Chapter XXX: Introduction (13)

“I would say, madam, that they are members of _the society_, but _not of the Church_.”

“That is certainly very explicit, and I am much obliged to you for so prompt a reply to a question which, I feared, you might think almost impertinent; and now if you will explain to me the exact difference between the society and the Church, will begin to understand the case.”

“The society, madam, consists of all the probationers and Church members considered as one body. The Church consists of those who have been members of the society for six months, and by the faithful observance of its rules have satisfied their class-leader that they would make good members, have been recommended by him, and then have been ‘examined by the minister before the Church in regard to the correctness of their faith, and their willingness to observe and keep the rules of the Church.’ (See _Discipline_, chap. iii, ans. 3.)

“Then your society is not the Church, or any part of the Church, but, like a Sunday-school, or a Bible-class, an institution _outside the Church_ for the instruction and training of those who desire membership; and you recognize none as Church members, and never admit them to Church privileges, until they have passed their six months’ trial, have been recommended, examined, and officially received. This is very different from what I had supposed. We were under the impression that all the members of ‘society’ were entitled to equal privileges, and all enjoyed the same rights, whether they had passed their ‘term’ or not.”

“You may rest assured, madam, that we count none as _members of the Church_ except they have been received as I described. We intend to have a _holy_ Church, composed of those who have not only _professed_ their faith, but by sufficient trial have shown the _truth_ of their profession.”

“Will you permit me to ask one question?” said Mr. Courtney.

“Certainly; a dozen, if you wish.”

“Please tell us, then, what are the _privileges_ which those you call Church members enjoy, and which are not enjoyed _equally_ by the _seeker_ who joined the society but yesterday? Do you not invite them _both alike_ to sit down at the table of the Lord, or rather to kneel down and partake of the holy sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Do you not permit and urge the seeker to have his children baptized, and made Church members, just as you do the parent who has passed probation?”

“We do, sir.”

“Cannot a class-meeting consisting _in part_ or _altogether_ (except the leader) of unconverted seekers, recommend a member for license to exhort, just as well as the so-called Church?”

“Undoubtedly it can.” (See _Gorrie_, p. 303.)

“Is it not the _society_, or a select number of it, before which the preacher in charge shall cite those who refuse to attend class, and a majority of whose votes shall decide whether they have been guilty of wilful neglect, according to chap iv., sec. iii., quest. 1, ans. 2, of the Discipline?”

“So I admit it reads, sir.”

“Is it not before the _society_, or a select number of them, that an accused member must be brought for trial, according to chap. iv., sec. iii., quest. 2, ans. 1?”

“It is so put down in the book, sir.”

“Then if the members of the _society_ enjoy each and every _privilege_ that a member of the _Church_ does, what is the use of _calling_ some of them Church members, and others members of society? You see I am likely to avail myself of your permission to ask a dozen questions instead of one.”

“I am glad you ask them, sir. Methodism seeks not to hide herself. Whatever she is, she is willing the world should know it.”

“What then, I ask again, is the _practical_ difference between a member of society and a member of the Church? You call them by different _names_, but you treat them as though they were the very same. The only difference which I can discover is, that the member yet in his probation may be excommunicated without trial, by the decree of the _class-leader_, while one who has passed his term and been received, cannot be excommunicated except _by the preacher_, and that after a formal accusation and trial. Now if these seekers are _not_ Church members, you are guilty of taking Christ’s ordinances _out of the Church_, and giving them _to the people of the world_. If they _are_ Church members, then your Church consists, in many instances, to a large extent, of people _who make no pretension to the possession of true religion_, and no profession of true faith in Christ. In either case I should fear to call it the Church of Christ. But we are losing time from our general investigation. I presume we are all satisfied upon this point now. We must regard that organization as the Methodist Church in which the privileges of the Church are enjoyed, whether Methodists call it so or not. That is the Church which acts the part of the Church. This, in the Methodist economy, is the society; and ‘there is,’ according to the Discipline, chap. i., sec. 4, ‘only one condition previously required of those who desire admission into these societies;’ and that is not faith in Christ, but only ‘a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins;’ which is understood to mean simply, that they are seriously concerned upon the subject of salvation, and willing to make some effort to secure it, and can be persuaded to join _the class_ for that purpose.

“Our next mark will lead us to inquire whether _the members of the Methodist Church have been baptized upon a profession of their faith?_”

“I suppose,” said Mr. Stiptain, “that you Baptists will hardly admit that we have been baptized at all.”

“In regard to this point,” said Mr. Courtney, “there can be no room for doubt or cavil. If sprinkling or pouring is not baptism, few of you will _pretend_ that they have been baptized. If only immersion is baptism, the Discipline will testify that baptism is _required of none_, but only _permitted_ to those who prefer it; and if the directions of the Discipline could be fully carried out in practice, _and all the infants_ could be baptized, _there would be no such thing as baptism upon a profession of faith,_ since it is certain that little infants neither have nor profess to have a saving faith in Christ. These positions we have settled before, and it is now enough respectfully to say, that the Methodist Episcopal Church stands, in regard to this matter, just where we found her mother of England, and her grandmother of Rome. Not to waste our time, therefore, let us hasten on.”

