1600 to 1700. having by persecution been driven out of England, and who came over here in 1620. Cotton Mather, the historian of the early colonists, says of them, ‘Having done with the Quakers, let it not be misinterpreted if into the same chapter we put the inconveniences which the New England Churches have suffered from the _Anabaptists_, albeit they have infinitely more of Christianity among them than the Quakers.… Infant baptism hath been scrupled by multitudes in our days, who have been in other points most worthy Christians, and as holy, watchful, fruitful, and heavenly people as, perhaps, any in the world. _Some few of these_ people have been among the planters in New England from the beginning, and have been welcome to the communion, which they have enjoyed, reserving their particular opinion to themselves.’

“‘But at length it came to pass that while some of our Churches used, it may be, a little too much _cogency_ toward the brethren which would weakly turn their backs when _infants_ were brought forth to be _baptized_ in the congregation, there were some of these brethren, who in a day of temptation, broke forth into schismatical practices that were justly offensive to all the Churches in this wilderness.’

“‘Our Anabaptists, when somewhat of exasperation was begun, formed a Church at Boston, on May 28th, 1665, besides one which they had _before_ at Swanzey. Now they declared our infant baptism to be a mere nullity, and they arrogate unto themselves the title of _Baptists_, as if none were baptized but themselves.’

“In another place, Mr. Mather says that more than a score of _ministers_ had come to the country who were so obnoxious to the body of the colonists that they could not be tolerated, but that some of them were deserving of a place in his book for their piety. ‘Of these there were some godly _Anabaptists_,’ whom he mentions by name. (_Crosby_, vol. i., pp 112–116.)