Chapter XXXII: Introduction (15)

Text size

“‘_BY BAPTISM we who were by nature the children of_ _wrath =are made= the children of God._ And this _regeneration_ which our Church in so many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected therewith: being grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace. This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, “Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” John iii. 5. _By water, AS A MEANS, the water of baptism, WE ARE REGENERATED OR BORN AGAIN._’

“Let any _Baptist_ talk thus, and he would surely be thought to teach that men were _regenerated_ and made the children of God and the heirs of glory ‘_by water_,’ by ‘THE WATER OF BAPTISM.’ And I cannot help thinking that this is what the words mean as Mr. Wesley wrote them, as the Conference approved them, as the preachers circulate them, and as the people read them. I presume that Mr. Wesley and the Conference understood the English language, and knew what these words would signify to those who read them; and I suppose, therefore, that _they meant to teach_ what the words express; and, therefore, that _the Methodist Episcopal Church does hold, as an article of faith, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration_.”

“But, my dear sir,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “you have overlooked the foot-note at the bottom of page 249, which shows that the Conference did _not_ intend to endorse Mr. Wesley’s views on this point.”

“No, sir, I did not overlook the foot-note; I can see nothing in it which denies that they heartily coincide with Mr. Wesley in _doctrine_, though they don’t seem to like his frank and open _expression_ of it. I will read the note, that we may see what it amounts to:

“‘That Mr. Wesley, as a clergyman of the Church of England, was originally a _High-Churchman_ in the fullest sense, is well known. When he wrote this treatise, in the year 1756, he _seems_ still to have used some expressions in relation to the doctrine of regeneration which we at this day would not prefer. Some such in the judgment of the reader may _perhaps_ be found under this second head. This last sentence, however, contains a guarded corrective. It explains also the sense in which we believe Mr. Wesley intended much of what goes before to be understood.’

“Now, does this sound to you like a bold and absolute _disapproval_ of the false and abominable doctrine? Does it say, This, though asserted by Mr. Wesley, is not scriptural nor true? Does it say we are _not_ regenerated and born again by water baptism? No, sir; they very cautiously say he seems to have used some _expressions_ which they at _this day_ (when the doctrine has become odious to many) would not _have preferred_. The _reader_ may be like us, one who abominates the wretched and soul-destroying delusion; and, therefore, they seem to think _HE may, perhaps,_ think there are some objectionable sentences. Is this the way honest men and earnest men would have expressed their dissent from the doctrine if they had not connived at it?

“But the last sentence, they say, ‘contains a guarded corrective,’ and explains the sense in which they think Mr. Wesley should be understood. What _that sentence_, therefore, does not correct, they leave uncorrected; and except so far as _that sentence_ modifies his meaning, they leave the reader to suppose that they agree with and approve of Mr. Wesley’s doctrine. Now what is that ‘_last sentence_?’ It is this: ‘Baptism doth now save us if we live answerable thereto—if we repent, believe, and obey the gospel: supposing this, as it admits us into the Church here, so into glory hereafter.’ Let us see now what is the force of this explanatory ‘last sentence.’ If you repent, believe, and obey the gospel, will your obedience, your faith, and your repentance save you? No; but if you have these, _your baptism_ will save you. It is not the penitence, faith, or obedience, but the baptism, that admits us into the Church here, and it is baptism that is to admit us ‘into glory hereafter.’

“This sentence does not intimate that any one can ordinarily be saved without baptism as a means, but only that baptism _of itself_ is not _all_ that is needful to salvation. It does not contradict or nullify the statement made before, that ‘by baptism we are made the children of God;’ that by the water of baptism we are regenerated or born again; that ‘herein’ (that is, in baptism) ‘a principle of grace is infused which will not be wholly taken away unless we quench the Spirit of God by long-continued wickedness;’ but it only intimates that this new birth, this principle of grace, this sonship to God, obtained by water baptism as the means, will not be of any _use to us_ unless we repent, and believe, and obey the gospel, while it leaves us to infer that the repentance, faith, and obedience, would be of just as little use without the baptism.