“Our next mark,” said Theodosia, “will lead us to inquire whether the Methodist Episcopal Church is an _independent, local society, recognizing, in matters of religion, no authority but that of Christ above its own_.”

“And this need not detain us as long as the last,” said Mr. Percy; “for it is a fact too notorious to require any proof that the Methodist societies are not independent organizations, but each is a _part_ of a great establishment, somewhat like the Church of England, out of which it came, and after which it was mainly modelled. The local society of the Methodists is no more an independent Church than a local society of Roman Catholics is an independent Church. It is entirely dependent on persons _outside of itself_ for the discipline even of its own members. It cannot determine for itself who shall be received or who excluded; who shall be commended or who reproved. The preacher sent to them without their own consent, sometimes against their urgent remonstrance, has all the power in his hands; they can do nothing but obey.”

“O no, Mr. Percy, not quite so bad as that. Did not Mr. Courtney himself say that the societies recommended the persons to be licensed, and that an offending member was tried before the whole society, or at least a part of it, selected by the minister in charge?”

“Certainly he did, but what of it? It serves to delude the people (if I may use the expression without offence to these good friends) with a shadow of authority without a particle of substance. There is the Church, or society, for example, in our little town. Last year they had a minister whom they dearly loved, and they sent up to Conference a unanimous and urgent request that he should be sent back to them. But he was sent to the opposite side of the State. One, who had been there some years before, and was far from being popular, and who had reasons why he himself did not desire to be forced upon them, was, against their wishes and his own, compelled to take the charge of their affairs, and they must accept his ministrations or have none; for so the bishop willed it.”

“I trust you will excuse me, Mr. Percy, if I say the society must have been very silly to ask what they knew could not be granted,” replied the Reverend Mr. Stiptain. “They must have known the rules, and, as good Methodists, could have gladly conformed to them.”

I grant all that, sir; but still, it shows how far the local society is from being independent They cannot say who shall or who shall not occupy the house which they have built with their own money, or who shall or who shall not be the instructors of themselves and their children in matters which concern their souls’ salvation. The bishop, whom they have probably never seen, and who knows nothing of them but by the reports of his subordinates, takes away or sends them ministers at his own discretion, and they dare not so much as complain, lest a worse thing come upon them.

“Now _this_ minister, _thus sent against their will_, has, if I understand your system, all the power of discipline in his own hands, or in the hands of those whom he can commonly influence, to carry out his will. The society itself has no power at all. It seems to have, but it strikes me that when we look at the subject carefully, the illusion vanishes. Let us suppose, for illustration, that the son of Mr. Markman (the gentleman with whom this preacher had some difficulty when he was there before) has, during the past six months, joined the society on probation, and the minister has determined that he shall not be a member: he has only to whisper to his class-leader, who is appointed by himself, that this young man’s name had better be _dropped_, and the class-leader fails to report him for confirmation. He is virtually excommunicated, without accusation, without trial, and without fault.”

“O, no!” exclaimed Theodosia. “The class-leader would be too conscientious to comply with his request.”

“Then he would quietly remove him, and put another in his place; for it is his privilege and duty ‘to appoint all the leaders, and _change_ them when he sees necessary.’ It would be strange indeed if he could not find some one who could be relied upon to carry out his wishes.”

“I am very sorry, sir, to see that you have so bad an opinion of us,” said Mr. Stiptain. “I am sure you never heard of one of our preachers thus abusing the power with which he has been intrusted for the good of the cause. Nor would such tyranny on his part be tolerated by those to whom he is responsible for his conduct.”

“I grant that it is not very likely to happen in the present generation, Mr. Stiptain. But organizations like the Methodist Church are long-lived, and power has a tendency to accumulate in the hands where it is lodged. I am not speaking of what has been done, or what is likely to be done just now, but of _what may be done_ under the _sanction_ of your Discipline. Your ministers are, doubtless, many of them very humble, pious people; but _there may be_ among them _some few_ who are proud, selfish, revengeful, and ambitious. Now I have, for the sake of argument, supposed this to be the case with the one of whom I am speaking. Do you not see how it would be in his power to shut this pious young man out of the Church, without any violation of the rules of discipline, and against the unanimous wish of the Church itself that he should come in?”

“I see, indeed, how the thing might possibly be done; but I can assure you it would cost the minister his license. He would never do it but once.”

“I do not see how you could reach him at all. He has no need to tell _you_ all the _motives_ of his conduct; and for the _act_ itself, he did but what it was his privilege, nay, he will declare, it was his _duty_ to do. Let us look at it a moment. We will suppose a case, merely to test the extent of the power of discipline which is in the hands of the membership, the Church, or society, or whatever you may choose to call it. We will suppose that this minister is a hypocrite—a thing, to my mind, not _very_ improbable; that he is determined to shut young Markman out of the Church for the two years he is likely to remain in charge. He talks with the class-leader; and if he finds one too favorable to the young man, he _changes_ him, until he finds one that will reverently obey _him_, as he has promised to obey his chief ministers. This class-leader may be an _unconverted_ man—there are such people in the Methodist Churches. To give a show of justice to the proceeding, he may conceive and report to the preacher some vile slander affecting the young man’s religious if not his moral character. And the young man comes to the Church for redress; demands that the slanderer shall be tried and excluded. Do you think he could accomplish any thing against the preacher and the class-leader? Do you think the society could lift a finger for the young man’s rights?”

“Certainly,” exclaimed Theodosia; “the Church will call the slanderer to account, expel him from the society, and thus vindicate the character of the innocent.”

“Not at all, madam; the Church has no such power. She can _accuse_, or any member of her can _accuse_; but she cannot try or expel any more than she can receive.”

“Certainly you must be mistaken, Mr. Percy. Did we not read, on page 96 of the Discipline, that an accused member should be brought to trial ‘before the society of which he is a member, or a select number of them, in the presence of a bishop, elder, deacon, or preacher. And if the accused be found guilty by the decision of a majority of the members before whom he is brought for trial, and the crime be such as is expressly forbidden by the Word of God, and sufficient to exclude a person from the kingdom of grace and glory, the minister or preacher in charge is to expel him?’”

“Certainly we read, or might have read thus; but what does it amount to? As I said before, it _seems_ to give the Church some shadow of authority; but look at it closely, and the illusion vanishes. _The power is all in the hands of the preacher._”[10]

“I do not see how that can be, when the accused is to be tried by the society.”

“Let us trace out the progress of the trial in the case we have supposed, and you will see not only how it can be, but how it _must_ be. As a lawyer, I have had some experience in these things.

“Young Markman accuses the class-leader of slander. To whom must the accusation be made? To the preacher in charge. It is his duty to try members. And what if he refuse to entertain the charge? What if he say, ‘Young man, go along about your business; I do not believe a word you say. It is much more likely that you, a mere probationer, should lie, than this good and pious class-leader.’ There the matter will rest. The leader is responsible _only_ to the preacher, and if this slander were a part of his report as leader, there is no one else who has a right to intermeddle in the business.

“The preacher may try or refuse to try, as he sees best. Here is the decision of the Conference, as given by Gorrie, page 325, sec. 32: ‘Is a preacher at liberty to refuse to call an accused member to trial, when charges have been preferred by respectable members of the Church? He is, if there are sufficient reasons existing why he should not do so.’ And of that he is to be sole judge.

“But what if he should feel compelled by the force of public opinion to permit a trial? The trial must be before the society, _or a select number of them_. The preacher decides on bringing it before a _select number_. It is his privilege to do so; and _he_ determines how many and of whom that select number shall consist. He sounds his men beforehand, and chooses such as are suited to his purpose. And if a majority of the committee thus chosen by himself do not bring in a verdict in accordance with his wishes, it will be strange indeed The accuser has no right to object to any one whom the minister may select; and lawyers know that clients never expect full justice from a ‘packed’ jury.

“But he not only selects his jury with the opportunity to sound every member of it beforehand; he also presides as _judge_. If the accused or the accuser object to any of the jury, it is his province to overrule his objections, if he see fit, and to pronounce them unreasonable. (See Gorrie, p. 323.) If any evidence come up which he prefers shall not be introduced, _he_ is to decide the question whether it shall be admitted. (See as above, p. 327.) ‘Are questions relating to the admissibility of testimony questions of law? They are, and consequently the _president or chairman of a trial must decide on the admissibility of the testimony_.’

“Now, with power to select the jury, determine all questions of law, and decide on the admissibility of the testimony, what prospect is there that he will not have the case decided as he determines? But if it should be otherwise, ‘Who is to determine and award the punishment? _The preacher._’ (See Gorrie as above, p. 323.)

“So, even if convicted, the case is still in the hands of the preacher, who is to determine what the punishment must be, and himself inflict or forbear to inflict it, as he may see best.

“But if the decision of his own ‘packed jury,’ with himself presiding as judge of the law and the admissibility of testimony, should be against his wishes; if he be so disposed, he can either simply _refuse_ to carry out their verdict—for he is sole executive—or he can take the case out of their hands and carry it for a new trial before the Quarterly Conference, consisting of his brother _preachers_—who will find it hard to think him in the wrong—and of stewards, exhorters, and class-leaders, appointed by himself The Church or society has _no power at all to DECIDE_ any case, unless they decide according to the wishes of the preacher; for we read in chapter iv., section 3, question 2, answer 4: ‘_Nevertheless, if in any of the above-mentioned cases the minister or preacher shall differ in judgment from a majority of the society, or the select number, concerning the innocence or guilt of the accused person, the trial in such case may be referred by the minister or preacher to the ensuing quarterly meeting Conference._’

“Now, I ask, in all kindness and respect—but still I cannot help asking—if the semblance of power given to the society, in the trial of members, is not the veriest shadow, deluding them with the idea of authority, when they have none whatever? Let me, as a lawyer, have the choosing of my jury from persons whom I have already sounded; let me be the judge of the law, and receive or reject the testimony as it may seem best to me, and then let me decide concerning the punishment, and let it devolve on me to inflict it, and it will be very surprising to me if I should be at all desirous to appeal. But let me, in case should be dissatisfied, have the _second_ chance before a tribunal interested in sustaining _my authority_, and a majority of whom had been appointed by myself, and with all of whom my _official position_ would give me influence and importance, and I am sure I should not fail to get a verdict which should be perfectly satisfactory to my desires.”