“But to show, once for all, that the Conference _did not intend_ to expurgate the writings of Mr. Wesley, and free them from this _heresy_, but that they _continue_ heartily to commend them, including those which teach this perversion of the gospel with the rest, look at the volume of his sermons published for the Conference, and specially required to be studied by every minister of the denomination. The doctrine is there as plainly as here, and it is there sent forth entirely unguarded by any note of explanation or denial. See p. 405, vol. i., Wesley’s Works, Sermon XLV.:

“‘From the preceding reflections we nay, secondly, observe, that as the new birth is not the same thing with baptism, so it does not always accompany baptism. They do not constantly go together. A man may possibly be born of water, and yet not be born of the Spirit There may sometimes be the outward sign where there is not the inward grace. I do not speak now with regard to infants. It is certain our Church supposes that all who are baptized in infancy are, at the same time, born again; and it is allowed that the whole office for the baptism of infants proceeds upon this supposition. Nor is it an objection of any weight against this, that we cannot comprehend how this work can be wrought in infants; for neither can we comprehend how it is wrought in one of riper years.’ Now what could be made plainer than this—that as regards infants they are _always_ born again, and, consequently, made heirs of God when they are baptized? An adult _may possibly_ be baptized without being regenerated, but can he be regenerated without being baptized, or without having been baptized? Is not baptism the _means_ by which the adult must be born again, if he be born again at all? Is there one way by which infants are regenerated, and another by which adults are regenerated? But if Methodists could accomplish what they desire, and this teaching of their standard sermons is true, there would be no such thing as being born again in adult age, unless one can be born again the second time; for they would, if possible, regenerate _all_ while they are yet infants.

“But to make the matter still plainer, and, if possible, set it for ever at rest, I will show you that what Wesley taught so plainly a hundred years ago, and the Conference has been publishing and commending, and absolutely _requiring_ her ministers to study, in order that they might preach, ever since the Methodist Church has had any existence, is taught, in substance, in one of the most recent and most popular works of the denomination; which, though not published by _order_ of the Conference, must have received _their approbation_, since it is expressly provided in the Discipline, part 2d, sec. 8, that ‘Any travelling preacher who may publish any book of his own, shall be responsible to his Conference for any obnoxious matter or _doctrine_ therein contained;’ and this work has not only called for _no censure_ from the Conference, but has been _specially commended_ by two presiding elders, and by the Conference papers. I refer to the book which has been so often quoted in our conversation—The History of the Methodist Church, by the Rev. P. Douglass Gorrie. I will show you that he, in 1851, teaches baptismal regeneration, though not as _plainly_, yet quite as really and unmistakably as did Mr Wesley in 1756. Mr. Gorrie teaches just as Mr. Wesley and Mr. A. Campbell teaches, that baptism, instead of _following_ faith in Christ, to signify, symbolize, and seal the new birth already experienced and now openly professed, is THE INSTRUMENT OR MEANS by which sins are actually remitted, and pardon actually obtained. He says, (p. 173,) speaking of those baptized upon the day of Pentecost, ‘Now 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, _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 this rendering of the little preposition ‘_eis_,’ for, ‘_in order to,_’ is very significant. When Christ told the leper whom he had cleansed, to go and show himself to the priest, and offer the gifts that Moses commanded, (‘_eis_,’) _for_ his cleansing, no one understands him to mean that the gifts were to be offered _in order to procure his cleansing_, but as an expression of the fact that he was already cleansed, and for the formal public and _official_ recognition and proclamation of that fact. So, when Peter says, ‘Repent and be baptized _for_ the remission of your sins,’ it is _not in order to obtain_ the remission of their sins, but to give public expression to the fact that their sins had already been remitted on their true repentance, which is always accompanied by true faith; since the Lord has expressly said, that without faith no one can be saved, and yet has promised salvation to the true penitent. The baptism was like the offerings of the leper—_for the formal public and official_ recognition and proclamation of the fact that their sins had already been remitted, and for their consequent public reception into the number of the children of God. This is the explanation which is given and received by those who deny the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But those who, like Mr. A. Campbell and Mr. Wesley, teach that baptism is the _means_ of regeneration, or that it is itself regeneration, or that in some way or other there is some such connection or relation between them, that regeneration and remission of sins are experienced in or by baptism—these persons are all accustomed to render this word as Gorrie has done, ‘_in order to_,’ so that it may signify that _it is by baptism as a means_, or medium, that remission of sins is secured. And that this is what he means in the passage we are considering, is evident from the object for which he introduces it, which is, to prove that the _unconverted_ penitent, that is, the convicted sinner, may be baptized while unregenerate; for Peter, as he thinks, told these unregenerate sinners to _be baptized_ ‘_for_,’ that is, ‘in order to’ obtain the remission of their sins. But in speaking of the case of Paul in the same connection, he expressly declares that it does prove that _baptism is the means_ or instrumentality by which pardon is obtained. By a _penitent_ Mr. Gorrie has explained (p. 172) that he means persons who are convicted of sin, but yet unregenerate; and now he says, ‘Another example of the baptism of penitents is given in the case of the Apostle Paul. After being arrested by the light and voice from heaven, he fasted and prayed in blindness, natural and spiritual, for three days. In this condition Ananias finds him. His natural sight returns, but spiritual darkness remains; and then Ananias says to him, Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. From this example it appears that baptism is both _a means_ and seal of pardon and consequently that true penitents may and ought to be baptized.’