“But,” exclaimed Theodosia, “if you, as a Methodist preacher, should act as you have supposed this one to do, the Church would take up your case, and convict you of connivance at sin and unfaithfulness in duty.”

“Not at all. The Church, that is, the society, can no more try a preacher than it can try Queen Victoria. The preacher is sent _to govern the Church_, not to be governed by it. It has no sort of control over him. He is not responsible to it either for his official or his personal misconduct. It can only call the attention of his presiding elder or his bishop to the case. And then, if it were _some crime_ expressly forbidden by the word of God, the elder or the bishop would call together three other preachers and proceed to try him; and, if convicted, suspend him from preaching until the meeting of the Conference, when the preachers assembled would finally decide his case. A preacher, you see, can only be tried by _preachers_. But mere maladministration of Church discipline, attended, as it would be in the case supposed, by earnest declarations that he was all the time actuated by a sincere desire for the welfare of the Church, and had no sort of selfish feeling in the case, would hardly be regarded by his fellow-preachers as a crime. It would be a mere error of judgment. If it were noticed at all as a wrong, it would come under the head of ‘improper tempers, words, or actions.’ See _Discipline_, chap. iv., sec. i, ques. 5: ‘What shall be done in cases of improper tempers, words or actions?’

“‘_Answer._ The person so offending shall be reprehended by his senior in office. Should a second transgression take place, one, two, or three ministers are to be taken as witnesses. If he be not then cured, he shall be tried at the next Annual Conference, and if found guilty and impenitent, shall be expelled,’ etc.

“So you see that all the preacher would have to fear for this, his first offence of the kind, would be a private scolding from his presiding elder.[11]

“That it was the real intention of the Discipline to keep all actual power out of the hands of the people, and vest it exclusively in the _preachers_, is further evident from the fact that the bishops give it as a reason, a sort of apology, for permitting an appeal to be made to the Quarterly Conference, that it is mostly composed of _preachers_. Here is their language; let the people mark it:

“‘An appeal is allowed in all the cases mentioned in this section to the following quarterly meeting. For though the power of appeal be not mentioned in the last clause, which relates to the sowing of dissensions, yet it is certainly implied. Our work is at present in its infancy, in comparison to what we trust it will be, through the blessing of God us _ministers_, who have the charge of circuits, may not always be so aged and experienced as we might wish them. The appeal to the quarterly meeting is, therefore, allowed to remedy this defect. And this no one can object to. No one, we think, can imagine that the _members of a class_, or the members of the largest _society_, would form so respectable or so impartial a court of judicature as the presiding elder, the travelling and local preachers, and the leaders and stewards, of _the whole circuit_. But the point is quite out of the reach of debate, in respect to those who believe the sacred writings and sincerely reverence them. _The New Testament determines, beyond a doubt, that judgment and censure, in the cases before us, shall be in the MINISTER. Nor could we justify our conduct in investing the Quarterly Conference_ with the authority of receiving and determining appeals, _if it were not almost entirely composed of men who are more or less engaged in the ministry of the word,_ the stewards being the only exceptions.’

“Remember, this is what the _bishops_ themselves say, in explanation of the Discipline; and shows how much authority the ‘people’ were to have. (See as above, pp. 337, 338.)

“You see, therefore, that the society, so for from being herself the independent executive of the laws of Christ, has nothing to do but _pay_ the preachers and quietly submit to their control. So far from being independent, she is dependent on the bishop to say who shall preach in her pulpit, and who shall administer her ordinances, or whether she shall have any preaching or any ordinances. She is dependent on a preacher who is not of her number, who is not chosen by herself, and not responsible to her for his personal or his official conduct, to decide for her who shall be members of her communion, who shall be received, who shall be retained, and who expelled. Or if this power of his be in some slight degree shared with others, it is not with the society or the representatives of the society, but with the Quarterly Conference; that is, with other ministers equally independent of them, and with exhorters, stewards, and class-leaders, none of whom are appointed by the Church, but chosen over it by the ministers.”

“But their subjection is voluntary, is it not?” said the Rev Mr Stiptain. “They are not compelled to this abject submission, as you seem to consider it. Their bishops and preachers rule by their free consent.”

“So,” replied Mr. Courtney, “is the subjection of the Roman Catholic to the Pope a voluntary subjection—in this land, at least. But he _must_ submit, or _cease to be a Catholic_; and the Methodist _must_ submit, or _cease to be a Methodist_. Your system, you will permit me to say, IS A SYSTEM OF RULE for the ministry and _subjection_ for the people. They may rebel. They may ask for the authority in God’s word which demands that they should bow the neck to the clerical yoke. They may ask what Jesus meant when he said, ‘Call no man on earth your master!’ They may inquire who gave the bishop authority to lord it over the heritage of God. They may demand to know by what right the Discipline has taken the authority from the _Church_—the local society of faithful men—and given it to the ministers, the bishops, or the Conference; but if anyone does this, he is liable to expulsion. He must, as a Methodist, be governed by the Discipline. Let any Church steadily refuse to receive the preacher sent by the bishop, or venture to employ one whom the bishop has not sent, or refuse to carry into execution any of the decrees of the Conference as contained in the Discipline, and you know she will not long be a part of the Methodist Church If she does not _submit_, she goes out of the connection. This is all the compulsion, thank God, that any religious organization _can_ employ in this land of freedom. But enough of this. I presume that you, sir, will not contend that a Methodist society is a local, independent organization, or that the Methodist Church is made up of such organizations; and we may, therefore, go on to our next mark.”

“Which is,” said Theodosia, “that a true Church _has Christ alone for its King and Lawgiver, and submits, in matters of religion, to no authority but his._

“Does the Methodist ecclesiastical establishment, whether we consider it as the collective whole, which is called ‘the Church,’ or as local congregations, called ‘societies,’ recognize any other lawgiver but Christ alone?”

“That question,” said Mr. Percy, “resolves itself into this other, namely, Does she recognize the authority of the General Conference to make rules which she, as a Church, is bound to obey? Are her ministers and her societies at liberty to disregard and pass by the discipline ordained by the Conference, and go to the _Bible only_ for instruction, in regard to Church affairs? I would be glad, sir,” (addressing the presiding elder,) “if you could direct us to some reliable authority which would enable us to decide this question determinately before we go any farther.”

“I can hardly suppose it necessary,” replied the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “to remind you that Methodists go to the Bible for their faith and their practice. We appeal continually to the word of God, and it is our desire, in all things, to obey the Lord rather than men. For this we have been reviled. For this we have been persecuted. For this to-day our names are cast out as evil. No people have suffered more for conscience’ sake than the poor, despised, and slandered Methodists.”

“Then I understand you to say that you, as Methodists, _owe no obedience_ to any law which was not enacted by Christ or the apostles, and which is not recorded in the word of God. So far, therefore, as the Discipline differs from the Scriptures, you are, as Methodists, under _no obligation_ to obey its requirements, and, _refusing to obey_, would still be retained in the connection, and permitted to enjoy all the privileges of other Methodists. I am glad to hear it; for I confess we had formed a different opinion concerning this matter. We had imagined that a Methodist _preacher_ especially was bound to ‘remember’ and ‘_mind every point in the DISCIPLINE, great and small_,’ whether he could find that point made out in the word of God or not; that he was not to ‘_mend the rules, but keep them_,’ whether he could find them in the Bible or not. In _some_ Churches they have a custom of giving the young preacher a _Bible_ when he enters upon his work, with instructions to study _it_, and be governed by its teachings. We were under the impression that in yours ‘the Annual Conference receives him as a probationer, by giving him the _form of DISCIPLINE_, inscribed thus: To A. B.: _You think it your duty to call sinners to repentance. Make full proof hereof, and we shall rejoice to receive you as a fellow-laborer._’ (_Discipline_, chap. ii., sec. viii., ques. 1, ans. 3.) And that when you ‘receive him into full connection, you do it by giving him another copy of the DISCIPLINE, inscribed thus: _As long as you freely consent to and earnestly endeavor to walk by these rules, we shall rejoice to acknowledge you as a fellow-laborer._’ (_Discip._, chap. ii., sec. viii., ques. 3, ans. 1.) We thought you never asked him whether he _had studied the BIBLE or not_; but that you were careful to inquire if ‘he had read the form of DISCIPLINE,’ ‘and was willing to conform to _it_;’ ‘if he knew the _rules of the society_, and of the _bands_, and if he conformed to _them_.’ In short, it has been our impression, that it was made his duty to _obey the Discipline_, rather than the Bible. We are rejoiced to hear that it is not so. We are glad that every member and every minister is free to consult the Bible for himself, and only regard the _Discipline_ so far as he finds its requirements enacted in the Bible.”

“I wish, sir,” exclaimed Mr. Courtney, “that all your ministers and all your members could be made to understand it in this way. It might cause _some_ of them to take the trouble to _search the Scriptures_, for those proof-texts on which the compilers of the Discipline rested its authority, and to which they have neglected to give us any reference. If they could _all_ be induced to do this, with a firm determination to receive nothing _as binding_ which they could not find _plainly put down in the Bible_, the system could not live a year. I would like, for example, to see them all begin to search for that text which confers the authority on your preachers to shut out from the Church those who give good evidence that they are true believers for six long months, (on the supposition that probationers are not members;) or to admit the unconverted seekers to Church-membership, on the supposition that they are. Of course, you believe there is _at least some ONE such text_, or else you could not consider this regulation of the _Discipline_ as of any binding force. If it has _NO scriptural authority_, it must be null and void as a binding law upon the Church of Christ; and if _it is actually OPPOSED_ to the scriptural law, then to enforce it, or obey it, is a _fearful sin_ against God. It is organized, deliberate, systematic, and persistent _rebellion_ against the express requirements of Him who alone has the right to make laws for his Church.”