“Now no one denies that _true penitents_, in the sense of _regenerate_ penitents, ought to be baptized; but in that case how can baptism be the _means_ of their pardon, since they have been already pardoned the moment they repented? But he would have us understand that Paul, though penitent, had not been pardoned, and could only be by baptism as _the means_.

“You have all, it seems to me,” said Mr. Courtney, “given yourselves a great deal of needless trouble. If your object had been merely to determine whether the Methodist Episcopal Church believes and teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, either as regards infants or adults, you need not have gone outside the Discipline itself. Mr. Wesley, in the passage you have cited, does not more clearly avow it in regard to infants, than the Discipline teaches it in regard to adults.”

“It is very strange, sir,” said the Reverend Mr. Stiptain, “that you can see things in the Discipline which Methodists themselves have always been ignorant of.”

“Methodists, my dear sir, may have read the words or heard the words so carelessly, that they have never attended to their natural and necessary meaning; but you yourself have taught, and your people have heard you teach the doctrine of baptismal regeneration _every time_ you have gone through your office for the ministration of baptism, either for an infant or adult. But not to waste our time in talking about the infants since Mr. Wesley settles that beyond all cavil, let me call your attention to the formula for the baptism of such as are of riper years, chap. v., sec. 2. Remember, the question about which we are at issue is this: Whether baptism is to _follow_ regeneration as an open and formal profession of it on the part of the candidate, and an official recognition of it on the part of the Church, or whether it is to be employed as the _means_ or in instrumentality by which, or upon which, or in connection with which; regeneration is either effected or secured. Now, as Wesley says that the whole office for infant baptism proceeds on the supposition that infants are regenerated when they are baptized, so I say that the whole office for the baptism of those of riper years proceeds on the supposition that those coming to baptism are yet _unregenerate_, and that it is expected and understood that by baptism, or in baptism, they may and will become regenerate.

“1st. ‘The minister shall use the following, etc.: Dearly beloved brethren, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, (and that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and they that are in the flesh cannot please God, but live in sin, committing many actual transgressions,) and that our Saviour saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost, I beseech you⸻’ What? To thank God that he has in his great mercy already renewed and regenerated these persons, and so fitted them to be received as members of his kingdom? Not at all. ‘I beseech you call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that he _will grant_ to these persons that which by nature they cannot have: that they may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ’s holy Church, and be made lively members of the same.’

“2. Having thus entreated the brethren to help him pray, he goes on, and in their name offers the following prayer: ‘Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all that need, the helper of all that flee to thee for succor, the life of them that believe, and the resurrection of the dead—’ We _return thee hearty thanks that thou hast regenerated these persons and freely remitted all their sins, in token whereof they have come to be baptized according to they appointment?_ No such thing. But, ‘We call upon thee for these persons that they [in] coming to thy holy baptism MAY RECEIVE REMISSION OF THEIR SINS BY SPIRITUAL REGENERATION.’