“That is strong language, sir,” replied the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “to apply to the ministers and members of a Christian Church, which, I will venture to say, embodies as much of earnest piety, and gives evidence of as sincere love for the Saviour, and as much readiness to obey his will, as any body of people upon the earth.”

“I know it is. I made use of strong language because the sense demands it. I mean _all_ that I said; and neither you, nor any conscientious man, will venture to deny that _all_ I said is strictly and literally true, according to the plain and natural meaning of the words. I would respectfully ask you to say for yourself _whether it would not be A FEARFUL SIN_—an act of HIGH-HANDED REBELLION against Christ—_for the misters_ of _his Church_ to take it upon themselves to admit people to Church-membership whom HE did _not_ authorize them to admit, and to shut out those whom he required to be admitted. And if you have a right to shut a true believer out six months, you have the same right to shut him out sixteen months or sixty months. It devolves, then, on you, as a Methodist minister, to show _your authority_, not in the _Discipline_, but in the WORD OF GOD. Of course, you think you _have_ such authority. Such good and pious people as the Methodists would not _knowingly_ rebel against the laws of the King in Zion. I would like to see you look for it. With your permission, I would like to help you look for it _now_! Here is the Bible. Will you point me to the text which is relied upon by Methodists as their authority for this law of the Discipline?”

So saying, Mr. Courtney handed him the Bible, and all waited for him to open it, and find the text.

“The makers of the Discipline,” replied the Elder, with out opening the Bible, “did not see fit to encumber it with references to the chapter and verse which contained what they considered the authority for each of its provisions, and consequently different persons might now rely upon different texts—some upon one and some upon another. Upon what texts the greatest number of Methodists would rely I do not know.”

“Well, I will be very easily satisfied: I only ask for _some one_ upon which any of the Methodists can rely. I only ask for _one command_ to admit the unconverted, or _one command_ to shut out for six months the converted, who desire admission; or, in case that cannot be found, I only ask for _one example_ in which saint or sinner, seeker or believer, was, by the apostles, admitted on six months’ probation. I only ask for _one mention of_ or _one_ allusion to a Christian Church, to which a part of the members were _probationers_ and a part were _full_ members.”

“Why, sir,” exclaimed the Elder’s lady, “I can give you an example of the admission of _three thousand_ members _before they had professed conversion_. The Pentecostal penitents were _only convicted_. They were pricked in their hearts, and cried out, ‘Men and brethren, what shall we do?’ Now, Brother Gorrie, in his History of Methodism, page 172, says, ‘It is evident that these persons were not believers in the sense of being regenerate, unless regenerating faith precedes repentance for sin; for they were first to repent, and then to be baptized, for, that is, _in order to_ the remission of sins, and thirdly, as the result of such repentance and baptism, they were taught to expect the gift of the Holy Ghost.’ Now, if Peter received the inquiring penitent, and baptized him into the Church to make him a Christian, why cannot we? We ask the sinner who desires salvation, to come into the Church and find it in the use of the sacraments, and the other means of grace; but if he does not find it in six months, we take it for granted that he is not in earnest, and so send him away unless he feels that he would like to try for six months longer.”

“I wonder,” said Theodosia, to herself, “if she could not show us how many of these three thousand _were dropped_ by Peter’s _class-leader_ at the end of six months; and how many were recommended by him for full membership?” But she was too polite to speak her thoughts aloud, and Mr. Courtney simply replied:

“The passage you refer to, madam, is itself convincing evidence that _true_ repentance and a saving faith always go together; for although Peter commanded them to repent and be baptized, _he did not baptize_ or receive into the Church any except those ‘who _gladly_ received the word;’ and the _glad_ reception of the word supposes _faith_ in the word. Peter did _not_ receive them as mere anxious, convicted sinners, _inquiring_ what they must do—as your Church does. They were already serious; already anxious; already _inquiring_ most earnestly; already they were _crying out_ as most determined _seekers_. But this was not enough. They must not only be _convicted of sin_, they must also _repent of sin_, and true _repentance_ implies true conversion, and necessarily implies true faith either as preceding or accompanying it. For salvation is again and again promised to the _penitent_, and yet the Lord expressly says, ‘He that _believeth not_ shall be damned.’

“But the question before us now is not whether Peter received unregenerate sinners and made them Christians by baptism, but whether he received them or any one on _six months’ probation_? with the understanding that, if all parties were not satisfied, they might quietly withdraw or as quietly ‘_be dropped_’ at the end of that time.

“But still that people were not, as sinners, taken into the Church by the apostles to be regenerated _there_, and made the children of God and the heirs of glory by some Church _ceremony_, but were added to the Church because they gave evidence that they were _already converted, regenerated, and saved_, you may learn from the last verse of the same chapter to which you referred, (Acts xi.,) where you read, ‘The Lord added daily unto the Church,’ not _seekers_, not _probationers_, but ‘such as should be saved,’ which reads in the original simply ‘_the saved_.’ They were first made _safe_ by faith in Christ, and then admitted to the privileges of the Church, because they were already of the number of the saved, and not in order that they might become such. As these were added _daily_, of course it did not _then_ require _six months_ to get into the Church, and if any such regulation was ever made by the apostles, it must have been made after this.

“If we go to Samaria, and read that the multitudes of men and women believed and were baptized at once, we may be sure that there was no six months’ probation there. Nor do we hear of any thing of the kind at Antioch, or at Corinth, or at Ephesus, or at any place where any Church is mentioned in the Scriptures. Peter did not receive Cornelius on probation; Philip did not receive the eunuch on probation; Paul did not receive Lydia on probation; nor did he receive the jailer on probation. So soon as they gave evidence of _faith_ in Christ, they were admitted at once to _full_ membership, and until they _had_ done this, none were admitted to membership at all.

“Now, madam, your good husband here thinks that, as a Methodist, neither he nor the bishops above him, nor the preachers below him, are bound by any law of the Discipline which is not based upon the word of God. I hope you will persuade him, therefore, never again to sanction the admission of a mere _seeker_ in Church privileges as a probationer, and at once to admit every applicant who gives evidence of _real faith_ to _full_ membership. Though, if he should determine thus to obey the Bible rather than the Discipline, I foresee that it will cost him not only his eldership, but his _membership_. He _cannot do it and stay in the Methodist Church_; and no one knows that fact better than he does himself.”

“Of course, sir, I would not _desire_ to remain in the Methodist Church unless I could conscientiously agree with it in doctrine, and conform to its rules. Every voluntary association has a right to determine for itself the terms of its membership, and require of those who come into it of their own accord that they shall continue to conform to its rules.”

“No, sir; I ask your pardon for seeming to contradict your assertion. But the Church of Jesus Christ has _no authority_ to make or mend the terms of admission or of continuance in her membership. They were made for her by her Lord; she was constituted upon _his_ terms, and must be always governed by them. If any association called a Church has made _other terms of admission_ than those which =he= made, it is certainly not _his Church_, for into _his_ Church _all his people_ may surely come upon HIS terms.

“But, sir, this is only _one point_ in regard to which you are bound to obey the Discipline rather than the Bible, the Conference rather than the Lord Jesus. Will you permit me to call your attention to another?”

“Certainly, and with great pleasure; I love to hear you talk. It is satisfaction to know just what you Baptists think of us. I have never heard it told so freely before. I hope you will keep back nothing that is in your heart, for, if I am not self-deceived, I sincerely desire to know and to obey the truth.”

“Then you will not get angry with me, sir, if I ask you to show me in the Scripture some authority for making _attendance upon the class-meeting_ a condition of _continuance_ in the Church, even after admission to full membership. Observe, it is not the institution of the class-meeting that I speak of, but the making attendance on it a condition of _Church-membership_. Did the Lord Jesus, by himself or his apostles, at any time or at any place enact _this_ as a condition of membership in HIS Church? Did he or they ever by precept or example authorize you to drive one of his children out of HIS Church _for not attending class_? That the Discipline not only authorizes but _requires_ you to do so, you will see by turning to chapter iv., section 3:

“‘QUESTION 1. What shall we do with those members of our Church who wilfully and repeatedly neglect to meet their class?’

“‘ANSWER 1. Let an elder, deacon, or one of the preachers visit them whenever it is practicable, and explain to them the consequence if they continue to neglect—namely, exclusion.’

“‘2. If they do not amend, let him who has the charge of the circuit, or station, bring their case before the society, or a select number, before whom they shall have been cited to appear; and if they be found guilty of wilful neglect, by the decision of a majority of the members before whom the case is brought, let them be laid aside, and let the preacher show that they are excluded for a breach of our rules, and not for immoral conduct.’”

“Yes, sir, you quote it correctly; you seem to know our rules almost as well as though you had been yourself a Methodist. And I will candidly state, for the information of your friends, that we are accustomed to enforce the rule wherever occasion may require; and have ever found it a most essential part of our Church discipline. If a member wilfully and pertinaciously neglects ‘_class_,’ he makes, as a general rule, a miserably poor Methodist; we have but little use for him.”

But the question with us just now is this: You say that, as a Methodist, neither you nor your members are bound to obey any law but that of Christ; and yet you say one cannot be permitted to remain in your Church who does not obey this law, which requires weekly attendance on the class-meeting. It follows, therefore, either that you are utterly mistaken in regard to the matter, or else that Christ Jesus, by himself or his apostles, instituted the class-meeting, and made regular attendance on it a condition of membership in _his Church_. If he did not, then you have made for _your_ Church different terms of membership from those which he made for _his_; and _your_ Church, consequently, must be one thing, and HIS Church another, and in one respect, at least, a very different thing.

“It is certain you make this a term of membership. It is certain that one cannot wilfully refuse or neglect to attend ‘_class_,’ and not be subject to exclusion from the Church; and the only question that remains for us to settle is, whether class-meetings were ordained by Christ, and regular attendance on them made essential to Church-membership.”