“Do they not come _un_regenerate that they may in baptism receive regeneration and remission of sins? And then again, after giving God thanks that they themselves, _the Church_, have been called to the knowledge of his grace and to faith in him, and praying that this may be increased and confirmed, the prayer turns again to the candidates as follows: ‘_Give thy Holy Spirit to these persons, THAT THEY MAY BE BORN AGAIN, and be made heirs of everlasting salvation, through our Lord Jesus Christ,_’ etc.

“Now, on the supposition that ‘these persons’ are still _in sin_, still _un_converted, still _un_regenerate, and that baptism is the ordinary _means_ appointed by God for their conversion and salvation, the whole thing is very appropriate. In that case it is very proper and fitting that the minister should pray that they may now be born again, and, coming to baptism, may receive spiritual regeneration and the remission of their sins. But on the supposition that they were already regenerate, had already been born again, and had already received the actual remission of their sins, this is all simple foolery. Nay, it is worse: it is a solemn mockery. It is not merely absurd, it is absolutely wicked. It is asking God to do in baptism what the candidates expressly profess by their coming to his holy baptism _has been done_ for them already, and which they come thus to _acknowledge_ before the world, and have it _officially recognized_ by the Church.”

“But,” said Theodosia, “you do not suppose the Methodists as a general thing believe in this sacramental salvation?”

“It is likely,” replied Mr. Courtney, “that they as a general thing never have cared or thought any thing about it. They leave their preachers to do their thinking for them and the preachers as a general thing are content to repeat the thoughts of Mr. Wesley, without giving themselves the trouble of deciding whether they were right or wrong. But they _ought_ to think; and if they do not believe and are unwilling to teach what their standards express, it is a duty which they owe to God, to their people, and themselves, to expurgate their Discipline and their standards of this pernicious error; and until they have done it, we must take it for granted that they _do_ believe and heartily endorse what they permit to remain as the public and acknowledged teachings of their official documents.

“But let us go on; we are making but little progress. What is the next mark in our little tablet?”

“The true Church _is that which begun with Christ, and has continued to the present time_.”

“Is this true of the Methodist Church?”

“As I am here by request of my friend and neighbor merely to give such information as I may have and you may need,” said the Rev. Mr. Stiptain, “I do not feel and have not felt that I am called upon to make any defence of the Methodist Episcopal Church; but if I should feel disposed to engage in any discussion of the main question which seems to engage your attention, I am sure I would object to your tests, and especially to this. Why, sirs, there is no Church in existence now, except the great Church universal, which began with Christ and has continued to the present time. The Church of Rome did not begin, according to Protestant computation, until the year 606. The Church of England began in the reign of Henry the Eighth; the Presbyterian Church dates from John Calvin, at Geneva; and we are proud to say that the Methodist Episcopal Church began with John Wesley in 1739, if we count his societies as the beginning of it, and the Church proper was first organized at Baltimore in 1784. Though the others may be older than she is, they are _none_ of them so old as your test requires in order that they may be considered as true Churches of Christ.”