“If it will relieve your mind of any anxiety upon that subject,” replied the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “I will candidly confess to you that we, as Methodists, have never pretended that the institution of the class was of Divine authority. Our writers have again and again declared that it originated in a suggestion made by Captain Foy, one of the early converts to Methodism, and adopted from him by the venerable Wesley. Our brother, J. Miley, in his work called ‘_Class-meetings_,’ expressly says, that ‘we regard our class-meetings simply as a prudential regulation. Mr. Wesley himself so regarded and styled them. They are a usage which our Church has herself instituted.’ P. 73.

“So, also, our Brother Charles Key, in his ‘_Class-leaders’ Manual_’ declares very plainly that ‘it is not contended that this institution is of Divine appointment, or that in the specific form in which it prevails among Methodists, it had any existence in the primitive Church.’ P. 19.

“Our Brother Gorrie, in his excellent ‘_History of Methodism as it was and is_,’ says, ‘that the question whether Mr. Wesley ever designed to establish class-meetings as a term or condition of Church-membership, is a question which has not been largely discussed nor finally settled.’ Nor does it seem now of any consequence what Mr. Wesley designed. It certainly _is_ a condition of membership, whether he designed it to be so or not; and we contend for it simply on the ground of its utility and necessity to the purity and prosperity of our Churches.”

“But what authority have you to make it a _condition_ _of membership_, when Christ did not require it?” asked Theodosia.

“Those who become Methodists, madam, know our rules, and by uniting with us they agree to conform to them, and have no cause of complaint if they refuse and are expelled.”

“If you claimed to be no more than a mere _human society_,” said Mr. Courtney, “like the Sons of Temperance, or the Free Masons, or Odd-Fellows, you would certainly have the right to fix your own terms of membership, and those who did not choose to conform to them might stand aside. But you claim to be _the Church of Christ and of God_. The law of Christ requires all his people to unite with _his Church_, and requires his Church to receive and retain them on certain conditions established _by himself_. _HE HAS DETERMINED what qualifications shall entitle them to admittance, and for what disqualifications they shall be expelled._ But you seem to feel that you are wiser than your Master, and not only venture to make new terms and times of admission, but new conditions of continuance. You may call this wisdom; you may excuse it by saying that it is, in your opinion, for the good of the Church. But Christ will say to you, as you do to your preachers, ‘_Do not mend MY rules, but keep them._’ You can never better the plans which Infinite Wisdom devised, and to add to or take from HIS conditions of membership in his Church, is wicked _rebellion_ against the authority of the King. If your Church is the Church of Christ, then, when your conference changes the conditions of membership, it changes the conditions of membership in the _Church of Christ_—the conditions which Christ himself established. It sets itself _above_ the King. It claims the authority to undo what Christ has done in his own Church. It abrogates and nullifies the law of Christ. It may have done it with the best _intentions_, but it is no less rebellion for all that. My overseer who disobeys my positive orders, and causes my servants to do so may plead that _he_ thought my orders were unwise or imperfect, and that he was sure my interests would be best promoted by his arrangements. But it is no less _disobedience_ on this account. It is his business to _obey_, and he must take it for granted that I am competent to take care of my own interests, and know what it is that I desire to have done.

“You may _think_ you are wiser than your Master; you may think you are more competent to decide upon the terms of membership in his Church than he was himself; and so you may honestly endeavor to mend his plan and improve upon his requirements; but when you do it you reject his authority, you _rebel_ against his government, nay, you usurp to yourselves the prerogatives of the Lawgiver, and put yourselves in the place of God.”

“But has not Christ,” asked Mrs. Stiptain, “given a certain liberty to his ministers to change and modify the unessential rites and ceremonies of his Church at their discretion?”

“I think not, madam; but if he had, these things, which determine the very right to membership, do not belong to unessential rites and ceremonies. They are vital to the very existence of the Church. Whatever Christ may have left undetermined concerning his Church, it is certain he did not leave undetermined the terms of admission or the conditions of membership. These were fixed and positive. These must be at all times and everywhere the same.

“If his ministers have a right to _add one condition_, they have equal right to add ten. If they may require attendance on ‘class’ once a week, they may, with equal propriety, require confession to the minister once a week, or the reading of a certain chapter of the Discipline once a week, or the taking of the Christian Advocate and Journal, or the observance of every Friday as a fast-day. And if they may _add_ any new conditions, so they may change or dispense with the old. They may dispense with the profession of faith, and not only change the act of baptism but dispense with it, or any substitute for it, altogether. If they may change the terms of admission and the conditions of membership _once_, they may do it twice, or thrice, or seven times, or seventy times seven. To-day they may admit one class of people, and to-morrow declare them ineligible. To-day they may permit a portion of their members to enjoy all the privileges of the Church unconscious of any wrong, and to-morrow may pass a law that shall cast them out into the world and deliver them over unto Satan.”

“But you cannot suppose, sir,” replied the lady, “that there is the slightest probability that the _Methodist Church_ would thus arbitrarily trifle with the privileges of her members.”