“Our test,” replied Mr. Courtney, “is based upon the prophecies, which foretold that Christ’s Church should be perpetual until he came again. We know nothing of any visible _universal_ Church, and, therefore, we suppose there must be yet upon the earth, and always have been, some examples of that local visible Church which Christ established by himself or his apostles. We do not mean to say that any particular local society of Christian people must have existed from the days of Christ in order that it may be counted as a Church. We know that the Church at Jerusalem has been supplanted, the Church at Antioch has long ago been destroyed, the Church at Rome has apostatized, and Satan’s seat is now where once Christ reigned. But _just such Churches_, in all essential characteristics, as these were in the days of their purity, we believe have, according to the prophecies both of the Old Testament and the New, been in existence all the time since Christ, and still exist. To _them_ he has all the time intrusted the execution of the laws and the administration of the ordinances of his visible kingdom. Now, as the jury may very properly be said to have begun at a certain time in England, and to have continued ever since, although no individual jury has, perhaps, ever continued for a year, and most of them only for a day; so the Church, as an _institution_ of Christ, might be said to have continued to the present time, although no particular example of it had continued for a year. What we mean, therefore, is, that the true Church for which we are looking must be an example of that institution which Christ set up, and which he and the apostles called the Church, and _not_ something entirely different from it, originating with some one else long since that time, and called by the same name. Now, if your Methodist Churches were each one independent of the Conference, and independent of all other Churches; if they consisted of believers only, and these believers had all been baptized, if they had the same membership, the same terms of communion, the same ordinances, the same organization, and held the same doctrines with the Church at Jerusalem, and the Church at Antioch, and the Church at Ephesus, and the multitude of Churches that in the apostles’ days were scattered throughout all Judea, and Samaria, and Asia, we would concede to you that you began with Christ; for in that case you would have nothing that you got from Wesley, and nothing that Wesley got for you from the Church of England, but only what you got for yourselves from the Bible; and you would not be what Wesley made you, or what your sixty preachers made you at Baltimore in 1784, but what Christ made you when he gave in his word the constitution of his Church. But now you _are_ what Wesley made you, and what the Baltimore Conference of preachers made you. You have received the constitution and the laws which characterize you as the Methodist Episcopal Church, and distinguish you from other so-called Churches, not from Christ, but from Wesley and the Conference. The simple fact that you recognized the authority of Wesley and the Conference to make laws for you, is itself conclusive evidence that you do not _as a Church_ belong to Christ, but to Wesley and the Conference.”

“You are entirely mistaken, sir,” said Mrs. Stiptain, “if you think the Methodists are bound to follow Mr. Wesley any further than he followed Christ. It is true, we have a great regard for his memory, and a great respect for his teachings; but it is because we consider him such an able expounder of the Scriptures that we receive his doctrines. It is not, however, on his authority, but on the authority of his Master and ours, that we are ready to obey his requirements and those of the Conference. If they could not give us good scriptural proof of all that they taught, I am sure we should be under so obligations to obey.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“‘Question. But are we not dissenters?’

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

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

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

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

“And, six years later, on page 13:

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

“‘Answer. By all means.’

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

“‘Answer. Yes.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Now, in the Address appended to the Discipline of the Church,
North, published in 1854, we find the following:
“‘We esteem it our duty and our privilege most earnestly to
recommend to you, as members of our Church, our FORM OF
DISCIPLINE, which has been founded on the experience of a long
series of years; as, also, on the remarks we have made on
ancient and modern Churches.
“‘Signed by ‘BEVERLY WAUGH.
‘THOMAS A. MORRIS.
‘EDMUND S. JANES.
‘LEVI SCOTT.
‘MATTHEW SIMPSON.
‘OSMON C. BAKER.
‘EDWARD R. AMES.’

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

“‘We esteem it our duty and privilege most earnestly to
recommend to you, as members of our Church, OUR FORM OF
DISCIPLINE, which has been founded on the experience of a long
series of years; as, also, on the observations and remarks we
have made on ancient and modern Churches.
“‘Signed by ‘JOSHUA SOULE.
‘JAMES O. ANDREW.
‘WILLIAM CAPERS.
‘ROBERT PAINE.’

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

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

“It is,” said she, “that _no true Church of Christ ever persecutes for conscience’ sake_.”

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

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

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

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

DIAGRAM OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

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

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

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

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

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

“Our first two tests, therefore, can very readily be applied. Nor need the third give us much more trouble, for the Confession of Faith expressly teaches that the local societies, commonly called Churches, are _not_ separate and independent organizations, but _parts_ of the whole establishment which is known as the Presbyterian Church. See chap. x., p. 418. ‘_The Church_ being _divided into many separate congregations_ these need mutual counsel and assistance, in order to preserve soundness of doctrine, regularity of discipline, etc.; hence arise the importance of presbyterial and synodical assemblies.’ Again, on p. 425, chap. xii., see the explanatory note:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It is, therefore, the General Assembly that has the power to decide who shall and who shall not be members of the separate and particular Churches. It can _never_ in _any_ instance be _finally_ determined by the _Church_ herself, but must be decided for her either by the session, presbytery, synod, or General Assembly.

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

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

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

Previous Next

Comments

Theodosia ErnestChapter XXXII: Introduction (15)

0%37 min left in chapter